gun ownership

Vote Down The Guns

gregladen — Tue, 03 Oct 2017 11:03:38 +0000

Vote Down The Guns

First a word about our lovely press. If I hear one more reporter grovel and squirm about how we don't really want to hurt the NRA or take away any gun rights or do anything unreasonable, no, no, we just want to assume there is a solution to the carnage that does not inconvenience any of the gun loving yahoos that watch our networks .... then I'm going to I just don't know what. Reporters: Please leave open the possibility that a double digit percentage of Americans don't care one whit how much restrictions there ends up being on guns. We just want the insanity to end, and if that means taking away all the guns, then, whatever. It was not our decision to make guns so available that they can be amassed in sufficient quantities to shoot over five hundred people in one sitting. We want results, we do not care, not one bit, who's feelings are hurt.

But I digress.

You need to do this before any upcoming elections. Find out who on the ballot has a record of opposing guns vs. who has a record of supporting guns, and vote against the gun supporters and for the gun opposers.

I made a list of current members of the Minnesota US Congressional delegation, and put it at the top of the post, with relevant information. I also looked some details up from HERE and HERE.

In a recent rating of recent and current members of the Minnesota House delegation, the NRA gave Rick Nolan, Keith Ellison, and Betty McCollum the grade of "F" and none of these three lawmakers have taken money from them.

Collin Peterson took $2,500 bucks from the NRA, Michele Bachmann took $3,500, Erik Paulson took 2,250, John Kline $2,500, and Tim Walz took $2,000. They all got a rating of "A" from the NRA.

Notice that party lines are being crossed here.

During the recent congressional session, Congresspersons Betty McCollum and Keith Ellison supported zero bills that support guns, but have supported 14 gun control bills.

Richard Nolan has supported one gun control bill.

Al Franken has supported two gun control bills.

Amy Klobuchar has supported two gun control bills.

Those are the clear good guys in Congress from Minnesota. But you might ask why the great variation in number of bills?

Congressman Erik Paulsen has supported one gun rights bill and has not supported any gun control bills. Collin Peterson has supported three gun rights bills and zero gun control bills. Tom Emmer has supported zero gun control bills and five gun rights bills. John Kline has supported a whopping nine gun rights bills and zero gun control bills.

gregladen Tue, 10/03/2017 - 07:03

Tags

gun ownership

Al Franken

Amy Klobuchar

Betty McCollum

The Vegas shooter's guns were illegally obtained. Basic economics tells us that banning something doesn't eliminate demand for it - it simply raises the cost to the point where only the most risk-preferential buy it. Ban guns, and you're left with criminals and psychopaths with guns only, and on the occasion where a criminal can't get a gun, they just drive a truck into a crowd instead.

The guns aren't the problem.

Falsehood straight off the block;

The Vegas shooter’s guns were illegally obtained.

Las Vegas shooter legally purchased weapons and passed all background checks, say Nevada gunshops

The guns aren’t the problem.

Yes they are:

America's gun culture in eight charts

So the remainder of your argument rests on false premise.

Zach lookee here:

Yes, the guns really do matter.

Excellent finds, Lionel A. Thank you.

The "outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them" completely misses the point. We restrict many things -- for example, I can't just go and buy medical-grade insulin without a prescription. I can't buy an F-16 and park it on my lawn, launching it from the local street. I can't sell cigarettes to a 10-year-old.

When you place restrictions (legal ones) on buying things, yes, the less risk-averse will buy them. That's the whole point. The number of people willing to go and shoot a large number of other people is rather small. If you make it that much harder for those people to get military-grade weapons whose sole purpose is to kill lots of other people very fast then the odds of any one of them doing it go down. Simple economics, as you say.

Also, "They will just drive a truck into a crowd" --well, you can murder anyone with just about anything. But there is a reason we do not have an epidemic of truck-murders (accidents are another matter entirely). It's actually kind of hard to do it.

The same is true of knives and hand weapons. Killing someone via stabbing is hard. Using a sai is hard. Using a sword. To be an efficient killer with any of those means a lot of training hours. And you can only kill one person at a time.

Guns make killing easy, even accidental. Restricting people from buying them without proper training (in the specific weapon, by the way) and licensing, with renewals every so often, and insurance, would be a minimal move to reducing deaths. It's no different than what we ask of auto owners.

I'd also be for asking people who want to carry guns do so openly. After all, if the point is to protect yourself, then carrying one openly would deter attackers. But that isn't why people want to carry concealed weapons, then, if self-protection is the goal.

A huge part of the problem is people think guns work like they do in the movies, and that firefights look like they do in the movies. They don't . In the confusion of hearing shots with sound bouncing off concrete you'd not be able to pinpoint the attacker's location and pick him off (just ask any soldier who has been in an ambush). Also, machine gun bullets can go through a concrete cinder block, they don't bounce nicely off the walls (in fact they generate craters and send hard fragments flying).

It's a lot of Charles Bronson fantasists out there, and they go out armed, with weapons for which they are ill trained.

I suggest people look at gun laws in Canada, but that's not asking for much - their gun death rates are only half of ours. Waiting period is 60 days. Baby steps should be the goal perhaps.
If you want to get overly ambitious, study Germany. My relatives the have hunting guns, but they are registered, and cops can check up on you at any time - you better have all of those weapons, and they better be in a gun safe or you are in trouble. Homicide rate 0.05 per 1000 (per year). In US 3.34. It's true that criminals there still have millions of guns, but they are managing to kill allot less people. It is impractical right now to try to get as strict as Germany though.
Despite NRA preaching, I'm not scared of gun registration being a slippery slope, but I think in Canada only handguns and automatics get registered - the stuff designed to shoot humans.
There are tons of articles about how other countries do things is really my point.

rork #6:

A gun registration law would probably be constitutional (i.e. not violate the 2nd amendment). Having to report what guns you have doesn't really infringe your right to keep and bear arms.

The gun safe angle may not be quite so easy. The Heller decision law at issue had a whole lot of restrictions on how the weapon was supposed to be kept in the house, trigger lock, ammo in a separate room, etc. and it was struck down on the grounds that if it takes you a long time to get the weapon and use it for self-defense it does infringe your right to "keep and bear arms". On the other hand, you can buy a bio-metric gun safe now which you can open with a fingerprint or hand print and keep a loaded weapon close at hand - but locked up - so maybe a carefully crafted law would pass muster.

If we pass a gun registration law, it would have to include rifles, especially semi-automatic rifles - don't you think? Especially after Las Vegas.

In Michigan it's not that strange to see deer hunters with semi-autos with about 10 or 11 cartridges in the magazine but most people buy bolt action, and allot even single shot, cause they are more accurate, and you are only supposed to need one bullet. We do say, of hearing shots "two shots, maybe meat" (but that three shots means no meat) - but I'm not experienced at using bullets. I may not even be writing fluently - sorry. (I own a crazy number of bows though.) In Canada they limit you to just 5 rounds for semi-auto rifles, but that could be easily circumvented by a crazy person.
I think asking for semi-automatic registration is asking for too much right now. Again the public health folks concentrate on the numbers, and it's the hand guns that do almost all the killing. I listen to them. I again warn I lack expertise.

rork #8:

I see your point of view. But it wasn't handguns which were the problem in Las Vegas or Sandy Hook - so I would think if we were going to do a registration system in the USA, it would be for all firearms. Handguns, rifles and shotguns.

Whether this would pass in Congress is a different question. But it would probably be found constitutional.

...so I would think if we were going to do a registration system in the USA, it would be for all firearms. Handguns, rifles and shotguns.

What a good idea.

Whether this would pass in Congress is a different question...

If it failed then Congress should be fired ('scuse pun).

The NRA is a truly nasty organisation that needs its wings clipped and fast, Hocus-POTUS Trump or not.

If you still cannot grasp the essentials here RickA, which is that the Second Amendment as it stands should not be inviolate, then you need go out and shop for a moral compass and a logic finder.

PLEASE CONTINUE THIS INTERESTING DISCUSSION AT THIS POST:

http://gregladen.com/blog/2017/10/vote-down-the-guns/

THANKS

ou are clearly biased against the 2nd amendment and the NRA. Should we take away the first and 4th amendments too? My legally carried gun saved my life with out firing a shot. You can wait for the result of your 911 call (carrying away your body) if you want. The police are the first to say that they can not protect you or your family.”Please leave open the possibility that a double digit percentage of Americans don’t care one whit how much restrictions there ends up being on guns. We just want the insanity to end, and if that means taking away all the guns, then, whatever.” What do you base this statement upon????????????????? I will vote for any of the A grade people you mentioned.More laws will not/do not prevent crimes. Name one “mass shooting” that did not take place in a “gun free zone” How is this possible?” It was against the law. Maybe criminals, spooks, “terrorists” don’t obey laws.

More guns equals more gun deaths

gregladen — Mon, 02 Oct 2017 19:05:53 +0000

More guns equals more gun deaths

And lax legislation and elected representatives who run their elections using money from the gun industry make sure there are PLENTY of guns to go around. People who are running for office who have pro NRA positions and/or take gun money should be drummed out of politics.

The rate of gun ownership in a state predicts the rate of gun deaths in that state.

This works across countries as well.

Once again. Politicians who have voted in favor of NRA policies need to go.

Photo above from TIME

gregladen Mon, 10/02/2017 - 15:05

Tags

gun ownership

firearms

gun ownership

One of the first things I read online this morning after last night's tragedy was that the stocks of gun and ammo manufacturers rose today on the news of the terrorist event. Ain't capitalism just wonderful /s

HRC says banning silencers is the solution. hahaha

There is no way that the NRA can defend themselves on this, nor all the politicians and industry flacks that gain from the continued ability of Joe Public to own ever more powerful weapons. Such weapons were not on the horizon when the original Second Amendment was conceived clearly a rethink is necessary and fast.

Although don't expect much from Trumpas we can see in a BBC story for the POTUS has been coerced (sold his soul to the devil) in some way by the NRA into pulling back from his earlier positions;

"I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun," he wrote in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve.

Maybe if there was a large tax on gun purchase commensurate with the power of the weapon, range, calibre and rate of fire, and of the persons ability to pay so that money was set aside to at least provide adequate support for the victims. The NRA membership, corporations especially should also pay an annual fee commensurate to turnover for the same purpose.

In an era of increasing inequality, unexpected job losses with a spiral of social decline and environmental pollution causing impaired brain function it is only to be expected that more such loan wolf episodes will occur. as the deprived vent their anger and frustration upon those they perceive as having it all.

I am not condoning such behaviour but the interesting aspect of investigating the causes of a person's seemingly incomprehensible actions back and back to their roots is something explored in a new BBC TV drama 'Rellik' I have as yet only watched the first episode and found it as confusing as many critics - not sure if I will persist.

"There is no way that the NRA can defend themselves on this"

well here in the UK they make a pretty good fist of it

on BBC's Radio 4 "Today" program there was an America spouting the same old same old tired NRA canards

which essentially boiled down to "Guns make people safer"

"and all the evidence says so" - so there!!!

There is always the old "God guy with an Apache helicopter" argument.

There were still scores of injured waiting in hospital emergency departments when Sarah Hucabee Sanders said "now is not the time to talk about gun control."

Perhaps it's just me, but I'd have thought that after innumerable mass killings stemming from the profligate over-ownership of guns in the USA, and after such unconscionable events such as Sandy Hook and Orlanda, now is exactly the time when this discussion should be had.

Unless of course one is welded to the notion of maintaining the ravages of a rampant weapons industry and one does not actually want to influence public opinion at a time where the citizenry might be receptive to sense. Then one would postpone "this discussion" to a time down the track when the horror of Las Vegas has faded from people's minds and they're once again willing to swallow the gun lobby coolaid.

@ BarnardJ

this is a classic tactic though - and all US pro gun commentators on UK media spout that nonsense when pushed

the "too soon" argument

we see the same with AGW fuelled climate events too

"too soon"

they can then get back to the "what problem?" argument ASAP

Maybe the king of horror has a germ of an idea:

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-one-only-wishes-wayne-lapi…

Don't you just love the priests and priestesses of the demented right wing giving us cues as to what particular religious ritual we are in and what the appropriate actions are supposed to be? Ah, glorious authoritarianism!

Violence against language, reason, truth, and humanity are the underpinnings of the current conservative cult. Sarah Sanders is the daughter of the author of "Guns, God, and Gravy" ( aka, violence, superstition, and gulttony), who is also a pal of far right NRA racist nitwit Ted Nugent. Of course she would say that this is not the time to talk about gun violence.

Trump's cultist base worships colorful flags and dangerous weapons, and they are currently at the helm, so no, now is definitely not the right time to talk about gun violence.

But as long as the ruling class insanely feels that they have a God given right to kill and maim and torture, now is the best time to work to vote this obscene Russian aided obscenity of a government out of power , and replace it with a real government. If we can do that, IMO, the country has a real chance to survive for a while longer.

This Ted Nugent?

Good match for Huckabee-Sanders.

This morning, NPR had a segment on this, with a well-spoken young woman explaining that background checks and waiting periods have profound and measurable effects on the per capita gun homicide rate, and that contrary to what many gun owners insist upon, other types of homicides do NOT see concurrent increases when gun deaths drop.

I like this page.

http://smartgunlaws.org/facts/statistics/

@ #11:

We also have scads of data, evidence, and facts refuting the claim by the right's favorite "statistician", Lott, that "more guns means less crime." His crap has been debunked so often that it is amazing anyone still mentions him in a positive light, but that happened locally (West Michigan) this morning.

Of course, I saw two interviews with former White House head Nazi (he of faked credentials) Sebastian Gorka on national news -- he was presented as a "terrorism expert", so we can't expect much rational discussion on this.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/10/03/vote-down-the-guns/

A) How are we counting "gun deaths"? Does it include the old lady that kills the thug in her bedroom? Who is opposed to such "gun deaths"?
(To #5 post, why couldn't a chopper have knocked this shooter out? Where was Schwarzenegger? )

B)You guys are clearly right, this shooter was a law-abiding citizen who epitomizes America. /s

C) What does the secular Darwinist humanist care if stardust destroys stardust?

"How are we counting “gun deaths”? Does it include the old lady that kills the thug in her bedroom? "

Possibly, but we know that self defense of the kind you mention is incredibly rare -- so rare it is barely a blip on data.

"How are we counting “gun deaths”? Does it include the old lady that kills the thug in her bedroom? Who is opposed to such “gun deaths”?"

As the WP reported in 2015, for every single gun death in self-protection, there are two deaths due to accidents with guns, 34 criminal gun homicides, and 78 gun suicides. Counting that old lady or not doesn't do anything to the gun death statistics.

"What does the secular Darwinist humanist care if stardust destroys stardust?"

you are clearly an idiot.

Such weapons were not on the horizon when the original Second Amendment was conceived clearly a rethink is necessary and fast.

No, Lionel A. The people were at liberty to posess the state of the art which is timeless.

with a spiral of social decline and environmental pollution causing impaired brain function

Higher Fluoride In Urine Linked to Lower IQ In Children
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/higher-levels-of-fluoride-in-urine-linked-…

Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp655/

A Different Study Shows That Flame-Retardant Chemicals Also Make You Stupid
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp1632/

Dryer Sheets Make You Dumber, As Well
https://www.livescience.com/49087-phthalates-exposure-lower-iq-kids.html

More guns are useless as Caleb Keeter of Josh Abbott Band worked out for himself:

As you might expect from the lead guitarist from a band from Lubbock, Texas, whose songs include “Wasn’t That Drunk” and “Texas Women, Tennessee Whiskey,” Keeter was a dedicated supporter of the right to bear arms; according to him, members of the band’s road crew are licensed to carry concealed weapons, and they travel with legal firearms on their tour bus. But as he wrote in a note posted to social media on Monday, none of that made a difference when the Vegas shooter opened fire.

Their guns, Keeter said, were “useless” against a man firing into a crowd from a distant hotel room. “We couldn’t touch them for fear police might think we were part of the massacre and shoot us. A small group (or one man) laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of fire power.”

Keeter went on and did something almost unheard of in the world of mainstream country: He endorsed gun control.

Enough is enough.

Writing my parents and the love of my life a goodbye last night and a living will because I felt like I wasn’t going to live through the night was enough for me to realize that this is completely and totally out of hand. These rounds were just powerful enough that my crew guys just standing in close proximity of a victim shot by this f—ing coward received shrapnel wounds.

We need gun control RIGHT. NOW. My biggest regret is that I stubbornly didn’t realize it until my brothers on the road and myself were threatened by it. We are unbelievably fortunate to not be among the number of victims killed or seriously wounded by this maniac.

Hmmm Gilbert. Not sure why you listed those links. The first one (all I've had time to look up) shows that the data came from areas of Mexico that did not have fluoridated water, so there is no precise idea of where the fluoride came from, and the authors themselves say that the findings need to be taken cautiously unless/until they can be replicated. The primary difference between this and other studies that claimed to show a link between IQ and fluoride is source: this one is in an actual journal, the others have been no better than the trash you find in Oprah's articles, or screeds by anti-GMO folks: no serious attempts at conducting a valid survey and sub-sophomore level statistical analysis of results.

How do you spell idiots? NRA

Powerful and informative graphic here via The Guardian Australia :

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/oct/02/america-…

1,516 mass shootings in 1,735 days: America's gun crisis – in one chart

The attack at a country music festival in Las Vegas that left at least 58 people dead is the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history – but there were six other mass shootings in America this past week alone. No other developed nation comes close to the rate of gun violence in America. Americans own an estimated 265m guns, more than one gun for every adult. Data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive reveals a shocking human toll: there is a mass shooting – defined as four or more people shot in one incident, not including the shooter – every nine out of 10 days on average.

I reckon this is well worth scrolling down through and reflecting on.

Time - no, long overdue - that things changed, the power of the NRA holding people's lives hostage was destroyed and rationality prevailed allowing reasonable gun controls in the USA in my view.

While I was doing a sabbatical at Colorado State University this summer my host there called the NRA the 'biggest terrorist organization in the United States'. I agree with him. I found out that, in Fort Collins, which is a relatively violence-free city, it was lawful to carry a concealed firearm into the university. Seriously. When I told colleagues here in the Netherlands where I work they were gobsmacked. I am sure that the gun lobby/NRA had something to do with this insanity. All it takes is one disgruntled student or staff member suffering some kind of pathology to break down and to pull out his gun and begin firing and their is carnage. The graph Greg produced showing gun related deaths per country above proves my point. The USA stands alone in terms of deaths by gunshot. I don't know how anyone, even in the gun lobby, can defend this. But they do.

The fact is that among nations I have never seen such a frightened people as Americans. They live in fear. This summer I was doing field work in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains with a grad student surveying roadside cow parsnip/insect pollinator interactions and this student adamently refused to sample plants adjacent to private property. When I asked him why, he said that we risk getting shot at by irate landowners. The thought had never occurred to me over here in Europe where I regularly sample related hogweed/insect interactions along roads all of the time. But he was genuinely concerned, even though in reality we would have been done our field collections on public lands.

What strikes me is how scared Americans are of all kinds of threats. The fear that Saddan Hussein actually possessed WMD made many Amercians cower in fear and give cart blanche to Bush to do whatever it took to negate the threat which was actually non-existent. The same goes for North Korea. This standoff could easily be defused politically and diplomatically, but instead the mainstream media exaggerates the threat, playing into ther hands of Trump and the military industrial complex to do 'whatever it takes' to protect the country. And at home, as the grad student at CSU demonstrated, their is a constant fear of being attacked, robbed, assaulted. So to counter the threat the gun lobby and NRA argue that existing gun laws are absurdly too tough because they prevent ordinary citizens from being able to protect themselves. And the upward spiral of gun-related deaths continues unabated.

No, Lionel A. The people were at liberty to posess the state of the art ...

And there is the problem.

And WRT brain function and pollution I was thinking of tings far more subtle than fluoride in water. Even there remember the old adage 'the dose makes the poison' and low levels have proved helpful in preventing tooth decay but I suspect you will come back citing studies to disprove that and we could then divert to arguing about that. I am not about to play that game.

You know, I hope, as well as I do about the numerous chemicals humans have produced not previously known to nature, some with mind altering properties which can cause other biological problems which have an effect on how a human functions.

But there are also numerous chemicals found in nature that can have deleterious effects.

#17 Your response does not constitute an argument

#26

#17 Your response does not constitute an argument

What about the #15 and #16 that you ignored?

That would make you vermin, I think.

No ron, my comment at #17 is not an argument. It is a statement of fact based on your comment (quoted in #17).

Idiot, vermin...you guys grew up on some weak playgrounds if this is the best name calling you've got.

Neither #27 nor #28 constitute an argument against the accusation that the secular Darwinist humanist has no objective basis upon which to be offended by bodies of evolved stardust destroying other bodies of evolved stardust.

Hamsters eat their young, human women have their children torn apart in utero (by the thousands DAILY), and no outrage. How are human concert goers different?

Implying that morality and a sense of decency can only come from religion is one of the hidey-holes for people who are insecure about the world.
There is nothing at all fact-based that says the only paths to morality, empathy, love, decency, etc., have their origin in any faith ron. Your sense of butt hurt simply represents a lack of understanding -- whether imposed by nature or your own will.

The center of the discussion here, however, is the fact that an almost endless amount of data and a huge number of studies put the lie to the canard that 'more guns means less crime' and the consequences of the denial that that notion is fiction of the highest level brings. Try to keep up.

ron

59 real people were murdered. You can take your stupid word-games and shove them up your arse.

dean #30:

Personally, I would never argue that more guns means less crime.

I would argue that the number of guns is not relevant in America. Because the legal purchase of guns cannot be banned in America, absent changing the 2nd amendment.

More guns means more deaths by gun - I admit that.

More cars means more deaths by car - I admit that.

More knives means more deaths by knives - I admit that.

More lawn mowers means more lost fingers by idiots who pick them up to use them as hedge clippers - I admit that.

We are not going to ban cars, knives or lawn mowers - and there is not even a constitution amendment preventing that.

We are certainly not going to ban guns, semiautomatic or otherwise, because we actually have the 2nd amendment to prevent such laws.

So we need to figure out some other way to stop or lessen these types of crimes.

That is the reality of living in America.

And again rickA, you demonstrate that you don't have a clue.

#31 "real people" seems to be a word game when discounting abortion.

Continue with your righteous indignation, based on statistics, even if the numbers can be multiplied many times over for another national atrocity you choose to ignore.

Ron, if you don't understand the statistics just say so. You can get help.

If you think they are wrong or fake because you don't like what they say, you can't be helped.

Lionel A (#3): There is no way that the NRA can defend themselves on this, nor all the politicians and industry flacks that gain from the continued ability of Joe Public to own ever more powerful weapons.

You refer here to defending itself by presenting facts and by dealing in logical conclusions. It's true the NRA cannot win that way. But by sticking to false but persuasive talking points which appeal to the "low-information voter," it may well be able to. It has always worked in the past.

We have the facts and statistics on our side, but those facts and statistics don't lend themselves to bumper-sticker-style presentation. To beat the NRA we have to beat it at the rhetorical game.

> in Fort Collins, which is a relatively violence-free city, it was lawful to carry a concealed firearm into the university.

How can it be violence free when it has all those guns? Didn't people there read the chart?

#37 just wondering if its lawful to carry around a big sword or knife, concealed or unconcealed in this uni. Cant bloody imagine someone taking a big sword to school, but cant imagine someone taking a gun to school either. Do they hunt animals in the playground at recess?

@29. ron :

Hamsters eat their young, human women have their children torn apart in utero (by the thousands DAILY), and no outrage. How are human concert goers different?

Easy. The word there is human i.e. the concert goers murdered here are actual living breathing human beings and individuals.

The hamsters are NOT human species~wise and what is being aborted by women (of all ages up to menopause FWIW) is NOT a "child" but instead a fetus or an embryo.

It also seems like you are going wa-aay off-topic here which is rude and unhelpful even trollish. (An observation not an insult btw.)

Assault deaths (not distinguished by method), but still interesting displays.

https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2017/10/02/assault-deaths-to-2015/

#40
I'll bring it right to the point of the topic. Abortion advocates, with their faux outrage regarding the loss of life in LV,, stand on the "Constitutional Protection" of abortion as found by a few judges in Roe v Wade.

Even though the LV shooter legally acquired his weapons, he committed a heinous crime (and conspiracy). That individual can no longer be punished by civil government, but people advocate to separate law-abiding people from their property rights, despite the explicit enumeration of various laws in documents from centuries past.

It's entirely hypocritical to say that a baby is not a person, that wasn't the logic of Roe and all of science refutes that notion (embryology/biology). The logic of Roe is that a woman owns her own body and is autonomous over it. The 2nd Amendment says that a person has ownership of self and can defend self with certain means. Embracing Roe and dismissing 2A is proof of ignorance on both issues (which is consistent in a twisted way).

It is simply the most relevant juxtaposition and reason, logic, science etc fall on the pro-innocent side of each argument.

In public health world I am used wanting better studies of gun effects, but our government won't fund them, and it's hard to collect good data because of privacy issues. What we want people and billboards to be saying clearly is that you may think gun ownership makes you safer, but except for a few people, that is false. It may make you feel safer but it's a danger - people in the US do not seem to understand that.
Common observation 2 is that high profile mass killings are what get people talking allot, but they are actually a tiny part of the deaths.
We need epidemiologists all over this problem, cause we must do better, for real, not just sounds good.

" all of science refutes that notion (embryology/biology)"

Ron, don't make assertions about things you don't understand.

rork #43:

If you want to study gun safety and effects, you can - but you cannot use Federal money to do that. Personally, I would be in favor of allowing grants to study gun safety and effects - but that is just one voter. I think the ban on gun safety studies is silly - especially given some of what we do fund (the speed of ketchup flow for example).

I don't think the appeal to the rational mind arguments are going to work well. There are people who like guns, for a variety of reasons and there are people who do not like guns, for a variety of reasons. Those who like them do not believe they will accidentally shoot a family member or themselves, but do worry about a home invasion or whatever. So the fact that more guns is more unsafe is not going to stop them from buying guns.

There are already 300 millions guns in this country - which is one for every person in the country. So even if you could magically ban the manufacture and sale of guns going forward (which I do not think will ever happen), you will never stop guns from being widely available. You can 3D print a gun and manufacture one metal part with computer controlled machinery which can be rented by the hour, and make your own gun.

So the danger of mass murder using guns will always be with us and it is an intractable problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzFWRPiNXOI

is it my name or my email?

Greg, if you are moderating this, tell me why I can't get my comments posted.

...human women have their children torn apart in utero (by the thousands DAILY)

As opposed to the inhuman women, you know those lizard people is it Ron.

How about the multiple thousand of flushed out failed zygotes every day that nobody even knew about? That must give you nightmares ron now that I have informed you of such.

So the danger of mass murder using guns will always be with us and it is an intractable problem.

The majority of mass shootings over recent years have been carried out with semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines. This paramilitary combination - with no civilian application - is particularly good for killing lots of people very quickly.

So it should be banned.

That's not a a ban on all guns or even most guns. So it's very hard to see how it could be 'unconstitutional'.

Quite why you refuse to see the obvious wisdom in banning paramilitary-type weapons as an urgent matter of public safety is mystifying.

BBD #48:

It is not the wisdom I question - it is whether the 2nd amendment will permit such a ban.

The Supreme Court upheld a ban on a type of gun in 1939 - the sawed off shotgun.

Here is a link:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/

If you read this, you will see that the logic was that the court said "Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Also the case states - "And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

If a weapon is ordinary military equipment, it is an arm, because it is in common use. Since sawed off shotguns were not ordinary military equipment (at the time), they were not in ordinary use, so they are not considered an arm.

Paramilitary-type weapons are ordinary military equipment, they are in common use, so they are considered "arms". At least according to the logic of Miller (i.e. the militia bring their own guns).

Anyway - whether it is wise to ban something doesn't mean the courts will find that such a ban will stand. I rather doubt that the courts would find semi-automatic weapons could be banned, at least under Miller and Heller.

That is why I point out that to ban these types of guns will require changing the 2nd amendment.

I hope that de-mystifies it for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jafkVM-jnbE

I understand that restricting the sale of ammunition would be easier as there are fewer manufacturers. Would it be acceptable as regards the second amendment, which I gather was written by demi-gods?

I agree with Jeff that the level of paranoia emanating from the US is amazing. Certainly, there are things to be greatly concerned about, especially with the current administration, but the fear of The Other seems to be greatly exaggerated.

Greg, zebr is really zebra. Is zebra banned for some reason? Really, this is ridiculous.

zebr #54:

I feel your pain.

Why not say what you want as zebr, until this gets fixed?

I would love to hear your thoughts on this issue.

PLEASE SHIFT THE COMMENTING ON THIS POST TO THIS VERSION AT THE X-BLOG:

http://gregladen.com/blog/2017/10/guns-equals-gun-deaths/

THANKS

Richard Simons #53:

Here is how that logic would work in court.

Say you banned all ammo. That would mean you could buy a gun but not buy ammo for it. That would probably be found to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, because it renders your arm useless.

Say you banned just armor piercing bullets. You could still buy other ammo - so that probably wouldn't render your gun useless - so it would probably not be found to infringe on your 2nd amendment right.

These are all just personal opinions of course.

Are armor piercing bullets in ordinary use (say in the military) - I don't know - so the courts could surprise me. But based on my reading of the caselaw, I think as long as you can buy ammo which is in ordinary use - you can ban specialty type stuff.

Same logic holds for silencers, bump stocks and so forth. Are they ordinary issue for the average soldier? I don't think so, so they can be banned. Again, I am not an expert on military issued equipment, so I could be wrong.

The big question is does the regulation render the gun useless. In Heller, the court found that the regulations at issue did render the gun worthless for the purpose of home protection. Because by the time you got the weapon, unlocked it, went to a different room, got the ammo out of its locked location and loaded the weapon - you could be dead. So every rule, regulation and law will be measured by how useless it renders a purpose of the gun (say to fight off a home invasion). Also, ala Miller, I think another factor is whether the weapon is in fairly widespread use at the time. That is why we are not limited today to muskets. If ray guns become common issue in the military, than ray guns will be an "arm" and we will have the right to keep and bear them (in my opinion).

The really scary thing about Miller is that automatic weapons are common issue in the military and I think grenades are also. Think about that and apply the Miller logic to those "arms". It could be worse.

RickA

Really, there are no more citizens' militias. We've been through this. The 2nd A is antiquated, irrelevant crap that needs deleting. What it isn't is a justification of any kind for the sale of paramilitary weapons to the general public, especially given the fact that they are the preferred choice of mass murderers.

Right-wing insanity and the greed of vested interest don't justify the sale of paramilitary arms to civilians.

Let's not forget that when the 2ndA was written, all longarms were pretty much the same - there wasn't a meaningful technical distinction between a 'military' muzzle-loading flintlock musket and a 'civilian' one.

Especially not in terms of lethality. This is at the heart of what I mean when I say that the 2nd A is an anachronism that needs to be got rid of for the greater good of US citizens.

It's such a shame that corporate greed and right wing insanity are preventing this from happening.

BBD #58:

I hate to disagree with you (just kidding) - but every male in the USA between the ages of 18 and 45 (going off memory here) is automatically in the unorganized militia. I bet zebra could give you the statute cite. There is the organized militia (the national guard) and the unorganized miltia (all the males of a certain age range - pretty sexist - maybe they changed that to every person of a certain age range).

In order to be enforced, a law has to be constitutional, or the courts will throw it out. If the 2nd amendment is antiquated and if it can be deleted than ok. But until then, any law has to pass muster according to the 2nd amendment.

The logic of the original amendment still stands. If America is invaded by a hostile force, and the government says everybody grab your guns and resist - the people are allowed to keep and bear arms just for such an instance. That is really what the 2nd amendment is all about.

Your disdain doesn't change that.

Only the Supreme Court can change that interpretation.

Only the Congress and 3/4 of the states can change the amendment.

It won't be easy - much like getting rid of free speech or the right against unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant.

BBD #59 says "It’s such a shame that corporate greed and right wing insanity are preventing this from happening."

You say potato and I say patato.

I think it is Congress and the courts which are preventing this from happening - just as the founding fathers wanted.

but every male in the USA between the ages of 18 and 45 (going off memory here) is automatically in the unorganized militia

Close. This group, able bodied men 17 to 45 years of age, specifies the category of men who could be called to serve in the military in time of crisis. Unless they are pressed into service they are not (except in the minds of "wanna bes") a real military group. You'll find more information by looking for "reserve militia".

ONE MORE TIME PLEASE SHIFT THE COMMENTING ON THIS POST TO THIS VERSION AT THE X-BLOG:

http://gregladen.com/blog/2017/10/guns-equals-gun-deaths/

THANKS

Greg, I don't see Chicago represented in the Mother Jones plot. Chicogo has very strict gun laws and maximal gun deaths.

{couldn't comment there, as requested, because I don't have an account?}

ONE MORE TIME PLEASE SHIFT THE COMMENTING ON THIS POST TO THIS VERSION AT THE X-BLOG

And, once again, it seems to require a login.

It should be easy to comment now.

Lionel, it's possible to comment now without WordPress.

:-)

Thanks Greg.

(Still trying to figure out which plugin did that to me)

wasn't askimet, might have been jetpack

RickA #60 - while you are correct that all able-bodied males and females between 17 and 45 are part of the unorganized militia of the USA you are not giving the 2nd Amendment a full reading. The fact that someone is part of a militia does NOT per the 2nd Amendment give them the right to bear arms; the 2nd Amendment speaks of "a well-regulated militia." In my world 'unorganized' does not equal 'well-regulated.'

Nice try though :)

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not only a militia! I find it strange that there are only comments here that buy into the gun control = safety falsie. Only comments vilifying the NRA. This must be a government controlled site (like most). The 2nd amendment was written by patriots who knew the danger of a corrupt government and gave it's citizens the RIGHT to bear arms (that should be equal to that of the rouge gov't.) Most of these "mass shooting events" and supposed terrorist attacks are staged to promote loss of our freedoms ( the"patriot" act, gun control etc) Go ahead and believe the official mass media lies. Get all emotional and turn off your mind, be a good obedient sheep.The NWO needs a disarmed populace."To conquer a nation First disarm it's citizens" Adolf Hitler. I bet this comment won't be or stay posted. (P.S. I do not plan to commit suicide)

" Most of these “mass shooting events” and supposed terrorist attacks are staged to promote loss of our freedoms "

You are an idiot.

Is it too soon to credit the former First Lady of Arkansas with her state's stellar performance? With 60% of its citizens owning guns, it leads the lower 48,

Dean.....what an intelligent articulate "argument".
Like labeling some one a conspiracy theorist, truther (isn't it strange that truth has a negative connotation nowadays?) an idiot (is that the best you can do?) or any similar disparaging generalization is any sort of reasoning. ...Go ahead and believe the official cover stories fed to the sheep in the totally controlled mass media. Sorry about using 3 and 4 syllable words dean, maybe you can find a smart person to explain them to you. Have a nice day (ignorance is bliss?)

Considering Candidates Post Las Vegas Massacre: Rule Out Tim Walz

gregladen — Mon, 02 Oct 2017 15:38:36 +0000

Considering Candidates Post Las Vegas Massacre: Rule Out Tim Walz

A man who was not even known as a gun collector amassed an arsenal that all experts agree included illegal fully automatic weapons. He carried out an act of carnage, alone and using only those weapons, that exceeded in casualty count almost every military battle fought in recent decades by American troops, and that equaled or surpassed all but a very small number of terrorist attacks.

He shot five hundred people.

He shot these people, killing nearly 60 of them, with guns he was able to get because he lives in America. In America, the Second Amendment has protected gun ownership for so long and so irrationally that, even though the worst killing machines are sort of, kinda, a little, illegal, you can still get them.

Guns are the only toys protected by a Constitutional amendment. Gun ownership is a deadly pasttime that is protected by Congress. Even though the CDC and other government agencies, and the concomitant experts, believe that guns are a major public health risk, Congress has legislated against the distribution of research funds one might use to study this problem. And, generally, Congress has been the lapdog of the National Rifle Association, which is a lobbyist organization representing gun and ammo manufacturers disguised as an interest group supporting guns as toys for men and women, but mostly men, across the country.

Why Tim Walz Is Not Viable as a DFL Gubernatorial Candidate

First, let me say that I would normally argue that it is too early to make strong statements against a fellow DFLer (Democratic Party) who is running for office. But what happened last night in Las Vegas has changed all that, and I have to speak out, and strongly so. I am very unhappy about this situation. Here's the story.

As I was poking around to find out how various members of Congress and future candidates for re-election had voted on guns, in pursuit of writing about Las Vegas. I was shocked and deeply disturbed to find that Congressman Tim Walz, who currently represents Minnesota's 1st District and is now running for the Democratic Party's endorsement for Governor, is one of those questionable members of Congress. I had seen Walz speak at a recent forum. Members of a gun-control group were there and they asked the first questions. They asked about various bills and they asked about silencers, an issue that has come up recently in the Minnesota legislature.

I was utterly confused by Congressman Walz's response to these questions. At no point did he lay down a position. He seemed to take more than one position at a time. He mentioned he was a veteran and a hunter several times, but he also mentioned that we have to be sensible about guns. But he wasn't able to articulate a position that I could understand, and I've been following and writing about gun issues for years. I left that forum not knowing what his position on guns was, but feeling like I had been somehow conned. In fact, I felt like I needed a shower after that set of answers, and I honestly can't explain exactly why. I did check my wallet on the way out the door, though.

Anyway, I have now looked into it. Walz is, essentially, a Republican when it comes to guns. He supports conceal carry. He supported a bill that allowed the registration and position of weapons that are normally illegal, by a privileged group. He supported the ban by Congress of the Washington DC law that included sensible trigger lock provisions, disallowed semiautomatic weapons, and provided for stricter registration He opposed legislation what would limit access to guns by people with questionable mental competence. And, I think he said, silencers should be legal, but again, I'm not sure.

Walz was actually a co-sponser of HR420, the Veterans Heritage Firearms act. This basically allowed veterans or people related to veterans (i.e., a LOT of people) to keep and register firearms that would normally be illegal, as long as they had stolen the gun off a dead enemy. Or otherwise acquired it while "overseas."

The act of Congress disallowing Washington DC to regulate its own guns was HR 1399 was also co-Sponsored by Walz. Congress allowed DC to continued to disallow sawed off shotguns, but not semiautomatic weapons.

The mental competence law that Walz supported was HR2547. This bill "Prohibits, in any case arising out of the administration of laws and benefits by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, considering any person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness from being considered adjudicated as a mental defective for purposes of the right to receive or transport firearms without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others."

It seems like Walz is especially concerned with protecting and even expanding beyond normal the gun ownership rights of veterans with mental disabilities, which by definition includes a subset of individuals who really should not be walking around with guns that are not even legal for other people to have.

The other Democratic candidates for Minnesota Governor have very different positions. Walz stands out like a sore thumb among his colleagues. Rebecca Otto wants a science based approach. She noted in a statement following the Las Vegas massacre that Congress has essentially illegalized scientific research on guns and gun safety. Clearly, we have made huge strides in automobile safety, and people generally have the right to drive cars, and far far fewer people are killed because of driving today than would otherwise have been possible without sensible science-based policy. We did not need a Constitutional Amendment protecting driving to make this happen. In fact, the Second Amendment damages our nation's ability to be sensible about gun laws.

Here is, in part, Otto's statement:

What we are doing with gun safety laws is not working. We must study gun violence as a public health issue just as we did motor vehicle safety and our work to reduce motor vehicle deaths. We need to steep our policies in evidence, not rhetoric. Let's collect the evidence and let our scientists study the issue.

The NRA has its place, but not at the expense of so many lives. The NRA and their gun lobby stranglehold on D.C. is a perfect example of the Politics of unfettered greed. Time to end the Politics of Greed & return to the Politics of the common good.

Here's the thing: Even Walz can be seen as advocating a sensible approach, if you stand in the back of the room, plug one ear, and kinda squint while he is talking about guns. But he has never voted for sensible change, and when he tries to advocate a mainstream progressive policy, his tongue gets stuck on his trigger and thing go badly. He is pushing himself as a progressive left of center who won't move to the right, but he's been far right on guns all along.

Sorry, Tim.

gregladen Mon, 10/02/2017 - 11:38

Tags

gun ownership

Democratic Candidates

Today is Lock Up Your Gun Day

gregladen — Sat, 10 Sep 2016 09:26:14 +0000

Today is Lock Up Your Gun Day

Not really. But it is World Suicide Prevention Day. And, one way YOU can help prevent suicides is by keeping your gun locked up, separate from the ammo, and keeping the ammo locked up as well.

Why?

Here’s why:

Suicide is the 2nd leading cause of death among teens and young adults and the 10th leading cause of death among all Americans.
On average, 4 teenagers and 118 total Americans complete suicide every day.
90% people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide.
Many suicide attempts occur with little planning during a short-term crisis.
50% of suicide deaths in the United States are by firearm.
Access to firearms is a risk factor for suicide.
Firearms used in youth suicide usually belong to a parent.
Reducing access to lethal means, like firearms, saves lives.
A gun in the home is 22x more likely to be used in a suicide, homicide, or unintentional shooting than for self defense.
If there is a gun in your home, keep it unloaded and locked up or with a trigger lock. Store the bullets in a different place that is also locked.
If there is a gun in your home, do not let children and teens have a key to the places where guns and bullets are stored.
If a household member becomes depressed or has severe mood swings, store the gun outside the home for the time being while you seek help!

Adapted from this source.

gregladen Sat, 09/10/2016 - 05:26

Tags

A friend of mine who has a family history of suicide (father, brother, sister), and who also has had a decade or more of treatment for depression, has turned into an ideologically driven gun rights advocate, to the point that I will no longer discuss it with him anymore.
In his eyes, he is in constant danger that can only be quelled by carrying a gun, and he is sure that at every turn, the government is ready to disarm him and all of his fellow patriots, and the only American thing to do is to arm yourself even heavier.
Deep down, he is really a nice person (even though it might seem contrary), but after years of being brainwashed by right wing pundits, and by refusing to engage in critical thinking skills, he has brought himself (and possibly others) to a precipice of potential danger that I hope that he never steps over. Very concerning to say the least.

Philando Castile's Killing: Some geographic background

gregladen — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 11:48:38 +0000

Philando Castile's Killing: Some geographic background

Philando Castile told his mother that he was reluctant to carry his legal, permitted, firearm because he was afraid that if he had a run in with the police, they would simply kill him.

Later that day, a Saint Anthony Village police officer pulled Castile over for a broken tail light, and then, at the first opportunity, fired several bullets into his arm and torso. A few moments later, Castile fell into unconsciousness, apparently dead. The police then apprehended Castile's companion, who was in the passenger seat, and, treating her like a criminal, handcuffed her and stuffed her in the back of a police car. Later, it was confirmed that Castile was killed.

I would give you a trigger warning for the following video, but I don't care if it triggers you. I want it to trigger you. You and everybody else needs to see this.

I used to live a block from this incident. It is a city called Falcon Heights, which is the location of the inaptly named "Saint Paul Campus" of the University of Minnesota, and also the home of the Great Minnesota Get-together, the Minnesota State Fair. In fact, the intersection at which this killing occurred is at the north entrance of the fairgrounds. This makes me think that it would be a good idea to put a monument there, a monument to how dangerous the police can be, for all the fairgoers to take note of when they go to the fair, from now on.

Back in the old days, a few years ago and on back, when I lived walking distance to the fair and the site of this shooting, the police would be at this intersection in numbers, helping people cross the street, controlling traffic, keeping people safe, during the State Fair. Then, one year, there was a bogus terroristic threat against the fair, so the police apparently redistributed themselves and stopped protecting people at that intersection. Or, perhaps they changed their policy for some other reason. Crossing the street, pulling your car out, etc. was then a matter of every person to themselves. (There were always a few cops standing around watching the chaos, but not helping.) Now, that intersection is added to the ever growing list of American Police killing grounds. Yes, a monument, at this intersection, to remind the people and whatever police might remain controlling traffic during the two week long fair event would be appropriate.

A couple of blocks from this intersection are two or three blocks or corners that are in Saint Paul and that have a bad reputation for crime. As I noted, I used to live there, and after I was no longer living there, my daughter lived there part time for several years. This is the school district she went to. I also worked on that campus for two years. I know the area, and the neighborhoods.

The exact location of the shooting, and to the west and north, is a palatial residential community with small single family houses, and a few bunches of condos and apartment buildings, mainly down the street from where this killing happened. I should mention that Falcon Heights, as well as nearby Lauderdale, and Saint Anthony Village, are all patrolled by a sort of amalgamated police department. These various cities (which adjoin the well known Roseville, MN) share various such services, including police fire, etc. and tend to be umbilically connected to Saint Paul, where the major utilities come from.

The immediate neighborhood is occupied by many people who are connected with the University, a fair number of retired people, some students. Most are white, but there is a strong Asian presence, because this is one of the main neighborhoods into which the Hmong immigrated back in the day. Also, many apartment dwellers in the area are from countries all around the world, because the are connected to a major university. My daughter's grade school, another block north of the shooting beyond where we lived, is famously international. Each year they hang flags representing all of the countries from which the students come, and there would always be dozens of them.

So that's the basic cultural context. A neighborhood where bad things don't happen, filled with people who probably carry out their share of white collar crime (or who are academics, and thus have other problems) but otherwise pretty quiet. Nearby are the scary neighborhoods, the neighborhoods that are actually pretty typical urban zones, with varying degrees of charm, development, decay, all that. Nothing exceptional. But I have the sense that the people of Falcon Heights, Saint Anthony, Lauderdale, and this part of Roseville, a generally liberal and highly educated enclave, collectively identify, label, and talk about those other neighborhoods, which are blacker, crimier, scarier, bits of the "Inner City" (a term disdained by Twin City dwellers, just so you know) creeping out into the "better neighborhoods."

The victim, of course, was a school employee and citizen of good standing who didn't live in any of those nearby scary neighborhoods, and was not part of an inner city creeping, even if such a characterization was valid (which it only barely is). But he and the others in the car were black, and they were driving down a street where the city police probably feel a duty to keep the Inner City away, keep the blackness away. One good way to do that is to encourage black people to avoid driving down that particular street, a major local thoroughfare, and instead, stay south and in the city. Let Saint Paul take care of its own problems. Don't be driving through our quiet neighborhood. How do you do that? Pull over black people with broken tail lights, obviously. Then shake them down. Make them regret driving down that particular street.

People who live in the area know that this is a zone where the cops pull people over all the time. For years I drove down that street twice a day or more, and very often saw people pulled over. The cops even have a trick with traffic speed postings, changing abruptly between 30 mph and 40 mph in a couple of places, allowing them to stop "speeders" more easily. I regard this traffic stop as part of that process, of the police policing the blackness impinging on a neighborhood of special snowflakes.

It is rather shocking that a murder of a citizen by a cop on this street did not happen sooner.

Here is a piece by Shawn Otto that you should have a look at.

This also:

gregladen Thu, 07/07/2016 - 07:48

Tags

How do you do that? Pull over black people with broken tail lights, obviously. Then shake them down. Make them regret driving down that particular street. Shoot one or two of them occasionally.

A real tragedy.

From initial reports it sure sounds like the shooting was not justified.

According to the BBC, there is a 3% chance the killer will be indited; there is very close to 0% chance that the killer will be found guilty.

My mind is overwhelmed with all of the police violence. The USA has become the land of the enslaved, home of the cowardly.

How common is it for non-black people to be gunned down by USA po9lice for no apparent legitimate reason?

The BBC knows nothing about this case.

This is the second killing in a short time here.

At the end of the day, the first killing could not be prosecuted because the evidence just was not there. It is even possible that at some level that shooting was justified (though at the larger level this is all part of one huge injustice).

This looks like a very clear case of homicide. The governor will not let this stand. the local mayor and police have no say in this or power. This is a town that really doesn't even have a mayor of any consequence. The state BCA will take over the investigation, not even the county is going to be involved.

The Governor was on the phone to the White House, and the White House was expecting his call. The Feds will be involved by the end of the day.

I'm pretty confident there will be a prosecution.

The BBC knows nothing about this case.

Yes.

I’m pretty confident there will be a prosecution.

Yes.

Putting it another way, no matter what actually happened out there, this particular cop shooting a person at this particular time in this particular location gets him the ultimate sad sac award.

But this really does not look like a case where the cop is the unlucky guy at the wrong time and place. Rather, he may turn out to be the poster child for cops acting badly and killing young black men for no cause, and at a time and place where everyone in government and justice is waiting for the ideal case to run to ground.

#7 amended:

What the BBC reported:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36732908

This was just a boxout:

1,152 people killed by police in 2015

30% of victims were black

13% of US population is black

97% of deaths were not followed by any charges against police officers

mappingpoliceviolence.org, US Census Bureau

Rather, he may turn out to be the poster child for cops acting badly and killing young black men for no cause, and at a time and place where everyone in government and justice is waiting for the ideal case to run to ground.

Yes.

It's hard to see how more - not fewer - guns is going to reduce harm, isn't it?

Mr. Laden,

As one of your earlier posts discussed, it's not a good thing to come to the attention of the police, even when you are the one calling 911. I was taught this when I was a teenager in the mid'70s... because I am an androphilic transsexual. Of course, I learned that I was fine, as long as I was alone, as I "pass" as a straight white upper-middle-class woman, due to my looks and natural mannerisms... but If I was with other LGBT folk, they would look closer, and then I was in danger, especially if I was with other transfolk, and even more especially if I was with black transfolk.

I mention this, because I do not believe that any of these issues that are now getting so much media attention are new issues... its just that we now have two new technologies (one of which I'm partially responsible for developing, ironically enough), smart phones and the social media internet. With these technologies, we now can share the experience of what it is like to be outside of the socially privileged group, such that those in the socially privilged group can no longer pretend that those in certain suspect classes, were the ones to blame, that they did something to provoke these injustices.

Perhaps a few high profile cases MIGHT cause a change in police culture... but I doubt it.

Kay, basically, I agree with you. I do think there are some changes in frequency of this sort of thing over time, and variation across space. For example, in some southern cities it has become "normal" to prey on working class and poor people with predatory policing to raise money. It has also been suggested that a post war pig in the python effect (pun intended, I guess) with a lot of fucked up vets joining the police forces has an effect. I'd like to know more about that. This could explain a spate of attacks by police in the post Viet Nam era and now, partially.

We will change society, though. But I 'm not sure f we are going to make the change fast enough for things to go from bad to worse.

Today' message from the St. Anthony Village police to gun owners legally carrying their weapons was to consider standing your ground if you have a broken tail light. None of us want to see people getting pulled over shooting cops, of course, but there are 300 million people in this country. A few tens of thousands of them are currently planning to do just that. It is just a matter of time.

I think the police, with their idiotic union leaders (and I'm a union supporter but we have the worst cop union head in the country here) and their tacit and sometimes full throated support from mayors of all political stripes, and the suburbanites who think everything is fine as long as color lines are not crossed other than in areas of entertainment and sports, are all in for a shock when BLM converts into STP and police officers start getting killed at a rate comparable to young black males (about 300 a year or so?)

Again, I'm not suggesting this. I'm simply saying that this is eventually going to happen.

There are procedures for car stops and for people with gun permits. I'm sure none of the procedures this officer was taught include shooting first after the occupant was following your orders by getting his ID. I'm going to guess the first thing you're taught is to ask where's the firearm. then to secure it. Why this officer didn't say please exit the vehicle and step aside while I secure the firearm.... I guess he's not a very good police man is he? What's more important securing a gun or getting ID?

One more disgraceful video. Awful. I don't understand how Diamond Reynolds could sound so calm at times... she must have been in disbelief.

I've been to some pretty out of the way, moderately rough places around the world, with no significant issues to speak of. But when in the U.S. I treat police officers like I would bears... dangerous and unpredictably aggressive and a law unto themselves. I really don't know why so many Americans put up with their generally very well-paid, uniformed and armed civil servants acting like a violent street gang. It's only a few bad apples, they say. But when all the "good cops" close ranks and defend the bad ones, who can tell the difference?

I wonder if heavy civil penalties against municipalities and states, with the costs taken out of future police pay increases or equipment budgets might be one small way to deal with these incidents. Don't like driving around in a beat-up police car with 150,000 miles on the odometer? Too bad.

The loathsome NRA is still, apparently, in "No Comment" mode.

Perhaps it sees the Second Amendment as more important than the Thirteenth.

I`m starting to wonder if black people are the dumbest creatures alive. A guy walks around with a gun in his pocket, then he resists arrest. So he is shot dead. Good. But now a hundred thousand black people stand up and start shouting and throwing shit. And then, a guy in a car tells a police officer he has a gun, at the same moment as he reaches into his pocket. So he is shot dead. Good. But now a hundred thousand black people stand up and start shouting and throwing shit. Do you all share one brain?? This is why people are racist, you behave like animals and your first reaction is always the chimp-reaction, shouting and throwing shit. If you`re armed in public, I want the cops to shoot you. That is their job, keeping the streets safe from crap like you people. So I say good job officers. And ***** you dumb black assholes. You are forcing me to look at you like dumb animals. Because you behave like dumb animals. Over and over and over again.

Four Dallas police officers dead, seven wounded by sniper fire at protest over shootings:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36742835

"Four Dallas police officers dead, seven wounded by sniper fire at protest over shootings:"

Good fucking gods! This is *NOT* helping the problem!

On comment 16: apologies. I see a certain amount of this sort of racist crap, and it generally gets deleted. But under the circumstances I felt it appropriate to let some through. So people know

@ Greg #18

And on the other thread, we have an old white American male using yet another police shooting of yet another black man as a soapbox to whine about black helicopters.

#20
Greg seems to have called it. Statistically predictable.

#21
Yeah, one of the perennial trolls. Loose screws. Also predictable.

Just the Greedhead's wingnut assembly line; still manufacturing faulty products after all these years.

#12
"...python effect..."

And looking at some of these guys, I wonder if 'roid rage isn't an issue.

On some of the above...
#16....If the dumbassed laws are going to allow legal gun carry then carrying a gun is NOT a reason for a bigot cop to shoot someone!!!! But thanks for your bigotry in full display.

Dallas Sniper...it was a good thing all those dead cops where carrying guns. They sure helped a lot!!! So why do traffic and other cops have to all carry guns???

On Vanessa Smith's video, that police officer sounds panic-stricken. I have no idea why he might be panic-stricken. Perhaps he's just realized he shot a man for no good reason. But that begs the question of why he fired at all, much less multiple times. Could there be some traumatic episode in his past that caused this? If so, it should bear on his fitness to wear the badge.

The thing I really worry about his how widespread this reflexive police gunfire seems to have become. Is there something in their common experience that brings about this apparently unthinking response?

>b>"Could there be some traumatic episode in his past that caused this? If so, it should bear on his fitness to wear the badge."

I have yet to meet a police officer who should be a police officer. I suspect that the desire to be a police officer is reason enough to not hire someone for the job.

Well, you might expect that somebody in a situation perceived to be dangerous would be flooded with adrenalin.

Apparently this kind of overwhelming, hair trigger response to perceived dangerous situations is baked into police training these days. Needless to say, it's predicated on a questionable model that's become group-think. It's influenced, perhaps, by all the militarized booyaa-heads that the Bush years unleashed on the world.

Well, whenever I approach a car being driven by a man whose skin is darker than mine, when his girlfriend/wife is sitting next to him --and most especially when they have a small child sitting behind them in the back seat-- the first thing that goes through my mind is I'm sure that he's going to want to pull out a gun and shoot me in order to show his family how manly he is.

Makes sense, doesn't it? We should train all our police to think that way, shouldn't we? Don't we? What the hell could go wrong with teaching our cops to think that way?? (Or maybe Desertphile is onto something... They show up at the academy already thinking that way...)

Well, whenever I approach a car being driven by a man whose skin is darker than mine, when his girlfriend/wife is sitting next to him –and most especially when they have a small child sitting behind them in the back seat– the first thing that goes through my mind is I’m sure that he’s going to want to pull out a gun and shoot me in order to show his family how manly he is."

It appears that in this case, the police officer saw an automobile tail light that was not functioning properly, so his first thought was "Oh boy! More money to pay my wages!" Police officers see motorized citizens as Automated Teller Machines first; when they see the citizen is black, then they see the citizen as a violent Automated Teller Machine.

Makes sense, doesn’t it? We should train all our police to think that way, shouldn’t we? Don’t we? What the hell could go wrong with teaching our cops to think that way?? (Or maybe Desertphile is onto something… They show up at the academy already thinking that way…)

In my early life (pre-teens to mid- 20s) I worked in the marine transport industry, which usually consisted of hauling fruit from Central America to Long Beach, or Port Angeles, or Honolulu depending on taxation and embargoes. Out of hundreds of law enforcement officers I met, I never met one who was not a violent petty unethical bribe-demanding thug.

Returning to land, I worked in Search and Recovery in desert regions, notably San Bernardino County (California) and Clark County (Nevada). Of the scores of law enforcement officers I worked with, I never met one who was not a violent petty unethical bribe-demanding thug.

Working with Military Police on and around Indian Springs Auxiliary Air Force Base to hunt down and prosecute Big Sheep poachers, I never met one who was not a violent petty unethical bribe-demanding thug.

Currently I volunteer on various Southwest American Indian reservations in their attempts to curb the abuse of alcohol and other drugs (and fight diabetes); of the scores of tribal and federal law enforcement officers I have met, I never met one who was not a violent petty unethical bribe-demanding thug.

My observation is that people who want to be police officers are overwhelmingly brutal, violent tyrants by nature, not nurture--- they start out that way as children.

It's a combination of factors that vary a lot. Especially for social situations, monocausal explainations fall short.

Desertphile writes: "My observation is that people who want to be police officers are overwhelmingly brutal, violent tyrants by nature, not nurture— they start out that way as children."

There are so many -- hundreds, thousands -- of instances every year where police officers *do* act heroically, altruistically, and with little regard for their own safety that this type of blanket stereotype is not only worthless, but worsens an already deplorable situation.

I'd suggest you read a little; perhaps starting with I'm a black ex-cop, and this is the real truth about race and policing

There are many good police officers. There are many bad police officers. Pretty much like any other large demographic group in this country.

Actually, it seems Desertphile was being careful to not stereotype, by relating what he's experienced. I'm also sure that there are heroic and altruistic police out there.

Yet Desertphile's personal experiences (which greatly exceed my own, limited to merely having a pair of loaded 9mm's pointed at me in a case of mistaken identity -- no offense taken), make me wonder what percentage of police are/are not psychologically sociopathic.

I've heard the old police joke, "There are two kinds of people of the world, according to cops: Cops and assholes." That expresses a mindset, too. An abnormal one. A possibly dangerous one.

I don't know how the demographics break down, but the things that are showing up in the news these days aren't helping anyone's image. And that's only contributing to making a bad situation worse. The media seem to gladly jump in to fan the flames when they can... Talk about sociopaths!

Bulletproof warriors:

http://www.startribune.com/officer-in-castile-case-attended-bulletproof…

Net widening:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/15/485835272/the-driving…

The chilling effect of concealed carry law on the Texas classroom

gregladen — Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:05:14 +0000

The chilling effect of concealed carry law on the Texas classroom

Texas has adopted a law that allows students to bring a handgun to class, or to meetings with professors.

As a response to this policy, the president of the Faculty Senate, Jonathan Snow, gathered a group of faculty and gave a powerpoint presentation that included the slide at the top of the post.

Snow's presentation was not any sort of official university statement, but the slide does a good job of demonstrating the likely effect on faculty student relationships under the conditions where students are more likely to pull out a handgun and plug the professor.

The situation, and the context for this presentation, are written up in this post at the Chronicle of Higher Education. PZ Myers discusses it here. The powerpoint presentation is available here.

A suitable response faculty may consider is here.

gregladen Wed, 02/24/2016 - 07:05

Tags

gun ownership

faculty-student conflict

Time to cut Texas lose once again as a state in the union...

(Best to impound all the right-wingers & gun-nuts there, too.)

Unless the faculty members are sitting in their office when "that student" uses their handgun to "plug the professor", they'd best get a vest that also covers the belly & groin.

Too bad Texas politicians have seen fit to cut back on health care availability in their fiefdom. They may need more trauma centers in the future...

Of course, they'll just tell you that the solution is to have more people carrying loaded guns.

It starts with students carry loaded handguns to class. The teachers respond by packing automatic handguns. The students gain an advantage by bringing Uzis and AK-47s with them.

Teachers respond by mounting M-60's on their desktops. Sales of "machine gun desk mounts" soar. Students include sawed-off shotguns & "Street Sweepers" in their backpacks.

This leads to a new "Scholastic Armaments" department on Amazon.com...

Eventually, the teachers begin packing grenade launchers to counter the fragmentation bombs students are showing up with -- Collateral damage be damned! This is Texas!

I saw this yesterday and shared it with some of our faculty.
Last year we had a kid get bent way out of shape because an English faculty member dared to fail him - stood in her office doorway the first day of the next semester screaming that he was going to get her if he saw her off campus. Others and security got him fast - I'm sure it would have been fine if he'd had a gun.

Dean, depends on who shoots first; the calibers used; distance to target; whether the collection of shooters used manual load, semis, or fully-automatics; fragmenting vs solid core ammo; vests (if used); drugs used by the student (PCP works wonders to keep you going despite having extremities blown off or being disemboweled by several large-caliber shots/shotgun blasts); etc.

As the NRA counsels us, "It would have been fine if he'd had a gun -- as long as everyone else had guns, too." ("Fine" being defined as "collateral deaths are acceptable in order to preserve our warped, self-serving mis-interpretations of the Second Amendment. You should be proud to have your child die for us.)

Universities are already censoring speech on campus anyway - so this is nothing new.

Pretty transparent really.

As if the crazy person would have been stopped by a rule against guns on campus anyway - please.

dean:

Better take away his fists to.

What a surprise to learn that Rick is willing to lie and imply every college everywhere about colleges censoring free speech.

Wait it isn't a surprise, it's just Rick doing what he always does.

RickA believes that if he gives a toddler a loaded gun and admonished him with a rule not to use it, it's just as safe as if the toddler had no gun at all.

RickA: Pretty transparent, really.

Ya know that full cover bullet proof suit SWAT wears!??! My 1st day teaching, that is what I would wear! And tell all students that I will continue to unless they relinquish their guns. I would also have 2ea 9mm ready to each hand. Also in the upper corners I would mount auto rifles which are controlled by the sounds of gunshots to aim and fire, just in case they are faster on the draw!!!
Or maybe just phuck texas and leave the state!!!

I was wondering what I would find when I clicked that link. You nailed it Greg.

Dear Mr. President Trump (I'm assuming Hillary loses to him as the polls suggest and DWS has guaranteed her the win so... you're probably screwed America) - you know that wall you promised to build to keep out the Mexicans (I know you and your supporters really mean wetbacks but we'll keep up the pretense you don't, for now) How about you move it a bit North and build it all around the borders of Texas where it borders on other more sane states.

... the borders of Texas where it borders on other more sane states.

Um, Doug: Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, ...

WHAT sane states that border Texas???

College campus censorship:

http://lux.lawrence.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=addres…

That was comparative sanity Brainstorms, as in there's crazy and then there is batshit crazy - the latter is Texas on a good day :)

I feel dirty for doing this to such a serious subject, but it's required by the laws of nerddom:

You know nothing, Jon Snow.

PS He actually makes good points so the joke isn't that awesome given the context.

The upside:

The University of Texas at ... has a higher survival rate than any other institution of higher learning in Texas. Our award winning survival skills program ...

What this is about: a selection regime for campuses.
This will have the direct effect of scaring away liberals from enrolling in those institutions as students, or teaching in them as faculty.

The left wing version would be allowing students and faculty to smoke marijuana in classes, thereby scaring righties away.

If ever there was a time for a huuuge class action lawsuit, this is the time.

Civil rights law includes provisions that "discriminatory effect" is sufficient to demonstrate discrimination, and that "discriminatory intent" need not be proven in court. The present case does not involve a civil rights category (race, religion, gender, etc.), but it meets the test of "effect vs. intent."

If the effect of the law is to create a selection regime that chases liberals away from these schools, and brings an influx of gun-toting right wingers, then that is indistinguishable from it being the intent.

As Utah has had campus concealed carry since 2007 and has had zero incidents involving any licensed concealed carrier, nor any reported chilling effect that I can find, I'm going to chalk this up to hoplophobia, an irrational aversion to weapons.

Enon #18:

Yep - I agree.

Campus police are armed and nobody even really notices.

Each state can permit open carry or not, as they see fit.

Nothing new here - except the fear, which is all out of proportion to the reality.

Perhaps social science can study this and publish an article or two about it. That would be interesting.

In Minnesota, a permit to carry does not allow a person to carry onto a K-12 property.

A college or University campus can ban guns in the buildings, but I believe a person with a permit to carry is allowed to carry a weapon outdoors or in any building which does not post a sign saying "guns are banned on these premises".

So just think, a student could be carrying a gun in their vehicle or outdoors, on campus!

With 50,000 students, at least some are packing.

Scary?

Campus police are armed and nobody even really notices.

RickA: King of the fallacious argument... Or too stupid to tell the difference between a trained, vetted law enforcement official in a uniform vs. an unknown with a gun in his pocket and a grudge to settle.

And he thinks everyone should be as dim-witted as he is and not see the difference either.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, there were a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms. (10.64 per 100,000)

For Japan, 0.06. For South Korea, 0.08. For Singapore, 0.16. For the United Kingdom, 0.23. For Australia, 0.93.

The U.S. has from 10 to 200 times as many gun-related deaths as these other advanced Western countries.

"Scary?"

Yes, RickA. That equates to scary. For anyone who places a value on human lives, rather than solely on themselves.

Brainstorms #21:

Statistically there is just not much difference between an unknown with a gun in their pocket (and a permit to carry) or someone with a knife in their pocket or carrying a baseball bat or what have you.

I am not aware of very many (if any) instances of a person with a permit to carry using their weapon to settle a grudge at the U of M.

Not a big concern to me.

But you are allowed to be concerned and express your opinion and even advocate for different laws.

As long as the law doesn't violate the constitution you might even make some progress.

People with your concerns should start small and try something small and limited.

Try just closing the gun show loophole, in a state like Minnesota. It might pass.

It is the overreaching, and trying to pass laws which are not constitutional that are a problem.

Brainstorms #22:

Pretty sure 22,000 of those were suicides.

I am pretty sure it is already illegal to kill yourself (at least in most states).

So I think you are down to 11,000 which matter.

No law will stop people from committing suicide - nor regulate the manner in which they choose to kill themselves.

Next.

rickA, you've demonstrated repeatedly you are incapable of both logical and honest arguments, but in case there is a chance you could change: look for statistics on success rates in suicide between attempts with guns and all others, then try to dismiss them as a risk factor.

dean #25:

What difference does that make as to permit to carry on a campus?

I don't particularly care how people kill themselves or how many attempts it takes.

Whether they drink themselves to death, overdose on drugs, hang themselves, throw themselves off a building or bridge, sleeping pills or shoot themselves with a gun - I have no more respect for their lives than they do.

It does matter what people do to other people - no matter what weapon they use.

Do you disagree?

Enon Zey: As Utah has had campus concealed carry since 2007 and has had zero incidents involving any licensed concealed carrier, nor any reported chilling effect that I can find, I’m going to chalk this up to hoplophobia, an irrational aversion to weapons.

Utah teacher wounded when gun discharges in toilet (12 September 2014)

There is also this:

http://utparents.org/utah-law/the-high-cost-of-gun-violence-in-utah

http://health.utah.gov/vipp/pdf/FactSheets/2013FirearmDeaths.pdf

"I don’t particularly care how people kill themselves or how many attempts it takes."
I think that I speak for most readers and writers on this blog when I write that this is one of the most cold, most callous, possibly the most sociopathic statement that I have ever read on this blog. It shows an incredible lack of understanding of psychology or biochemistry. It shows an incredible lack of compassion or empathy. It seems to spring from some deep well of human ignorance, possibly religious, but also maybe just plain psychopathy. You are essentially saying that you just can't be bothered with human feelings of sympathy for people who are in so much pain or confusion that they ready to take their own life. So, then if someone administered, by accident or on purpose, a pain inducing chemical cocktail that made you want to end your own life, you wouldn't want one of us to care about you and maybe try and get you an antidote or a pain killer? Because nasty as the commentary gets here, I'm pretty sure that anyone who

RickA does someone pay you to be loathsome, or what?

That last entry got out before editing. In the hypothetical scenario where RickA accidentally ingested something so horrific and pain inducing that he wanted to take his own life, I am positing that most of the readers here would, despite their loathing of RickA's positions on science and the law, do their best to get him an antidote. They would not let him shoot himself if they could prevent it, even though it appears that RickA wants us to think that he is so heartless that he would apparently not be willing to do the same for another human being and would just let them shoot themself.

RickA, do you wish to clarify your position on suicide? Do you value the life of a mentally or physically suffering human being so little that you don't care if they try to end their life?

I am not paid to be loathsome.

I do have sympathy for people who take their own lives.

I feel sorry for them.

As a libertarian I do believe that a person should have the right to kill themselves, unless they are mentally incapacitated (i.e. could be committed).

In other words, if they are an adult, and of sound mind, who am I to say a person doesn't have the right to end their life? Most people's objections to this are religious in nature and those reasons wouldn't matter to an atheist (I believe Greg is an atheist).

The manner in which someone chooses to kill themselves is not relevant. I do not feel sorrier for someone who takes their own life if they use a handgun, as opposed to sleeping pills (for example). They are dead either way and that is sad - but ultimately their own decision.

But we are not talking about suicide here.

Instead we are talking about guns.

Brainstorms brought up the 33k who died from firearms, and I pointed out that 2/3 of those deaths were self-inflicted.

I am merely differentiating between people who use a gun to kill someone else and people who use a gun to kill themselves.

I happen to think this is incredibly important to this conversation.

If you think that distinction is not relevant to this conversation than I don't think you are being particular rational.

The entire point of the post is about being worried about someone with a gun using it to kill someone else - on campus - not to commit suicide with it (on campus).

Not many people go to a campus to kill themselves (unless it is for death by cop).

I do not have any control over anybody - certainly not their own decision to kill themselves. So while I do feel sorry they decided to take their own lives (as is their fundamental human right) - I certainly do not take any responsibility for their decision. Does this make me a bad person.

I don't think so.

You are entitled to your opinion.

I am entitled to mine.

While we are on the topic of guns in class rooms....Have you ever noticed how the people who commit mass murders and school shootings with guns almost inevitably tend to be gun lovers and typically have a history of having spent a lot of time at target practice? And that makes me wonder what the effect of chronic inhalation of ballistic propellant decomp products from shooting, lead fumes from shooting, loud gun reports from shooting , and the kickback shock from shooting large bore rifles and shotguns has on the brain. Has anyone done any brain scans to see what changes take place in a susceptible ( i.e., live ) brain while just doing target practice? The latest mass shooter (Dalton) seems like he has rapid cycling bipolar disorder, and his neighbors report that he did target practice a lot. A real lot. Somehow, I rather doubt that chronic heavy metal inhalation has a salutary effect on that type of disorder. Just saying, the gun problem may be very much self perpetuating at this point.

Anyway, I think that it is a clear sign of how our land is happily devolving,that there are so many crazy people running around with guns that people fear for their lives on school grounds. That sounds like a significant indication of complete mismanagement of firearms, based on a sacred mythology built around a revered, flawed, but totally amendable rule in the constitution rule book.

SteveP #30:

I guess we cross posted.

I am a big believer in Oregon's assisted suicide law as well as the work of Dr. Death.

If you have terminal cancer (for example) and wish to kill yourself or be prescribed a lethal dose of morphine, I believe that is your fundamental human right.

I would not let a minor kill themselves or a person who was not of sound mind (mentally incapacitated).

I also believe that every person has the right to treat themselves to any medical treatment they want, given informed consent.

Again, say you have terminal cancer and there is a treatment which is not approved by the FDA yet. You want into a clinical trial but don't meet their criteria. If you provide informed consent and are willing to pay the retail cost of the drug, it is my opinion that you should have the right to treat yourself.

Why should you have to fly to another country to treat yourself, why not stay at home and treat yourself, if you are aware of the risks and choose to take them yourself?

Whether you choose to take hemlock, morphine or shot yourself with a gun - that is not for me to say.

We are all adults and get to make these decisions ourselves.

I also happen to believe that drugs should be legalized for adults. I do not choose to take drugs (other than alcohol) - but plenty of adults do choose to take them. Why should it be illegal? As long as they don't drive under the influence I believe adults have the right to ingest anything they want.

I also believe that prostitution, by choice, by an adult, should be legal as well.

In fact, all victim-less crimes should be decriminalized (in my opinion).

What a waste of money to put people in jail for such things.

I hope this clarifies my position on both suicide and end-of-life care, as well as other libertarian items, such as drug laws, prostitution (the oldest profession).

As long as what you choose to do doesn't hurt another (without their consent), I don't care what you do. Similarly, what I choose to do, as long as I do not hurt anybody else, is none of your business (in my opinion).

RickA tells us that "there is just not much difference between an unknown [18-year-old with a bad temper] with a gun ..., one with a knife .., or carrying a baseball bat or what have you." So if he had his druthers about which one of the three he would prefer to be confronted with, he doesn't care -- they're all the same to him.

I guess when RickA tries to run away, he thinks the knife-bearer not only knows how to throw a knife, but can do so with deadly accuracy (with a target that's moving unpredictably) -- with one and only one chance.

And RickA similarly thinks that the man with the bat can throw his bat (once) with equal, deadly accuracy.

And that both the knife-thrower and the bat-thrower have an equal chance with the experienced shooter (who visits the shooting ranges for practice that SteveP so observantly points out) who has 6, 7, 9, or 14 shots to take with a weapon that is designed explicitly to be deadly at a distance.

RickA, your logic is as bankrupt as your morals...

SteveP #32:

Kind of like football or hockey than.

You said "but totally amendable rule in the constitution rule book."

I agree 100%.

If you and enough people like you want to change the 2nd amendment - you can amend it. The constitution allows itself to be amended and sets forth a procedure to do it.

It has been done 27 times.

Absent a constitutional amendment, guns are legal in the United States and that is that.

I have no idea if shooting guns is dangerous in the manner you postulate.

But we know smoking is dangerous and that is still (barely) legal. Drinking is dangerous and that is legal. Driving a motorcycle is dangerous and that is legal. Many activities are legal because in the United States, adults get to make their own decisions - and that is the way it should be.

It is also true that smokers pay more for insurance - and that makes a great deal of sense also.

I look forward to the studies you propose to see if target practice is dangerous to a persons brain (organically I mean).

"As a libertarian"

There's your problem - you are from the "I got mine so screw everyone else" branch aren't you? (Despite the fact that you made ample use of everything society had in terms of support to get where you are, you don't want others do to the same.) SteveP's description at 29 was spot on (as anyone who has paid attention to your drivel already knew).

Brainstorms #34:

All I am saying is that if a person has a grudge, they are dangerous whether they come at you with a gun, a knife, a bat or even just their fists.

It is the grudge which makes them dangerous - not the permit to carry or even their weapon (if they carry).

But perhaps you cannot grasp that fact. And that is ok.

If given a choice, if someone comes at me with a bat I would certainly want to be armed with a gun.

If someone comes at you with intent to cause you grievous bodily injury or death, what would you choose to be armed with?

If you say nothing - well that is your decision and I respect it.

You should respect my decision.

dean #36:

I got mine so screw everyone else is not a libertarian view.

You can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt somebody else.

I can do whatever I want as long as I don't hurt somebody else.

What is your position on suicide - are you against it?

What about Dr. assisted suicide for the terminally ill - are you against it?

Should you be able to choose to whether you imbibe alcohol? Or should someone else get to make that decision for you?

What about marijuana? Should an adult be able to smoke a joint?

What about prostitution? Should an adult be able to sell sex for money?

These are libertarian issues.

I am truly interested in your views on these issues.

Please respond.

Greg Laden:

What are the differences between the position of an atheist and a libertarian. I am a social catholic so not really sure what the positions of an atheist are.

I would imagine an atheist would be against all blue laws (for example). Blue laws, in case you don't know, are laws which were based on religion when they were passed.

Like you cannot by liquor on Sunday - that sort of law.

Many of the issues I raised in my previous posts started out as blue law religious issues - which is why I ask.

Just curious.

Greg:

Would you feel the same as your list of suggestions if you knew your student was a black belt?

What about if they were carrying a pocket knife?

What about if they used a cane (which can be a club).

What if they carry a staff?

Is it just a handgun which would change your behavior as suggested?

What if every student in your class dressed like a motorcycle gang member?

Just curious.

RickA - there's a difference between classical libertarians and what we see today as self-described libertarians. Today the typical libertarian is a Tea Partier, ant-tax, anti-regulation, or Grover Norquist-like small government fanatic.

But let's take the issue of guns: the 2nd Amendment in an *originalist* (i.e., conservative) interpretation cannot mean the right to guns is unlimited, but that's what the NRA and those libertarians that fixate on the issue would have you believe. The founders actually had versions of the 2nd Amendment before them that specifically mentioned self-defense and/or hunting as rationales. Guess what? They voted those versions of the 2nd Amendment down. No, the rationale they gave is clear - and it's not to give you or me or anyone else the right to defend ourselves with a 9mm Glock or kill quadrupeds while pretending to be Rambo.

Lest us not forget the militia clause. Of what utility is a a small handgun in a military sense? Virtually none. A 30-06? Not a heck of a lot more. If we were truly interested in having a strong militia we'd be allowing fully auto machine guns, anti-tank weapons, shoulder launched surface-to-air missiles, etc. No, not allowing - *requiring* -that our citizenry arm themselves with *military* weapons.

Our huge standing military is in direct contradiction of what the founding fathers wanted. It removes the need for a militia. It removes the entire rationale for the 2nd Amendment. Frankly, most of them would be aghast.

BTW - killing someone with your fists, or a bat, or a knife is not that easy. It's surprisingly hard. Most people simply don't have the stomach for it. A gun makes even cowards into potential killers.

RickA - atheism as a personal philosophy says nothing about a person's internal moral system. It can be more restrictive than a theologically-inspired or dogmatic moral code or less-restrictive.

This isn't even accounting for gross hypocrisy. Take for instance the USA's self-professed Christians: how many of them actually try to live by the teachings of Jesus? The GOP is the religious (i.e., Christian) political party, but if there's a single phrase in the Sermon on the Mount that they actually believe, much less live by, you'll have to point it out to me cuz I can't see it.

Similarly, "Whatsover you do unto the least of my brethren, that you do unto me." is apparently some communist cant that has no place in true believers hearts.

Kevin #41:

Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you (at least up until now).

They incorporated the 2nd amendment and held the right is a personal right.

Arms has always covered pistols, as well as long guns, swords, dirks, morning stars, etc. It covers any weapon a person carries.

You are right - it probably doesn't cover cannon or artillery.

The Miller case held arms means whatever a normal soldier would be issued - and because a sawed off shotgun was not normal issue, it was ok to ban sawed off shotguns.

That may no longer be true today.

I am sure the founding fathers would be aghast at the way many of the first 10 amendments have been construed. They would be appalled that the death penalty was held cruel and unusual for a period of time - especially when the constitution defines treason as a capital crime. They would find Miranda rights very odd. I am pretty sure they would be surprised that every home owner didn't have at least a rifle.

But the supreme court is up in the air now and who knows what will happen in the future. Your interpretation could very well be adopted. Time will tell.

RickA - one final thought on libertarianism, this time the big 'L' Libertarians. They believe in the philopsophy that government should only exist to enforce property rights. But property rights only exist if there is a government.

That is, without government you own property only until someone bigger and stronger takes it from you. So who owns property? No one. Governments provide a fig-leaf that you own property, thus disenfranchising all others from the use or benefits of it.

Let's give all the land back to the original inhabitants of the continent *then* start enforcing property rights. How does *that* work for the average Libertarian? Not very well I expect.

Libertarians don't want property confiscated by force, but their entire wealth relies upon the 'original sin' of confiscating property from the original inhabitants by force. Any belief in 'property rights' as it pertains to land is a similar logical charade. Libertarians have built an entire movement based on a logical dead-end.

Their is a term for this - 'moronic' works for me.

"The Miller case held arms means whatever a normal soldier would be issued –"

Er, is that because the entire amendment is predicated on armed men being a requirement of a "a well-regulated militia"?

In view of the fact that there has just been another mass shooting incident today, this one in Hesston Kansas, with 6 dead and 20 injured, I would like to humbly suggest that we igore RickA from here on out.

Don't feed the trolls.

Enough is enough.

"Someone with access to firearms is three times more likely to commit suicide and nearly twice as likely to be the victim of a homicide as someone who does not have access, according to a comprehensive review of the scientific literature conducted by researchers at UC San Francisco." https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/01/111286/access-guns-increases-risk-sui…

I'm a strong advocate of people like RickA (would that be pseudonymous for Rick Snyder, governor of Michigan?) and other libertarians, Tea Partiers, and other right wingers arming themselves, their families, and political friends to the teeth.

Brainstorems said: "The U.S. has from 10 to 200 times as many gun-related deaths as these other advanced Western countries."

Isn't that what guns are made for? What would happen if the American people stopped using loving them so?

Well stevep #29...I'm one of those callus aholes too.
If you want to kill yourself...go for it!!!! And I like the ones who use a gun to the brain. It is mostly a complete job. And hopefully they find the answers on the other side.
The whinny moroons who sorta, almost, kinda try suicide, I do not care about, they are so pathetic they can't even do that right!
So suicide is one of the few good uses for a gun!!!
As my creator says...Hurting others (with a gun or otherwise) is the only sin, hurting yourself is not a sin, it is just plain stupid....R.H.

Another day in America, another mass shooting. This time it appears that it was an angry factory worker who, surprise, surprise, posted videos of himself shooting an AK-47 for fun in a cornfield. More lead exposure. More anger reinforcement with loud, exciting devices. More irrational behavior. There used to be an expression, “Mad as a hatter”, which apparently came about because hat makers preserved their raw materials with mercury compounds, and ended up ingesting brain addling amounts of that heavy metal. I think that this expression should be amended for modern America to be “Mad as a shooter” or “Mad as a gun lover”. BTW, do you think that the incredibly high rate of suicide among war veterans has anything to do with their exposure to, not only the trauma of war and maladjustment to non-combat life, but also to their inevitable exposure to lead in training, weapons maintenance, and combat activities? Or think of how totally maladjusted Ted Nugent looks these days. He was a championship skeet shooter and is an avid hunter and shooter. Not much lead ingestion there, is there? He says he never took illegal drugs, you know. Just a thought.

So, imagine having a student like Ted Nugent able to carry a firearm into lab. Would that be exciting or what?

Other famous shooters. Antonin Scalia. Dick Cheney. Clint Eastwood. Ronald Reagan.

To L. Long. A thought experiment, if you are up to it. Suppose that it can be shown that any person can be chemically induced to commit suicide against their will. It is an experiment that we won't want to try except in thought, but suppose that it can be shown that there are definitely chemical cocktails that can induce an otherwise healthy person to decide to commit suicide. Would not allowing a person who has been given such a cocktail to have access to a loaded, functioning gun be tantamount to murder? If you can accept that let us proceed. Otherwise, I would like to tell you to go to hell , but I won't do that just yet. Now, suppose that another human being is put in a position where they have served their country faithfully, executed their job with valor, gone to Iraq, seen innocent men women and children blown to bits, seen their best buddies blown to bits, come home, find that their skill set is not in demand, find that they can't sleep at night for nightmares, find that they can't get adequate counseling, lose their home, lose their family, and decide to end their life with a gun. Do you have no compassion for a person in that position? If you are still callous about suicide at this point, again, I want to tell you to go to hell for your stubborn ignorance, but I won't. So let us try another situation. You, L. Long, are put in a position where, through no fault of your own, through a situation where fatigue, toxins, stress, disease, just damn bad luck makes you dazed and confused, and makes you want to take your own life. I would stop you from doing so , given the chance. The same way I would save a drowning child. Humans, good, decent humans, don't think twice about saving other humans in danger. Arbitrarily deciding that people who are suicidal are not worth saving is not merely callous. It is really ignorant and unimaginative. The will to live can be broken, and with a gun, only a momentary break is necessary to result in death.

Oh, and another thing, L. Long. Blowing your brains out with a firearm is a very messy way to end ones life, and is very thoughtless to the people who have to clean up the mess you make. Also, a lot of attempted gun suicides end up being unsuccessful, with a partially functional human being left afterwards with huge medical bills for the rest of us to foot.

Oh and another thing. Suicide attempts are very often a confused plea for help. Are you against helping people who are in pain and danger and can't figure out how to cope?

Have a nice day.

Stevep #51....Thought experiment...more BS!
Was the 'drink' forced on them? Yes then its murder!
Did they take it without full knowledge...Then I still say murder and the victim is an idiot.
Did they take the drink freely? Yes? Too bad..as stated hurting one self is just plain stupid!!!
The solder bit, I have faced and solved, I joined to the air force so that the political wanna bes can go do the dirty work. And I refused to go to Vietnam as it was an illegal war as is the one in the mideast!!! I refuse to go shoot other people because some other ahole prez said gawd spoke to him and started this mess.
If I went thru all that as you describe then I lived my life pretty pathetically and please don't cause further harm by stopping me! I don't need nor want your interference and most others probably don't want it either.
And I'm sorry you can't clean up some dead meat product from the wall, you should have lived on a cattle farm for a while.

Oy here we go again... Anyone who suggests that people should blow their brains out is also a troll and should be ignored.

And I say that as someone who has some family members & close friends who are lawful owners of firearms, some of whom have hunted to put food on their tables during hard times.

There is an article in Mother Jones magazine about mass shootings, with research that shows unequivocally that these incidents are becoming increasingly more frequent. I don't recall if the author is seeking peer-reviewed publication, but the methodology appears sound.

We should also scrutinize the impact of the media here, for example TV, movies, video games. Notice that Hollywood has started removing depictions of smoking from films, on the basis of not encouraging people to smoke. If exposure to smoking in films encourages people to smoke, then it also stands to reason that exposure to murder, mutilation, and mayhem in films will predictably encourage some quantity of people to do those things as well. On which basis I say it's time to dial down (way way down) the level of violence in the mass media. Enough is enough.

For a comment further up (to Brainstorms) I want to debunk a small myth: PCP doesn't make you superman. It makes you incoherent and kind of groggy.

The legends about PCP and people walking around with superpowers are not unlike those told of black people who used marijuana back in the day. PCP is an anaesthetic. So yeah, you'll feel less pain. But if you can stand up when you are on it and figure out how to tie your shoes, or even which way is up, I would be impressed.

Anyhow, more than that. RickA's stuff is pretty typical of people who think folks should carry weapons. Let me add something as a person who actually has trained people in the use of (some) said hand to hand weapons: there is a very large difference between a ranged weapon (say a gun) and a hand weapon.

If you are carrying a knife, you have to get very close to someone. You have to get up close and personal. In a knife fight you will get cut. Knife fighting technique is all about minimizing the damage.

Anyhow, with any hand weapon if you're going to kill someone you have to commit. Trained soldiers don't even do that so often -- most people aren't sociopaths and don't want to kill out of hand. If you're just pissed off at someone you're just not in a position to kill them unless you are really going for it, and people you don't know are not likely to be like that. There's a reason murder happens between people who know each other more often than anything else (this is why serial killers are hard to catch - there is often no connection to the victim).

So if you run from a hand weapon-holder, or choose to engage, your chances are a lot better than if they have a gun. Because with a gun you can casually kill; it takes no skill or even much thought. A knife wielder has to walk right up to the person he wants to injure, That gives a lot of time to think.

A gun-wielder just fires. It's a lot easier to dissociate oneself from the act of killing, to say nothing of people not being faster than bullets if they run. (Knives are pretty ineffective when thrown, contra Hollywood).

A hand-weapon can also only kill one person at a time. And it takes a while. Only in the movies do people go down instantly when they get hit or stabbed.

Sure, people could be murdered with knives. Or baseball bats. But ranged weapons change the game. Hand weapons all require a modicum of training to use effectively or well. Even a club requires a sense of balance.

Guns require rather less. And more importantly they can go off accidentally. I can't accidentally smack someone with a club. Or stab them.

Army bases prohibit guns generally from anywhere but the firing range or specific training areas. Why? Because people there know that a) accidents happen and b) the MPs and guards are there for a reason and c) a lot of 18-22 year olds with firearms is a bad idea without strict discipline.

Dealing death becomes easy with a firearm. And Red Dawn and Dirty Harry fantasies aside, there isn't much call to have one around,to protect yourself, unless you live in Somalia, Iraq, or Syria. When it's easy to kill, you're more likely to do it.

Another thing: remember what I said about most people not being sociopaths? This is why protecting yourself with a gun against an attacker is harder than it sounds. Soldiers' basic training is really all about following orders. Including orders to kill people. Absent that kind of training (or a serious deficit in empathy) shooting a person when you're not angry or irrational is hard to do close up. That is, a criminal who is really bent on killing you is less likely to hesitate. Are you willing to get some other person's blood all over you? To watch their head explode out the back? To cold-bloodedly kill? This is a situation that favors the aggressor.

All these are good reasons to keep guns off a college campus, where alcohol flows and the population is skewed to those who are known to make rather poor decisions.

Kevin O'Neill (#41): But let’s take the issue of guns: the 2nd Amendment in an *originalist* (i.e., conservative) interpretation cannot mean the right to guns is unlimited, but that’s what the NRA and those libertarians that fixate on the issue would have you believe. The founders actually had versions of the 2nd Amendment before them that specifically mentioned self-defense and/or hunting as rationales. Guess what? They voted those versions of the 2nd Amendment down. No, the rationale they gave is clear – and it’s not to give you or me or anyone else the right to defend ourselves with a 9mm Glock or kill quadrupeds while pretending to be Rambo.

I agree with your interpretation. But let's imagine that the founding fathers could look into our time and learn of the many mass shootings we've endured. Would they not be horrified by the very fact that one man with a hand weapon could mow down a whole roomful of people in a few seconds? Back in their time, a man with a rifle would have a muzzle-loader; he could fire one shot and then would have to reload — a process taking several seconds, during which time he could be subdued by the others in the room.* A man with a pistol could fire two shots before having to reload.

I strongly suspect that, had they been given this trans-temporal insight, the founding fathers would have made the wording of their second amendment even more explicit.

* The Ferguson Rifle was the first breech-loader of the weapons used in the Revolutionary War. Its rate of fire was faster than that of a muzzle-loader (6 to 10 rounds per minute in expert hands), but it was expensive and unreliable.

Jesse #54:

A very good comment.

I agree with everything you say.

However, given that several states do allow conceal carry on campus, if a person were carrying, do you really think Greg's advice is necessary?

Avoid sensitive subjects?

Why? Are people who carry more likely to just haul off and punch you or shoot you if you bring up a sensitive subject?

If anything, I think it goes the other way.

Just one persons opinion.

Mind reading across time is a pretty tricky business.

You could be right.

However, I think that given that they had just finished revolting against the British, who had a nasty habit of taking away peoples guns, that they would not have made the amendment more explicit.

There were no grocery stores in 1776 - no supermarkets.

Most people had to hunt for some food.

Every state had a militia law, and they all required the men to show up with a long gun and a certain amount of ammo. Why? Because they assumed everybody had a long gun, so it was BYOG.

The whole militia angle assumes that every single able bodied man in the country had a rifle.

But that reading of the amendment was rejected in Heller.

So the 2nd amendment is a personal right, just like the free speech right, the right against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to counsel, and so forth.

I suspect that we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg on courts interpreting the "bear" portion of the amendment.

Most of the cases have been about the "keep" portion.

We will see.

RickA - the problem is that with concealed carry it's even worse -- you never know who in the class is a nutjob. Absent allowing firearms, the odds of having to deal with an armed nutjob drop relative to what you'd have if people are just allowed to bring guns everywhere.

College classes can make people uncomfortable. And you never know when you're going to have some kid who just gets mad. This is why I don't really think anyone should be carrying. There are lots of situations where with no gun people just haul off and punch each other, but with a gun present someone shoots. It's physically easier, after all. So yes, people carrying guns are not more likely to do violence in themselves but the consequences of that violence will be worse. To put it another way: I might have a population where every person has a 10 percent chance of getting violent enough to attack another person because they heard something they don't like. But if everyone has a gun the odds of the violence being lethal are increased exponentially, unless you assume that all the gun-carriers have Zen master-like self-control.

So even if you assume that gun-carriers are no more likely to get violent, you still have the problem of the effects of that violence.

After all, New Yorkers are no more less or more likely to drive when drunk. But since in Manhattan few people drive in the first place, the number of drunk driving deaths is small relative to the population. In Queens it's larger, because more people have cars there. Nobody is saying that the 718 area code magically makes you a lush.

You're also sort of assuming you could spot the ones who are going to go postal ahead of time. You can't, not often. If you keep the campuses gun-free the guy who wants to go postal (and it's almost always a guy) might scream and yell and say f-ed up stuff but he can't do much damage and you can get him help. Put a gun anywhere they can get it and the result will be bad. The decision to do violence on anyone is never usually well thought out unless you are Ted Bundy León the assassin or El Chapo.

With guns in a classroom the professor now has to not only worry about whether some kid gets upset and wants to call him or her a devil or whatever, but now there's a mandate that the person can be armed in a way that poses a danger to every other person in the room.

Jesse: Well-written explanations.

Synopsis for RickA: You possess poor judgment on this subject.

(Stop laughing, everyone. Okay, "RickA, you've exhibited poor judgment on every topic discussed on this blog site...")

Well, than I recommend avoiding teaching in Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, Texas and Wisconsin.

The issue isn't that carrying makes every individual more dangerous, the issue is that people who think they need to carry because of the widespread issue of crime, and who believe in the myth that assaults by strangers with guns are easily defended with one's own gun are so detached from reality that they have a small distance to travel to become the danger.
People like our resident loonatarian troll who assert every angry student (or person in a meeting, etc) is as dangerous as every other one, whether armed or not, are simply unwilling (or, more likely, unable) to think about things in an rational manner.

Synopsis for RickA: You possess poor judgment on this subject.

They're coming fast & furious these days:

"Five people were dead, including a suspected gunman, following a shooting and standoff with police at a home in Washington state on Friday, Mason County authorities said.

"Mason County Sheriff Deputy Chief Ryan Spurling said that a man called law enforcement on Friday morning and reported that he shot two children, a woman and another person. Then the suspect apparently came outside the home and shot himself.

"The county sheriff's office confirmed in a Twitter posting that four victims and a suspect were dead."

This thread has really been sidetracked into a discussion of libertarianism and gun rights in general. I'd like to take it back to a statement in the original post:

". . . the slide does a good job of demonstrating the likely effect on faculty student relationships under the conditions where students are more likely to pull out a handgun and plug the professor."

Does the available data support this? Is this in fact likely? We now have experience with campus concealed carry in Utah since 2007 and in seven other states more recently. Can anybody point me to any incident where a concealed carry licensee on campus got upset about a grade or classroom discussion and pulled out a gun and "plugged" a professor (notice the Wild West rhetoric)? Or any report of an actual chilling effect because of fear a student might have a gun?

Or is this an excellent example of hoplophobia, an irrational aversion to weapons?

Christopher Winter (#27) points us to a news report with the headline, "Utah teacher wounded when gun discharges in toilet".

This was about a primary school teacher, not anything happening on a university campus, and involved a teacher who apparently shot a toilet, not a student plugging or threatening to plug a professor.

One of the reasons the late Jeff Cooper coined the term 'hoplophobia' was his observation that some people suffer under the delusion that weapons have a mind of their own. The news report that Mr. Winter refers us to shows this mindset; the firearm just discharged. Well, firearms don't just discharge. Something or someone has to pull the trigger. My guess is that this primary school teacher got her handgun tangled in her clothes when removing the gun in order to use the toilet.

My assertion is that the Powerpoint slide is a perfect example of hoplophobia and that none of the "likely effects" are in fact likely.

It's a truism that politicians use fear to rouse support. My observation is that both left and right do this, just different fears.

@Enon-- it isn't that weapons have a mind of their own. It's that there's a massive Dunning-Kreuger effect when it comes to their use. Especially with firearms.

My own observation is that few people will tell me I am wrong when I tell them that to use a sword, sai, staff or knife properly they need training. A lot of it. And this is with weapons that you really can't accidentally use to hurt anyone, except maybe yourself.

With guns? All of a sudden everyone thinks they are Dirty Harry or Annie Oakley. I suspect it's because on TV nobody ever sees the training that soldiers go through in the actual use of a firearm (in this case a standardized one) that often. Nobody sees all the times Private Smith nearly blew his hand off because he tried to force a round into a chamber or Corporal Jones f-ed up reassembly and suffered permanent eye damage. Or when PFC Brown accidentally fired his rifle because he wasn't watching the safety and nearly killed the guy on the other side of the field. This happens rather a lot more than we'd like (though the military, precisely because they train rather strictly, keeps it to a minimum).

Anyhow, point is, what you're asking for is data that hasn't been gathered yet (and in fat the CDC is now prohibited from doing so) but it is a fact (as cited by a couple of people on PZ's thread) that in many states that allow for carrying of firearms (and there's a neat Vox video that shows this graph as well) even if the rate of violence stays the same, the lethality goes up.

One can look at this cross-nationally too -- you're more likely to be burglarized in the Netherlands than in the US, but a LOT fewer people die in homicides and assaults. So crime in itself isn't the issue; there's the type of crime and in the US we seem to have a thing for doing shit that gets people shot in situations where absent a gun, you might have an assault.

More to your point, we've had several cases of mass shootings on campuses. In almost all of those carrying a gun in the surrounding area was quite legal and normal. So clearly we have a problem.

You're asking for a very specific set of circumstances -- evidence that someone got mad at a specific professor and shot them. The issue is that even if that hasn't happened yet allowing people to carry guns into a classroom almost guarantees that it WILL, sooner or later.

Do you honestly think that people who carry guns have more self-control, or are just less fallible than the rest of us? I am not going to bet on that.

No, I don't think weapons have a mind of their own. Cars don't have a mind of their own either, but we don't let people drive when they get drunk. Guns on a college campus is like giving out car keys at the door of a bar. (Especially given the college student penchant for alcohol consumption).

It's not an irrational fear of weapons to not allow firearms on an airplane, where an accidental discharge could literally kill everyone on board. (What do you think happens when a bullet goes through the wall of an airliner at 30,000 feet?) I don't think it's particularly irrational to worry that in a population of people who are skewed to bad decision making (teenagers and young adults) that allowing them to carry weapons that can kill at distance and multiple times is a bad idea.

I don't let anyone touch a weapon in my classes until they have shown me a level of discipline that satisfies me that they aren't going to be stupid about it. We can't apply that on a college campus. Sorry, we can't have nice things.

... the late Jeff Cooper coined the term ‘hoplophobia’ ...

I wish to coin the term "Hoplophilia" (assuming it hasn't been already):

Hoplophilia
n.:
The irrational love of or frequent desire to be armed with deadly weapons, especially due to an irrational, unsubstantiated belief that such weapons (esp. guns) covey safety and invulnerability, often coupled with excessive, compulsive feelings of physical insecurity bordering on sociopathic paranoia.

"...we don’t let people drive when they get drunk..."

And at a certain point (when you get old, clumsy and befuddled) hopefully somebody will take the keys away... You have to wonder how many of these gun fanatics are old coots with sundowners.

@Jesse #65

You wrote, "Anyhow, point is, what you’re asking for is data that hasn’t been gathered yet (and in fat the CDC is now prohibited from doing so). . ."

This is false. Congress prohibited the CDC from publishing research that advocated or promoted gun control. They were never prohibited from gathering and publishing data. How else would I know that there were 11,208 firearm homicides in this country in 2013?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Unfortunately, you can't pull out shootings on college campuses from the CDC data and there doesn't appear to any centralized collection of this data. However, there are any number of news stories quoting university spokespersons or heads of security saying over and over, nope - no incidents with concealed carry on our campus. This is typical:

http://idahoreporter.com/33557/concealed-carry-caused-much-problem-utah…

I did a lot of searching. The most I could come up with was a student dropping a handgun in a library and a few incidents where students exposed their concealed weapons and were questioned by campus police to make sure they had permits.

@Jesse #65

You wrote: "The issue is that even if that hasn’t happened yet allowing people to carry guns into a classroom almost guarantees that it WILL, sooner or later."

It's impossible to argue that sooner or later some angry student won't plug a professor in class. However, it's highly unlikely for these reasons:

1. We now have about twenty years cumulative data concerning campus concealed carry in a variety of states. As far as I have been able to determine, there have been zero incidents of students carrying legally concealed weapons plugging their professors or fellow students in anger. There have been a small number of incidents where students shot professors or professors shot other professors, none of which involved legally concealed firearms.

2. Most jurisdictions only issue concealed carry permits to those 21 years old, automatically excluding the most emotionally immature students.

3. Concealed carry permittees are among the most law-abiding citizens around, committing crimes at a lower rate than even the police.

I do not think that the extremely rare hypothetical existence of a possible future shooting is sufficient to deny concealed carry to students. And it certainly doesn't justify the paranoia evident in the Powerpoint slide that is the subject of this post.

@Brainstorms #66

"Hoplophilia" I like that, that's a keeper.

Although I am sure there are gun owners who are psychopathic and paranoid, your description does not fit any of the gun owners I know any more than the descriptions of liberals I read at Free Republic fit any of the liberals I've met. You just Othering.

I know; I made my point, though. The question that's begged by all this is, "Why do these concealed carry permitees need to carry a deadly weapon to class?" What is their purpose? What is their justification? How is their lives made better by having a handgun within close reach at all times while on campus? How would their lives be diminished if they did not carry their guns with them?

@Brainstorms #69

"How would their lives be diminished if they did not carry their guns with them?"

Have you every been mugged? Had somebody stick a knife in you?

If you give up your gun you give up the right of self-defense with potentially lethal force when necessary and justified. When faced with a threat of great bodily injury or death you can only be a victim, reduced to cowering in place or fleeing, and dependent on agents of the state for your protection. Agents who are actually under no legal obligation to protect you, who may or may not be competent, and who may or may not arrive in time.

Have you every been mugged? Had somebody stick a knife in you?

No, and no. Some people would use that observation to say, "Then you don't need to carry a gun." But I'm not saying that...

You're now charged with citing published statistics of those who were mugged or attacked by someone with a knife that were able to successfully defend themselves with a gun, without injury to themselves, without "collateral damage", and contrast those numbers with cases where "things didn't end up following the storybook narrative" you espouse. Let's see ratios. I much doubt that the storybook narrative you imply happens much at all; it's certainly not commonplace.

That's a bunch of talking points of a hoplophiliac. (Fortunately, not of a raving hoplophiliac.) Are you really that insecure? I don't get you as psychopathic, but you're starting to sound somewhat paranoid, with deep-rooted suspicions and distrust of civil authority.

I don't think I want anyone in my society with those kinds of unresolved issues to be carrying loaded guns around. We'll just have another case of Hesston, Kansas or Mason County, Washington... eventually. There ARE statistics that demonstrate that outcome when citizens have easy access to guns.

Thanks again to Jesse for bringing a sensible, sober voice of experience and perspective to this dialogue..

And tell us, Enon, how many students get mugged or knifed in class in our schools? Numbers, please (per capita, and per school would be helpful here).

And follow up by citing statistics of how many of those muggings and knifings in the classroom were successfully foiled by the victim pulling out a loaded gun and causing their attacker to wilt (or worse -- get shot).

Take your time -- I understand that you may need to do a lot of searching to find any cases... It is a lot easier to find statistics on gun-related homicides, suicides, family disputes that resulted in shootings, and (sadly) children finding loaded guns and shooting their friends/self/family members, isn't it?

(Please don't degenerate into "The solution is to put more guns into more people's hands." I think you're better than that drivel. Don't disappoint!)

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

This is from Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence, pp 15-16. Published by The National Academies Press and available here:

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

I should add something I have said before about concealed carry which is why I am generally against allowing people to carry concealed firearms at all. I've said this before in many a forum where guns come up.

First question: why do you need to carry a concealed firearm? So that your opponent does not know it is there. Why would you not want them to know? So that they are not prepared, and you have a better chance of surprising them.

In what defensive situation do you need to surprise anyone? Outside of fielding an army.

If you are hiding a gun, you are taking an aggressor's stance. You want to shoot. Because the scenario you are betting on is having an attacker come to you and you being able to say "Aha! You didn't know I had a gun, did you? BANG!"

Carrying a weapon openly is a deterrent. Carrying one concealed means you hope to trick the aggressor into being stupid. At a fundamental level, you want to shoot.

This scenario is played out in movies and comic books all the time. Problem is, it's fiction.

There is a reason policemen carry weapons openly and wear uniforms.

I should add the usual rejoinder is that carrying concealed weapons keep more people safe, as potential aggressors do not know who has a gun. See above about policemen. Why do we not have every cop undercover? You would never know if there was a cop around so crime would disappear, right? Um, no.

And think of the reverse. I am teaching a class. Some percentage of students may be carrying a firearm. How do I know which one is or isn't the gamergater who was throwing rape and death threats at Brianna Wu? Or maybe (if I am a woman especially) at me? Ask any professor and there's a story about "that student" who you knew was a bit off. Some have even had death threats. There is no reason to believe that a 21-year-old who gets a gun is any more likely to be violent but there's no reason to believe that they are any less violent either. Even if we assume that concealed-carry holders are only half as crime-prone as the general population, that's a lot of room out there for something pretty awful. And Yes, Zey, professors HAVE gotten death and rape threats. In that situation nobody in the vicinity should be allowed a firearm.

I find it interesting that the gun-totin crowd never seems to have a problem with restrictions on the kind of weapon that is less likely to cause damage to massive numbers of people. In many states where I can get a gun relatively easily I can be arrested on the spot for carrying a sai, which at best I could injure one person who happened to be very, very close to me. A pair of nunchaku has a range of about two feet from your arm length. (And using them on another person without knocking yourself silly is not an easy task). Carrying a sword is basically illegal in many jurisdictions which have limits on knife length -- a weapon that also is very, very limited (and in the case of a sword is a bit hard to conceal).

But no, some legislators think it's very important that people carry concealed weapons in a place full of drunk students. Enon, I ask you, even if concealed carry holders are more law-abiding, are you going to tell me that the class of 21-year-old on a college campus is somehow less likely to drink on a Saturday? Imagine the frat quad on a party weekend with some percentage of people carrying a gun. There are many, many, many incidents of people using guns in situations where alcohol was involved. I met several people like that in Attica prison (no, I wasn't an inmate, I was writing about people in there). To a man the whole group I met said they wouldn't be there if they had taken a second to think and/or weren't drinking. More than one had access to a firearm + booze. You're trying to tell me on a college campus that somehow, none of this would occur. Among a population known for alcohol abuse at high rates, and even at 21 or 22 for making stupid decisions.

Enon, what is a "gun-totin" person, armed with his concealed carry, going to do when an assailant, armed with any one of the easily-obtained handguns that America is awash in, is surprised and confronted with one of these guns suddenly being pointed at himself?

Go ahead and tell that he's going to valiantly reach in, (not fumble), pull out his own weapon, release the safety, cock, and discharge his weapon all before his assailant, gun cocked & pointed, can "plug" our self-style "instant karma vigilante"...

Now be realistic and tell us who's going to win that match before any Dirty Harry daydreams are realized and before the fireworks even start.

I believe you already answered this (unintentionally): great bodily injury or death you can only be a victim, reduced to cowering in place or fleeing.

So we've established that in the case of an attacker with a gun, your being self-armed is actually more a liability than anything that can "save you" or help you. You can't use your gun in that situation, lest you get shot yourself.

And, to paraphrase Clint in one of his famous roles, "Dyin' ain't much of a defence, boy."

Enon, you asked me earlier, "Have you every been mugged? Had somebody stick a knife in you?"

The answer was "No, and no". But you did not ask me if I've ever had a loaded gun pointed at me with the possibility of me being shot.

I have been on that end of a loaded gun, once before. Have you?

Speaking from first-hand experience of one who is not easily cowed, I would NOT have attempted to draw a concealed carry and tried to "shoot my way out of that situation".

I doubt you would, either. (Or would have lived to write about it.) Your concealed carry is of limited use. Listen to Jesse...

There is a constant litany of successful defensive gun use in this country which very seldom makes the national news. You have to seek them out on the local level. A very small sampling:

Store clerk shoots knife-wielding robber
http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/2016/01/11/store-clerk-shots-suspect-tam…

Father defends son and dog against pit bull
http://www.whav.net/cms/man-shoots-pit-bull-downtown-after-poodle-bit/

Homeowner kills armed home invader
http://www.newson6.com/story/31262423/tulsa-resident-shoots-kills-home-…

Permittee kills armed robber
http://www.startribune.com/brooklyn-park-police-permit-carrying-citizen…

It's well understood among gun owners that almost all defensive gun use involves displaying or brandishing a gun, not actually shooting. As many of these incidents are never reported and never make the news, much of the information is perforce anecdotal. I personally know a nurse who foiled a carjacking by displaying a handgun.

This one did make the news (I particularly like the fact that the burglar did not pause long enough to ascertain that it was only a BB gun pointed at him; he instead fled):

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s4003834.shtml

@Brainstorms

I actually posted #77 before you posted #75 and #76, but it got stuck in the moderation queue because of the number of links.

So it's entirely coincidental that I included two incidents in which a gun owner successfully fought off an assailant armed with a gun; one was a home intruder and the other an armed robber on the street. So it's certainly possible to do.

I don't fumble with my gun because I practice with it regularly. (Muscle memory is important.) I know semi-auto pistols are all the rage these days, but I belong to that subset of gun owners who prefer the simplicity and reliability of a revolver. I carry a double-action only revolver; no safety to release and nothing to cock. I pull the trigger and it goes bang.

@Brainstorms #71

. . . you’re starting to sound somewhat paranoid, with deep-rooted suspicions and distrust of civil authority.

I happen to live where the police are being reformed, against great resistance, under the supervision of a DOJ monitor. That's because the police here have a long, sad history of being quick on the trigger. If you summon the police here, you stand a strong chance they will escalate rather than de-escalate. They will come and shoot your dog; they will come and shoot your crazy cousin that you were worried would hurt himself. They will come and shoot or tase you. I have had my property searched sans warrant or exigent circumstance and been threatened with violence when I objected. All these things have actually happened. Repeatedly.

So I would say it's entirely rational, not paranoid at all, to have deep-rooted suspicions and distrust of civil authority, considering the history of civil authority here. And I'm not even black or hispanic, which opens a whole 'nother can of worms concerning the civil authorities.

It is interesting to read all the reasons posters think carrying is a bad idea.

And it may be.

However, in America each person gets to make their own decision.

So if you think carrying is a bad idea than you don't have to carry.

If you think carrying is a good idea than you can get a permit and carry.

What you cannot do is decide what another person can do or cannot do.

So a lot of this is just railing at what is and wishful thinking.

To change what is - you have to amend the constitution.

So it doesn't really matter if someone carrying makes you uncomfortable. You have no say in that decision.

@Jesse #74

You bring up an interesting issue: open carry vs. concealed carry.

For many centuries the carrying of a concealed weapon was considered the province of brigands and other criminals; an honest gentleman carried his arms openly. Many of the state level constitutional RKBAs contain clauses specifically stating that the RKBA should not be construed to permit concealed carry. So concealed carry becomes a matter of statutory law, not a constitutional right.

But we live in different times. I can think of a number of reasons not to open carry:

1. Hoplophobes may become agitated and even call the police.
2. Depending on where you live, the police may hassle or try to detain you, even if what you're doing is entirely legal.
3. A criminal may try to take away an openly carried weapon.
4. A criminal may target your home for a break-in, if you advertise the fact you own a firearm by openly carrying it.

"If you are hiding a gun, you are taking an aggressor’s stance. You want to shoot."

No Sir, you are projecting onto me the only reason you can think of for concealed carry. I am taking an entirely defensive stance. I am simply leaving open the option of force if necessary and justified.

I do everything I can to avoid situations where defensive gun use might be necessary. I am opposed to 'stand your ground' laws which fly in the face of centuries of common law tradition that if you can avoid a violent confrontation by fleeing you should.

Being a crime victim made me understand that I was operating in what Jeff Cooper called 'condition white', being oblivious to my immediate environment.

I understand that it is highly unlikely that I will ever need to use my revolver in any way other than at the range. However, it is much more likely that I may need to do so than the chance of my winning the lottery. Bad things do happen to good people.

Something I heard Jeff Cooper say in a training film struck a chord with me (this is a paraphrase):

I wonder how many millions of people have died thinking, 'This must be a dream, this can't be happening to me!'

I don't wander around the city in a constant state of fear. But I do now try to be aware of what's going on around me; if I had done so previously I probably could have preemptively avoided being a victim.

I don't want to shoot anybody. Once I held a junkie who had broken into my home at gunpoint until the police arrived. Since I live in a jurisdiction where a home intruder is prima facie considered a threat, I could have shot him and gotten away with it legally. But he was just some decrepit junkie looking to steal and a cozy place to shoot up. A feather could have knocked him over. So I did not actually feel I was under threat of grave bodily injury or death to justify pulling the trigger.

In the same comment you bring up some other interesting issues concerning edged weapons, and alcohol and guns. I'll get to them when time permits.

"There is a constant litany of successful defensive gun use in this country "

Bullshit. Defensive use of a gun against personal attack is so extremely rare as to be non-significant. Doing a little research and reading the studies will, if you are willing, demonstrate that.

A very brief summary of information can be found here:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-sel…

More detailed information is here

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188

From the latter reference: (SDGU = Self Defense Gun Use)

Of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, 127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU. SDGU was more common among males, in rural areas, away from home, against male offenders and against offenders with a gun. After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU, 4.1% of victims were injured. In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.

Their conclusion:

Conclusions
Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that SDGU is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

In RickA's most recent post he is tangentially correct (a first for him: I assume exposure to the truth is to him as exposure to sunlight is to a vampire): It is each person's choice about whether to carry. But using the "every day people successfully defend themselves against a crime" line is simply cow poo. It implies that stranger on stranger crime is much more common than it really is, and it flies directly against all the reliable evidence we have about how often some cowboy (or cowgirl) is able to stop a crime. If you want to carry a gun in public be honest about the reason.
and it is quite easy to find more information from reputable sources (if you look at blaze and other slease pits you'll find "studies" that rival the worst the anti-vaccination people put out for their low quality).

@Jesse #74 continued

You wrote, "I find it interesting that the gun-totin crowd never seems to have a problem with restrictions on the kind of weapon that is less likely to cause damage to massive numbers of people. In many states where I can get a gun relatively easily I can be arrested on the spot for carrying a sai, which at best I could injure one person who happened to be very, very close to me."

You are mistaken, sir. Many gun owners are very aware that the RTBA is not the Right to Bear Guns. And that as much as gun control laws are a messy hodgepodge, knife laws are even worse. That's why this organization exists:

http://www.kniferights.org

Just as many gun control laws have their roots in racism (some early state RKBAs specifically state their limited application to 'free white men') so do many knife laws. Latin culture has long respected knife skills (it's no accident that 'stiletto' is an Italian word) and knife laws in the U.S. Southwest reflect that. Free white men carry revolvers; it's just those dirty Mexicans that carry knives. It's no accident at all that I can get permit to carry a concealed gun, but I can't get a permit to carry a concealed knife.

Perhaps Texas Professors should watch out for knives also:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/02/29/10-children-stabbed-at-china-sc…

Interesting study:

http://www.tandfonline.com.sci-hub.io/doi/full/10.1080/10668926.2015.11…

Patricia P. Dahl, Gene Bonham, Jr. & Frances P. Reddington (2016):
Community college faculty: Attitudes toward guns on campus, Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, DOI: 10.1080/10668926.2015.1124813

Interesting excerpt showing slight difference between 4 year and 2 year college attitudes towards firearms on campus:

However, there are some differences found in our study of community college faculty that are
worth noting and may indicate some shifting trends in gun ownership by faculty. Our study found
that slightly more community college faculty owned a firearm, were members of a firearm organization,
and grew up with a firearm in the home than what was reported by faculty at 4-year
institutions. Similarly, fewer community college faculty reported confidence in police being able to
prevent violent crime on their campuses. Lastly, community college faculty reported more of a
concern with becoming a victim of violence on their campus and, in fact, had been a victim of crime
off campus than their 4-year university counterparts (Thompson et al., 2013). While the side-by-side
comparisons were not statistically significant, the differences may be pointing to an increase in both
fear and an interest in purchasing firearms by faculty in community college settings when compared
to the faculty surveyed at 4-year institutions. Additional research in the future may be needed to see
if the slight difference in results between the 4-year and 2-year faculty studies are representative of
changing perceptions among faculty in general or among faculty solely at community college
campuses.

So it is possible that attitudes are changing.

On the other hand, perhaps all the professors in Texas will quit and move out of state.

Which US Senators Voted Against Expanded Background Checks For Gun Purchase? UPDATED

gregladen — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 18:55:41 +0000

Which US Senators Voted Against Expanded Background Checks For Gun Purchase? UPDATED

UPDATE! This post was written months ago when, yet again, the Senate tried to do something about guns. You are probably looking for information on the more recent chance for the Senate to show that the are not up to the task of protecting American Citizens. For information on who voted for what in this round, CLICK HERE.

We've had a spate of spree killings lately, most recently and famously the killing of 14 people in San Bernardino by two people who should not have owned firearms but were apparently able to legally purchase assault rifles, pistols, and thousands of rounds of ammo.

So, Senators Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey, a Democrat and a Republican, introduced an amendment that would expand background checks for commercial gun sales. This would be a helpful provision, but really wasn't much of a restriction. No one in the Senate should have voted against it. But several did. By definition, those who voted against the proposal are gun nuts, and they should not be in the Senate or any other elected office. Here are their names:

Democrats Who Voted Against the Proposal

Max Baucus (D-Mont.)
Mark Begich (D-Alaska)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)
Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
Harry Reid (D-Nev.) (Voted "no" as a procedural move to preserve option to reintroduce the bill.)

Republicans Who Voted Against the Proposal

Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)
Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.)
John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)
Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)
John Boozman (R-Ark.)
Richard Burr (R-N.C.)
Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
Dan Coats (R-Ind.)
Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)
Thad Cochran (R-Miss.)
Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
John Cornyn (R-Texas)
Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)
Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.)
Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)
Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
Dean Heller (R-Nev.)
John Hoeven (R-N.D.)
Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.)
Mike Johanns (R-Neb.)
Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)
Mike Lee (R-Utah)
Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)
Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
James Risch (R-Idaho)
Pat Roberts (R-Kan.)
Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
Timothy Scott (R-S.C.)
Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)
Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)
John Thune (R-S.D.)
David Vitter (R-La.)
Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)

gregladen Thu, 12/03/2015 - 13:55

Tags

gun ownership

gun control

gun nuts

San Bernardino Shooting

Senate Amendment

gun ownership

Sorry, I'm not familiar enough with the US Senate... Did the the bill pass?

@phanmo: Assuming Greg's list to be complete and accurate, that's 45 votes against background checks (not including Reid, who is noted as voting that way for procedural reasons--something he would only do if the vote didn't go the way he would have preferred). That implies that a cloture vote failed: 54 voting for cloture (if there were no abstentions or other non-votes, and again I'm not counting Reid), but those motions require 60 votes to pass. But I don't actually know whether that's the case.

Eric Lund, 3 senators didn't vote.

Under the ":Haw! That's nothing!" category: there is currently a bill that, if passed by both houses and signed by the president, would "restore the freedom" for a class of mentally ill people to buy guns without the permission of a judge. The bill was sponsored by the NRA of course, and introduced by some clown named Cornyn or something like that. I suppose the idea is to make more USA citizens terrified of people with guns, and induce them to go buy guns to defend themselves (and shoot their own children accidentally).

This is what I read:

"The Senate rejected a measure from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to expand background checks for guns purchased online and at gun shows on a 48 to 50 vote and an amendment from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to prevent individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms on a 45 to 54 vote. The amendments were offered to an Obamacare repeal package currently being debated in the Senate and they needed 60 votes to be adopted."

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/03/senate-demo…

...except when they're shooting their grandchildren unintentionally. Or, their spouse shoots them in a fit of rage. Or ... (the list is LONG)

Pryor, Begich, and Baucus are no longer U.S. senators. Manchin and Toomey have introduced gun control bills twice, after Sandy Hook and again after San Bernardino. The list above records the vote after Sandy Hook, not the recent vote.

"
most recently and famously the killing of 14 people in San Bernardino by two people who should not have owned firearms but were apparently able to legally purchase assault rifles, pistols, and thousands of rounds of ammo.
"
Why should these two people have not been allowed to purchase firearms? Their intent could not have been known.

Kevin: "Why should these two people have not been allowed to purchase firearms? Their intent could not have been known."

That is an excellent question; Greg's statement is vacuous. There is no way in the world to demarcate between A Good Guy With A Gun and A Homicidal Sociopath With A Gun--- until after the dead are counted. This fact makes the necessity of strick gun regulation much more urgent.

With the vote on the terror watch list amendment, compounded by the evidence that the San Bernardino shootings were an act of terrorism, it now seems clear that the Republicans are more interested in protecting terrorists' “second amendment rights” than in protecting Americans from terrorists.

OT, Paul Krugman had this to say about the Republican Party's contribution to modern civilization:

“Future historians — if there are any future historians — will almost surely say that the most important thing happening in the world during December 2015 was the climate talks in Paris. True, nothing agreed to in Paris will be enough, by itself, to solve the problem of global warming. But the talks could mark a turning point, the beginning of the kind of international action needed to avert catastrophe.
Then again, they might not; we may be doomed. And if we are, you know who will be responsible: the Republican Party.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/republicans-climate-change-de…

cosmiccomics: "'Then again, they might not; we may be doomed. And if we are, you know who will be responsible: the Republican Party.'”

Well, not the entire Party. There are many members of The Party that accept the evidence and also accept the fact human-caused climate change is a major threat; there are also a few Party Members in the 114th Congress who do so.

My sibling has an on-going "time capsule" project, wherein he has cached (at last count) 35 canisters of 6-inch PVC sealed pipe in various mine shafts in the USA Southwest. Each canister holds a list of the 111th, 112th, 113th, and 114th Congress members who opposed mitigation efforts against human-caused climate change, and those who supported mitigation efforts--- along with their corporate sponsors. Perhaps 1,000 years from now people (if any) will known whom most to blame for inaction. Inside each canister is a 2-liter plastic bottle "blank" tightly sealed, with an atmosphere sample inside, though I assume osmosis will change it.

At what point do we consider NICS a failure? http://tinyurl.com/d65aedq

At what point do we favor liberty, with all it's potential problems, over the false security of a police state?

At what point do the antis concede that their policies are spectacular failures responsible for disarming the law abiding while the armed criminal runs amok?

If certain politicians are loathe to deport 10 million people, how do they propose finding and acquiring hundreds of millions of weapons that are now in private hands?

ron: "At what point do we favor liberty, with all it’s potential problems, over the false security of a police state?"

No.

"At what point do the antis concede that their policies are spectacular failures responsible for disarming the law abiding while the armed criminal runs amok?"

No.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

ron points out that all the countries in Europe who are "responsible for disarming the law abiding", are famous for having "armed criminals running amok".

Yes, ron, Europe has been overrun with armed criminals gunning down the populace for decades. They have about one mass shooting there per week.

Wait... Wait...

No, that's "The United States has about one mass shooting per week."

ron is insane.

Brainstorms: "ron is insane."

There are other explanations. Perhaps Ron's fear of The New World Order is vastly greater than his concern, if any, that some sociopath will go on a shooting spree and butcher him and his family and his friends. Perhaps Ron has no sense of empathy, morals, ethics, and compassion. Perhaps Ron believes that the easier it is for a person to kill large numbers of people equals the more freedom that person has.

I would wager US$100 that if President Obama was against gun regulations that includes expanded background checks and denial of ownership for crazy people, Ron would be for it. I suspect what ever Obama is against, Ron is for--- no matter what it is.

Why should these two people have not been allowed to purchase firearms? Their intent could not have been known.

Kevin, why should they not have been able to purchase pipe bombs, too? After all, their intent could not have been known.

For that matter, we should start allowing children to buy guns. As Kevin counsels us, their intent as far as what they'll do with them can't be known either, therefore "it's safe" for society to allow this, too. (The NRA is all for it; why shouldn't you be?)

Brainstorms: "Kevin, why should they not have been able to purchase pipe bombs, too? After all, their intent could not have been known."

In the early 1960s in Nevada my uncle bought dynamite and detonators at the hardware store near Indian Springs Auxiliary Air Force Base, using a driver's license. Golly, how I miss those days when just anyone could drill and blast their way through life's boulders and tree stumps. Then the goddamned socialist liberal commies put regulations in place to block us Good Guys With A Dynamite Stick from buying Dupont's finest 66% and #6 blasting caps. My generation's freedom has been curtailed.

What would happen to me if I formed THE NATIONAL DYNAMITE ASSOCIATION ("The NDA") and lobbied Congress to remove those leftist commie socialist homosexual hippy regulations?

Kevin, why should they not have been able to purchase pipe bombs, too? After all, their intent could not have been known.

Kevin could be the one member of our faculty members who believes that possession of any weapon, from .22 calibre single shot pistol to a tank or military aircraft (his words) should be available for civilian ownership - "how else will you defend yourself when the government turns on you?"

Pointing out that if you live in that fantasy world you have to realize that the government could simply call Lt. Handerson at station 3 in an air-conditioned room in Kansas and task a drone+Hellfire missile to do the job hadn't occurred to him or change is mind. Stupidity like these radically extreme gun clowns possess is impossible to stamp out.

dean: "Pointing out that if you live in that fantasy world you have to realize that the government could simply call Lt. Handerson at station 3 in an air-conditioned room in Kansas and task a drone+Hellfire missile to do the job hadn’t occurred to him or change is mind. Stupidity like these radically extreme gun clowns possess is impossible to stamp out."

Nothing is more American than apple pie and Napalm from 30,000 feet.

One should maybe ask Kevin, “How else will my government defend itself when the like of you turn on it?”

#12
There are many Republicans who accept evidence, but it's those who don't, or who find it expedient not to, who call the shots.

And to anyone who espouses the thought that our government is somehow "bad" and should be torn down, rendered incapable through starvation of revenue, etc., I suggest you pack up and go move to the land of your government-free nirvana.

Somalia should be on your short list, if not #1. Enjoy the FREEDOM of NO TAXES and NO GOVERNMENT to impede you. Or your friends. Or your neighbors. Or the criminals down the street. Or terrorists.

Good luck with that. Please write when you get there. 'K, bye.

Enjoy the FREEDOM of NO TAXES and NO GOVERNMENT to impede you. Or your friends. Or your neighbors. Or the criminals down the street. Or terrorists.

And the teams of special ops folks from several other countries who really are roaming around that country looking for bad guys. You'll get a chance to see how well you stack up against them.

...but they'll have their guns. So, ipso facto, they'll be "safe".

Nothing is more American than apple pie and Napalm from 30,000 feet.

It does seem to be the export of preference for the right.

We had several groups of 5th graders on campus today. A couple of us from math/stat ran a little lesson on basic modular arithmetic (literally, clock math) for them - using remainders from division to tell time x many hours in the future. We told them they could challenge their parents and grandparents with it. (My suggestion to present the basics of statistical functionals and Gateux derivatives on spaces of distribution functions, and use them to indicate how robustness properties for and asymptotic distributions of various estimators can be developed was voted down by my colleagues. Maybe next year. :{ )
Overall the kids loved it. One little girl I walked past had finished her worksheet before everyone else and was taking apart her pen. I asked her whether she liked taking things apart: she said yes but that putting them back together was more fun, and that "I want to be an engineer."
It is infuriating to think of all the roadblocks to education the right would put in her way if they are successful in their plans for the country.

Ah yes, the "Republican War on Women"...

Which should more properly be termed,
"The Republican Assault on Women".

Congress Moves to Sabotage the Paris Climate Summit
BY ELIZABETH KOLBERT
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/congress-moves-to-sabotage-…

Ah yes, the “Republican War on Women”

I was referring more to the republican war on anything that makes for a civilized society, subset of access to education, but your comment works too.

I prefer "assault on" in place of "war on", as 'war' is one of their cherished terms and (for them) connotes goodness: Power, Military, Honor, Fighting the Good Fight, Defending their Ways, etc.

It's not a war; it's an assault. As in, Sexual Assault, Assault & Battery -- something repugnant and shameful.

"...disarming the law abiding while the armed criminal runs amok..."

Speaking of the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit, gotta feel sorry for those poor geniuses who get their world views from NRA bumper stickers. It must be hell on the laundry budget, constantly having to bleach those brown streaks out of your shorts.

Gotta admit though, it's great for the ol' gun bu$ine$$, what with sales going up after every bloodbath.

Yes, the cancer-stick industry should have taken a lesson from them:

Cigarettes do cause cancer! Here, smoke this, it will calm your nerves about it.

Maybe they're jealous that the gun industry's victims tend to die in public in bloody splashes, while the tobacco industry's victims go out with a whimper in the privacy of hospital wards, with the only burst body parts being those cut open by a surgeon's knife...

::sigh:: Some industries get to destroy mankind with such glamor -- and so much glorification and hype (all free) by those conspiratorial news organizations. Even the illicit drug industry has their celebrity customer base to promote their instruments of misery and self-destruction.

What's the world coming to?

A 7-year-old girl was shot and killed by a man police called paranoid at a soccer practice last night in Michigan. He had a concealed carry license and had purchased the gun legally.

The senators who voted 'No' are culpable, as are all the other members of the pro-gun-death lobby. And they will be culpable for the killings that happen tonight, and tomorrow, and the next day...

What people fail to realize is that background checks do not work if the person purchasing a gun has no prior criminal record. If a person has ever been jailed for domestic violence, armed robbery, simple assault, drug abuse and /or selling drugs, or a whole host of felonies and misdemeanors, these things will show up on any background check.

A background check cannot tell the future of crime. If the purchase who purchases the gun has never been arrested or even issued a citation of anything illegal, then his record will be clean. With a clean record of a crime free life, how does that background check then prevent that same person from then using his newly purchased gun to go out and commit a crime with it?

I have purchased guns before and have never not had to go through a background check. The gun show loophole as the some call it is a joke. Even dealers have to conduct a background check at a gun show . At least they have at every one of them I have ever been too. The so called gun show loophole is not actually where a representative from a store sells an individual a gun with question. It is merely where one individual shows up and sell his privately owned firearm to another individual with absolutely no affiliation with a registered FFL dealer.

You can do the same thing from home. I would never do such a thing in fear that the other person would use the gun I sold him to commit a crime with it and the serial number would be registered in my name. That is a stupid thing to do, but people do sell guns right out of their own home. In my state that is legal.

There are over 200 million guns floating around America with over 12 trillion rounds of ammo stockpiled around the country. If people were as violent as the left wing media makes them out to be, civilization would not exist.

I do not own guns to hunt with, though I have hunted before. Firearms is a hobby for some. Collecting, etc. Shooting is also a sport. An Olympic sport to be exact. MY hobby of target shooting as an enthusiast does not make me a cold blooded killer. I have never shot anyone and hope I never have to. I support the right for others to open and conceal carry if they so choose (a right to choose), but I personally do not carry a firearm on me or even in my vehicle unless I am going for a stroll in the pasture, field, or woods. Even then it is more for self defense than for hunting. We have stray feral canines and feral hogs and a quite a few aggressive coyote packs running around killing off horses and goats and such. I carry in the wild because i would rather be able to fend off a wild creature than become the next victim of one. I do not necessarily carry to kill on purpose, but if I see an attack coming, I would feel better with a gun or some defensive weapon than not having one.

As for home defense, I support guns for that and it is legal to defend your family against a threat if the police is not able to get there in time. Of course you should always call the police first, but self defense is a right.

As for the purpose of guns, left wingers have it correct. Guns are made for killing. So are bow and arrows, spears, swords, etc. They are weapons, but are also used as a tool. Hunting requires these tools. The absolute purpose of the second amendment has absolutely ZERO to do with hunting though. It is put into place in order that citizen have the right to form militias to protect themselves from their own government should that government become a tyranny.

Sorry if people do not like it, but that was the intent. People say even if America did become a tyranny, citizens could not fight off the military with its superior firepower and capability. Not entirely true. all that superior firepower and training has not helped them in their struggle against private citizen militias in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria yet. It bothers me that we have weapons that can provide a bright flash and make an entire city disappear, but cannot defeat a bunch of goat humpers driving stolen Toyotas and firing antique weapons. either they have a super powers of invincibility, o we are holding back our capabilities.

Harry Edmundson: "What people fail to realize is that background checks do not work if the person purchasing a gun has no prior criminal record."

Idiot.

"If people were as violent as the left wing media makes them out to be...."

The subject is gun violence in the USA, not some unnamed country that has a left-wind media.

By the way, did you happen to notice all the murdered and wounded in the USA lately?

This web page claims that people who live in "more conservative states" are more likely to be killed by guns than people in "more liberal states." I have not bothered to examine the claim, but I do know that according to the FBI and religious affiliation surveys, violence increases as religiosity increases.

https://www.crowdpac.com/blog/gun-deaths

It looks like the web page does not take in to account population density. That invalidates the chart.

https://www.crowdpac.com/blog/gun-deaths

@#16 Did you mention something about poisoning the well?

Do any antis ever discuss what liberty is, how it should be exercised, how government must not impede it...or are these concepts foreign to those who avoid firearms?

You're getting back to that idea that only government can be trusted with weapons. Is corruption something to be encouraged? Do we deny human nature regarding power or try to govern it in any way?

Basic history lesson: Once upon a time, there was a King. He did as he pleased. Eventually, those the King ruled escaped and began a new nation that split the power between many government officials who were answerable to the people, making the people the final authority on matters of law. You now reside in that new nation where the government is to obey the laws of the land established for the Liberty and benefit of the people.

ron: "Do any antis ever discuss what liberty is, how it should be exercised, how government must not impede it…or are these concepts foreign to those who avoid firearms?"

Mass murder made easy = "liberty."

ron gets today's award for the post where thought is most seriously lacking

How ironic, ron. "Laws", by their very nature, limit "Liberty".

Which do you favor? Your sense of "Liberty" appears to more closely match "license" and "anarchy" than the true definition of "Liberty".

(P.S. ron, your referring to the scholars who post here as "antis" is Poisoning the Well.)

Brainstorms: "(P.S. ron, your referring to the scholars who post here as “antis” is Poisoning the Well.)"

I am proud to be called "anti-death." I am also pro-Second Amendment: I think everyone with a firearm should enlist in a county militia.

I see in the news that two hours ago another lunatic with a gun has been apprehended after he fired off more than 30 projectiles, taking hostages, and "negotiating" with police. Two victims reported so far. Reading the news, it is like I'm 19 years old in El Salvador again (but with Internet), enjoying the CIA's civil war and wondering each morning if it's safe to go to the market for tortillas.

#37
"Basic history lesson..."

I'm always amused by the ignorant provincialism of the many Americans who assume that America is the world; here that American history is History. Not all democracies developed in the same way as the U.S. Some of them are indisputably more democratic, and considering (among other things) the somewhat feudalistic lack of mobility and the oligarchical distribution of wealth in today's America, more free. Worshiping an illusory Liberty has become a device of enslavement.

cosmicomics: "Worshiping an illusory Liberty has become a device of enslavement."

Well said.

...especially when it comes bundled with a political agenda that insists on "Liberty for me & my faction at the expense of Liberty for everyone else".

Brainstorms: "…especially when it comes bundled with a political agenda that insists on 'Liberty for me & my faction at the expense of Liberty for everyone else.'"

FMLN death squads were my favorite liberators for awhile. They liberated the bloody hell outta thousands of people, and they were gallant and brave--- anyone helpless and unarmed was worthy of their services. They paused liberating people briefly when the USA Navy steamed past them on their way to liberate Panama. It's great to see liberty like that is now here in the USA; it's like I'm young again.

"Basic history lesson: Once upon a time, there was a King. He did as he pleased. Eventually, those the King ruled escaped "

No, he didn't. He needed the support of Parliament, in particular the Commons, where bills providing him money came from. His policy against the north american colonies was subject to constant attack, by the likes of William Pitt ("Pittsburgh", you may have heard of that American town). The members of the Commons were elected, and the property restrictions and the like weren't that different than those adopted by the new United States.

Our Founders would've been happy with an outcome that gave them the same democratic rights as those held by Englishmen in England. Their fight against the King wasn't against the English form of semi-democracy, but rather the refusal of the King to make the Colonies full partners with England.

Ron misunderstands history, just as he understands everything else.

dhogaza: "Our Founders would’ve been happy with an outcome that gave them the same democratic rights as those held by Englishmen in England. Their fight against the King wasn’t against the English form of semi-democracy, but rather the refusal of the King to make the Colonies full partners with England."

The pamphlet COMMON SENSE gives a fine summation of the economic, political, and emotional reasons to Independence from United Kingdom rule. The writer even coined the phrase "The United States of America."

"Ron misunderstands history, just as he understands everything else."

As dependably wrong about reality as half the 114th Congress.

#43
My point is that the persons who are most obsessed with LIBERTY as a grand abstraction fail to see how and by what it's being constrained, and in fact support the forces that constrain it. In practice the liberty they so vocally proclaim is the right of the powerful, i.e. the ultra-rich and the large corporations, to screw the powerless, a category they themselves usually belong to. An example: those who believe in LIBERTY are against unions and regulations. The institutions and rules that protect them are weakened, and their identification with the powerful leaves them even more defenseless.

#44
Thanks.

#46
Yes. Ron reduces history to a fairy tale.

cosmicomics: "An example: those who believe in LIBERTY are against unions and regulations. The institutions and rules that protect them are weakened, and their identification with the powerful leaves them even more defenseless. "

Apparently a study published three weeks ago shows that people who vote against the interests of themselves, their family members, and their neighbors are motivated by resentment that other people don't deserve living as well as they do. I thought it was due to ignorance.

Recall the USA Republican Party's "contract [on] America" where they promised to spend the first 100 days controlling all three branches of government to destroy the social, economic, and environmental gains USA citizens fought for 50 years to gain. The USA media called it "a revolution," but it was the first time in USA history where the people in power became even more firmly in power. This was the period when personal income diverged from wealth production, and it has steadily diverged since then.

The horrible thing is that the dictators who inflicted this "contract" on the country stated clearly and explicitly what they were going to do before they did it, and their victims approved.

Now this guy, clearly anti-American, is warning folks in Europe not to fuck up their response to terrorism the way the United States did after September 11. /snark

Too little too late?

Of course, life would be much simpler if my computer would sense my intent to include a link and just do it, rather than making me actually do it.

http://www.politico.eu/article/us-senator-warns-eu-against-dragnet-resp…

#40 Referring to posters as "scholars" gives them more credibility than they deserve.

Let's talk Liberty...http://tinyurl.com/jr8sxro
The Principle

1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that the God-given, unalienable right of Man to "Liberty" means primarily Freedom from Government-over-Man--or, otherwise stated, Liberty against Government-over-Man.

Liberty-Responsibility

3. According to this philosophy, Liberty must always be taken to mean Individual Liberty-Responsibility, with emphasis upon the duty of respecting the equal rights of others and just laws expressive of "just powers" (to quote the term of the Declaration of Independence) designed to safeguard the equal rights of all Individuals. Individual Liberty-Responsibility involves the self-governing Individual's being burdened with the duties underlying his share of the responsibility for their safety of the Liberty of all Individuals, and of their other unalienable rights. Lacking such a sense of responsibility, Liberty can readily degenerate into license. Individual Liberty-Responsibility denotes that challenging freedom which tests the courage and wisdom of Free Man because of the truth that:

Only the brave dares to be--only the wise can remain--Free Man

By accepting the challenge, performing the duties, of

Individual Liberty-Responsibility under constitutionally limited government."

#47
That's a very well-written comment which my #43 summarizes (in too few words perhaps).

ron, did you get your entire education from bumper stickers?

#43...how does this show favor to one side vs another?
#54...public education...and college degree at a State run Liberal Arts deal...

Kevin (#8): Why should these two people have not been allowed to purchase firearms? Their intent could not have been known.

The woman had been posting praise for the ISIS leader on Facebook (under an assumed name.) This was discovered quickly after the massacre; it might have been discovered beforehand.

Ron (#10): At what point do the antis concede that their policies are spectacular failures responsible for disarming the law abiding while the armed criminal runs amok?

When 20,000 people are not denied guns when they should be. The linked article says the 20,000 were denied guns. It's hypothetically possible to make a case that they should have gotten their guns — but you haven't made that case.

If certain politicians are loathe to deport 10 million people, how do they propose finding and acquiring hundreds of millions of weapons that are now in private hands?

Who has proposed this?

If certain politicians are loathe to deport 10 million people, how do they propose finding and acquiring hundreds of millions of weapons that are now in private hands?

Who has proposed this?

*CRICKETS*

No "certain politicians" in the USA have proposed such a thing. It is spooky to see what people who are manipulated by fear can and do believe.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/11/20/democrats-push-…

This article makes clear the basis of the NRA's objection to preventing those on the FBI's terrorist watch list from buying guns. It's the same as it ever was: that some names on the watch list may not belong there.

It is in principle a valid objection. Many have in the past been prevented from boarding airplanes because they shared a name with someone on the list. However, I haven't heard of that happening for years. And in any case, the NRA's solution is exactly the wrong one. The right solution would be to prevent those listed from buying guns, and then give them a way to challenge the decision. This provision already exists for those who think they are on the list by mistake.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599… This is a point that we should all agree to...that government watch/no-fly lists are inappropriately wide nets burdening more innocent people than is acceptable. ( A different rabbit trail...)

Even POTUS admitted the impotency of the State to keep people safe via intrusive surveillance. The impotency of all the previous "gun safety" laws is evident, and everyone agrees that further measures will not eradicate these criminal acts.

#59...no...they've not openly admitted it...why would they? NYT just did , though...do we think they stand alone? http://tinyurl.com/nje4gru

Oh wait...sure they do...http://tinyurl.com/oj5xvyp"
“Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the UK is a good example,” Clinton said at a town hall Friday in New Hampshire, referring to mass shootings in those countries.

“That was a buyback program. The Australian government as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns and they basically clamped down going forward” on gun control, Clinton said.

She conveniently left out the word MANDATORY buy back." "

"MANDATORY Safety for the Public", anyone?

Go ahead say it: "We'll all be safer if everyone has a gun in his hand". In 3.. 2.. 1..

Brainstorms: "Go ahead say it: 'We’ll all be safer if everyone has a gun in his hand.' In 3.. 2.. 1.."

Six days ago on twitter some asinine ammomasturbater complained about expanding background checks. He asserted, under the pretense of "asking a question," why every gun buyer "should be punished" because of a tiny few number of gun owners. I asked him how expanding mandatory background checks "punish" people. Six days, still waiting for an answer......

ron, I'm not surprised you have no idea of the facts behind the situation in Australia, as the coverage of the laws and research on the results has been spotty (and the "research" that gets reported on Fox, Breitbart, and other conspiracy outlets is uniformly false).

First, the notion that Australia's laws for gun ownership were identical to ours is not correct - there were always more restrictions than there are here - there is no provision in their Constitution like we have. That doesn't mean guns weren't widely own, or important, but the situation was not identical to ours. Key point that is repeatedly omitted by the right, as are the facts about the buyback program.
The buyback purchased and destroyed nearly 1 million firearms, mostly semi-automatic .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns (I don't believe individual states in Australia kept detailed records breaking this information down more completely: If they did I've never seen it). Again, contrary to the writings of commonly sent emails or the facebook "warnings" about the buyback, murders and suicides did not skyrocket after the buyback. The typical bit of deception used to make this point is to give "statistics" in isolation, with no supporting context. For example, I was just sent an email about Australia saying "After the buyback Victoria experienced a 300% increase in gun homicides from 1996 to 1997."
Well, no -that's complete bullshit. A check shows that in 1996 and 1997 Victoria's population was roughly 4 million. In 1996 they had 7 gun homicide deaths. In 1997 they had 19 (which is an increase of 171% - the folks who wrote the email are apparently as numerically challenged as they are ethically challenged). Note that whether you think in terms of raw numbers, or percentage change, if you are claiming to argue there has been a long term pattern of increase, that bit of isolated data and poor representation doesn't do it. It is worth noting that suicide rates by gun and homicide rates by gun are down from their pre-buyback levels.

There are many more problems with the "facts" in your statement, but one thing is clear: your take on what happened in Australia is as far from correct as I would be if I were to try to design a nuclear reactor.

The little summary at this link is about 5 years old but it does provide a decent summary of valid studies and statistics about Australia's program. Read it. And stop getting your "facts" from places known to staffed by people who are nothing more than paid liars.

https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2013/01/bull…

#61...I'm not sure with the state of education in the US, that everyone being armed would be the ideal solution. However, I don't believe that law-abiding people should be burdened or treated like criminals for having the means and desire to defend their families.

People who determine to learn proper weapons handling and usage are not a threat to society. This does presuppose an educated and moral people.

Here's a report on 15 recent mass shootings. It finds that in 7, possibly 8, of the cases, there was documentation of previous crime or mental illness that should have prevented the shooters from buying the guns they used.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-…

The import seems obvious: information on such conditions is not reaching the law enforcement agencies that should have it. The system needs improvement.

Background checks cannot prevent all mass shootings, but they can prevent more mass shootings. That is enough reason for strengthening them.

Christopher Winter: "Background checks cannot prevent all mass shootings, but they can prevent more mass shootings. That is enough reason for strengthening them."

Thank you for the URL.

Expanding background checks for all gun sales and transfers would be a great idea. Also, mandatory registration and permits, to be renewed or denied every two or three years. Also mandatory service in a county militia or state guard for every gun owner.

I dislike the idea of making firearms as difficult to acquire as abortions; I would much rather see abortions as easily acquired as firearms.

I wish people who desire every citizen be packing heat would go live in a country where that is common--- then ask them if they felt safe. I spent three years living in countries where every grocery store had guards at the doors, brandishing machine guns: something the NRA and their employees in Congress say we should implement here in the USA. They call this "freedom."

The last two links in Ron's #60 are to sites slugged "LegalInsurrection" and "AmericasFreedomFighters." Needless to say that in claiming the New York Times and Hilary Clinton have called for confiscation of Americans' guns they are, um, making inoperative statements.

Dean, we're told that "The leopard cannot change his spots".

The import seems obvious: Until the system has been improved, all sales of guns in the United States should be halted.

Wonder how fast the NRA would scramble to make the system work properly?

But.. Wouldn't that only be a form of self-contradiction?

Oh, man, shoulda retorted immediately with, 'Why every Muslim “should be punished” because of a tiny few number with guns.'

Watch his jaw drop and smoke curl out his ears.

(Intentionally didn't add watch his eyes glaze and start rolling around aimlessly, since that's normal for his type... Though most are mouth-breathers.)

I live in the USA. I want to have "Freedom":

Freedom from the Fear that my fellow citizen unnecessarily possesses one or more guns, any of which could be used to shoot me, a family member, a neighbor.

Freedom from the Wants & cravings of my gun-loving neighbor's extremist insecurities that warp his mind into thinking that he should be allow to possess firearms because such power will provide the palliative to soothe his aching fears.

Freedom from the corrupting Speech (influence) of the NRA, which seeks to subvert Democracy and hold my elected political leaders hostage unless they do the bidding of this unpopular minority.

Freedom to live a life in a country that supports and follows the ideals it was founded on, including service to society, personal responsibility, and doing unto others as we would have done to us -- not "every man for himself", Survivalism, or fascist ideologies.

Give me the liberty of these Freedoms!

(Perhaps someone should commission a Rockwell 5th Freedom: Freedom from a right-wing militaristic society.)

Better background checks are a good idea.

If someone is mentally ill that should be a reason not to pass a background check.

Of course, we have to be careful not to include people on lists they shouldn't be on.

However, not the idea for a permit to have a gun is a bad idea (desertphile).

Do you get a permit for free speech - renewed or denied every three years?

No.

You cannot permit fundamental rights.

Ricka: "Do you get a permit for free speech – renewed or denied every three years?"

How many mouths this year in the USA killed and wounded people?

"You cannot permit fundamental rights."

Do you have a license to drive?

#72 "Freedom to live a life in a country that supports and follows the ideals it was founded on, including ... personal responsibility, and doing unto others as we would have done to us — " Are you appealing to the Christian "Golden Rule" as a foundational principle of America? Would that not also include being pro-life and pro self-defense (personal responsibility)?

How is one to defend oneself without weaponry? How will the infirm or weak respond to criminal force? What should the victims of the recent mass shootings have done?

Possessing a gun may currently be a Constitutional right, but it is in no way a fundamental right.

Cosmicomics is spot-on: I’m always amused by the ignorant provincialism of the many Americans who assume that America is the world.

America is an aberration in the world for this "right" to populate our homes with unnecessary deadly weapons. The Civilized World does not allow this, and proves that it is not only not fundamental, it is entirely unnecessary.

The bill of rights (1-10), like freedom of speech (1st amendment), freedom of religion (1st amendment), the right to keep and bear arms (2nd amendment), right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizure (4th amendment); right against self-incrimination (5th amendment); right to counsel (6th amendment); right to a jury trial (7th amendment); right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment (8th amendment), etc. are what are know as fundamental rights.

They are individual rights and they are fundamental - pretty much by definition in the United States.

This is a USA thing.

but I disagree with you Brainstorms.

In the USA - the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right - like the right to free speech.

You do not need a permit from the government (Federal or State) to have a rifle in your house. And the suggestion that you can only have a rifle in your home if you get a permit, were it to be passed into law, would be struck down as a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Now the right to carry the gun out in the public can be subject to a permit (we call it the right to carry in Minnesota).

Although most scholars think if a law is to restrictive is would violate the right to BEAR arms, and some courts (lower level) are beginning to strike down laws using the right to bear arms portion of the 2nd amendment.

Bottom line - it doesn't matter if you think America is an aberration - the 2nd amendment is the law of the land and governs in the USA.

Brainstorms #75:

Here is a wikipedia cite for our review:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights

I quote from the article:

"This set in motion a continuous process under which each individual right under the Bill of Rights was incorporated, one by one. That process has extended more than half a century, with the free speech clause of the First Amendment first incorporated in 1925 in Gitlow v New York. The most recent amendment completely incorporated as fundamental was the Second Amendment right to possess and bear arms for personal self-defense, in McDonald v Chicago, handed down in 2010."

So in the USA - the 2nd amendment is fundamental - as stated by the Supreme court in 2010.

BoR specifically limits Congress (the Legislative branch of the feds) from abridging these few Rights and reserves the rest to the People.

But as we've traded negative law for positive law ( http://tinyurl.com/q75fgx5 )...MOAR State infringements are demanded by some (because they fear the NRA?).

ron:

"People who determine to learn proper weapons handling and usage are not a threat to society. "

Let me fix that for you:

"People who determine to learn how to properly fly large airliners are not a threat to society" ... or very large buildings.

Right.

Of course, if we were to accept the truth of your original casting of the message, then it would appear that there's absolutely no reason for the NRA or other 2nd Amendment fundamentalists to reject calls for proper training and licensing of people before they're allowed to buy a gun.

dhogaza: "Of course, if we were to accept the truth of your original casting of the message, then it would appear that there’s absolutely no reason for the NRA or other 2nd Amendment fundamentalists to reject calls for proper training and licensing of people before they’re allowed to buy a gun."

Gun fetishers don't believe what they claim to believe about "freedom:" they want people to fear them and their guns. It is low hierarchy submissive males who wish to walk around with weapons. I consider it a self-evident truth that anyone who WANTS to carry a firearm should never be allowed to: that includes police officers, security guards, and the gun fetishers who wander the country's hiking trails with pistols tucked in their pants where other boys and men have real penises.

I am pro-gun ownership. I grew up with guns; all of my peers had and have guns; our parents had guns and our children have guns. It was and is understood that going outside in public with a firearm for any other reason than to shoot meat for food was the behavior of homicidal lunatic. WE HAD AND HAVE UTTER CONTEMPT for people like "ron" and "RickA" here; they do not have, and will never have, any respect from the people they are so desperately seeking it.

Ron:

"BoR specifically limits Congress (the Legislative branch of the feds) from abridging these few Rights and reserves the rest to the People."

And the Constitution specifically decrees that there be one Supreme Court, and among the powers of that Court ...

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution ..."

That last pesky word making it obvious that the Court, and not individuals like you, decide what is, and what is not, a constitutional act of congress.

Desertphile #81:

Driving is a privilege not a right - that is why the state can license it.

That is not the case with having a gun in your home.

No license required.

If you want to change that you will need to get the constitution amended.

RickA: "Driving is a privilege not a right – that is why the state can license it. That is not the case with having a gun in your home."

According to the oldest gun regulation law in the United States (please see The United States of America's Constitution, Second Amendment), the right to own a firearm is predicated upon membership in a militia.

The issue is not "a gun in your home," Silly Goose. The issue is "a gun in public places, killing large numbers of people." Sheeeish.

#82
I guess this gentleman is contemptible for protecting himself and his coworker, in your humble opinion.
http://tinyurl.com/jses2aw

He just needed his "real penis", eh? What do you suggest he did with it at that point?

I got it #82...http://tinyurl.com/j39a6bb

That's the move you think REAL men can put on people with guns, right?

So if driving was a right under the constitution, it would be wrong to license it...

Obstreperous Applesauce: "So if driving was a right under the constitution, it would be wrong to license it…"

According to the United States Constitution, Article 1 Section 9, I have the right to own human beings if I pay US$10 each in a tax. Article Five also states I may own people. Section 2 Article Four also states I have the right to own humans. Section Two Article One states that the people I own are worth 60% in taxation, as a whole, than people who are not currently owned.

At the moment it's the gods damned liberal socialist communists who are prohibiting me from the right to own people, damn them, even though denying me that right is a violation of my Constitutional right.

Since the USA Constitution states every militia member may own a firearm, I must join a militia to own one. The Constitution states I need merely pay a $10 tax to own one human being. I'm sure "RickA" is as equally upset at slave ownership regulations as he is with gun regulations.

the right to own a firearm is predicated upon membership in a militia.

Here in West Michigan we have a not-insignificant number of clowns in the "open carry' sect who assert that every citizen is according to the Constitution, a member of a national military by default, and so is automatically allowed to carry a weapon wherever he/she chooses to go: schools, churches, day care sites, etc.

dean: "Here in West Michigan we have a not-insignificant number of clowns in the “open carry’ sect who assert that every citizen is according to the Constitution, a member of a national military by default, and so is automatically allowed to carry a weapon wherever he/she chooses to go: schools, churches, day care sites, etc."

It appears they are incorrect, according to the Federalists Papers. Only white males 15 years and older qualify as the militia, and this is not only automatic, but mandatory. Military service in the "Regular Army" was voluntary; the "Enlisted Army" was for special campaigns, and they received their weapons from their local armory (via the National Guard) and were expected to return them.

When I was a teenager I earned my first rifle through the federal M-1 Garand Civilian Marksmanship Program. If it were up to me I would like to see every one of these "open carry" shit turds complete the course and then serve two years in the National Guard or Coast Guard--- as the creators of the USA intended. They would learn why carrying a rifle around is not just a bad idea, but also evil.

#87 "...the right to own a firearm is predicated upon membership in a militia."

If you say so... http://lawandliberty.org/what_mil.htm ""Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers." Yet we also see statutes like 10 USC 311, which defines it as "all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States." Some state statutes define it as "able-bodied males" of different age ranges, such as 16 through 59.

These statutes also divide the Militia into various classes, such as "organized" or "unorganized","

That's a very broad definition...but it refutes this silliness about militia membership. Wrong tree...

People have listened to so much wingnut radio that it's now mainstream to bloviate about everything. When language has no meaning, reason has no meaning; falsehoods are equal to facts, and idiots swamp the body politic. It's the age of the troll bois! Enter RickA, ron, sn, and all the rest...

Obstreperous Applesauce: "People have listened to so much wingnut radio that it’s now mainstream to bloviate about everything. When language has no meaning, reason has no meaning; falsehoods are equal to facts, and idiots swamp the body politic. It’s the age of the troll bois! Enter RickA, ron, sn, and all the rest…"

I wonder what these "BUT! FREEDOM!" clowns think about laws restricting the human and civil rights girls and women have to abort pregnancies. If they really believes what they claim to believe ("gunz iz freedom, not penis envy!"), then a girls and women should have access to abortions freely, without any regulations.

Desertphile, to quote myself (#43):

The “BUT! FREEDOM!” clowns whore-ship their illusory "Liberty" …especially when it comes bundled with a political agenda that insists on “Liberty for me & my faction at the expense of Liberty for everyone else”.

Given the topic at hand, let's render that, The “BUT! FREEDOM!” clowns war-ship their illusory “Liberty” ...

@#93
Why are guns related to orifices to you?

Pro-freedom and pro-life are related in that people do what they can to protect innocent life. It is natural for people who value life to defend their own and other people's bodies (especially those who are infants). Guns are simply effective items in that cause. Not to initiate violence, but to defend from violence.

Items (guns, knives, vehicles) can be used appropriately or inappropriately, it is up to the user to determine how the item is utilized. Hence, we do not jail the item, but the person who misuses the item.

Crickets regarding #84 & #85?

The reference, ron, is to all of the inherent contradictions people on the right have for rights of people (I have no experience with your views on abortion, same sex marriage, etc., so nothing aimed at you).
For far too many the right to carry is obvious: the right to same sex marriage (as an example) should be prohibited because (plug any of a wide variety of reasons here).

Desertphile #88:

Yeah - they amended the constitution to fix that. See the 13th amendment.

If you want to license gun ownership you will have to amend the constitution also.

I am not sure why that makes you, dean and brainstorms so mad - it is just a fact.

Hey, "RickA!" Should this person be allowed to buy guns and ammunition? Why or why not?

"I'd give a shit if the ones on the opposing end weren't also radical schmucks. Feminists attack us and ignore Islam, and now Islam is in the West, and Feminists get to see what privileged pieces of shit they are. I hope there's a Muslim around to beat the hell out of every Feminist that every tries to start something. I hope they kill a few Feminists. I hate Muslims, but I also hate Feminists. They're both oppressive scum. They deserve each other. What you see in the video is called just deserts. This is what they're supposedly fighting against, however in the West it doesn't fucking exist. Well, until now. Now that our Leftist governments have allowed them in to leech off our welfare systems. So, have at it Muslims... Want to know the fucked up part? Those dumb bimbos probably went home and blamed white men for what happened to them. LOL! So fucking pathetic. I really hope Muslims start fucking raping and killing Feminists. It would be so hilariously ironic. I wouldn't do shit about it either aside from laugh at them. After all, for years now they've painted me as a rapist, a murderer, an oppressor etc. simply because I'm white and a male. Well, let's see how they like the brown Muslim. This is literally the only good part about having this primitive, violent trash in our nations. So I'm going to enjoy it." -- mark bent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM-wxU86v8g&google_comment_id=z120hbkak…

Lunatic terrorized an elementary school because he "has the right:"

http://reverbpress.com/politics/battlegrounds/sons-school-facedown-open…

I am not sure why that makes you, dean and brainstorms so mad

The repeated self-enforced lack of comprehension on your parts. What part of the comment

I am pro-gun ownership. I grew up with guns; all of my peers had and have guns; our parents had guns and our children have guns.

above makes you think Desertphile or the rest of us are against gun ownership.

The problem (for me) is the complete lack of honesty the proponents for open carry give: crime rates are up (not true).
Murders with guns are up. (not true). People with guns stop crimes all the time (not true - it is an incredibly rate occurrence). government has no right to limit where we can carry guns (not true - the Constitution clearly gives courts the rights to make decisions on that).

A little honesty and acknowledgement of facts from the pro-carry group would be wonderful - it just isn't there.

#99 Crime rates have fallen as people have taken to arming themselves. http://tinyurl.com/nb8kw25

As for the rarity of people using weapons to stop crime...I'd reference the link in #84 where a robbery is stopped, but this is unlikely to make the paper or the statistics column anywhere. As the economy sinks and morality is not exactly robust, does one think that society becomes more or less likely to turn to violence against their fellow man? Point being that these incidents can't be quantified, but as more people are dwelling in cities, it seems logical that attempted crimes are more likely.

Government is converting negative rights into positive rights, overstepping their authority and burdening the law-abiding public, while selectively prosecuting law breakers. (Nation of laws or a Nation of men?)

It doesn't matter if crime is down when it happens to you or your family. Stats are interesting, but if you're the 1/10,000...you're still injured or worse.

Do weapons give one the license to be discourteous? No. Violent? No. Anything other than what you'd expect from a law-abiding citizen? No. Have we lost a bit of tact and respect for one another as we're divided along political lines? To be sure. Not to excuse it, but what do we expect as politicians whip the public into a frenzy 3-4 days a week?

Some prefer to hide the weapon and retain the element of surprise, others find exposed weapons easier to access and effective at deterrence.

Anyway, the easiest way to tell if someone is against law-abiding citizens obtaining and using weapons to defend themselves is that they generally speak poorly of metal/plastic devices used to fire projectiles. These inanimate objects become an evil scourge on our society and the STATE cannot go far enough to eliminate them from our conscientiousness.

DP has an interesting line that he draws where people can keep but not bear arms unless they are home. When and where that was ever a societal norm, I'm unaware, but nevertheless, when pro RKBA people are attacked with Elementary School ad hominem "logic", it's a good indicator of where people stand.

Dean #99:

I am not talking to Desertphile about open carry.

We are discussing his idea to license gun ownership (see comment #71).

I am merely pointing out that his idea is not constitutional and he has to change the constitution if he wants to implement it.

Open carry is a different issue than owning a gun.

Now I am happy to discuss open carry with you, rather than licensing gun ownership with Desertphile.

Yes - I agree crime is down in general and murder with guns is down. The data show a giant drop from 1980 to today, and it is all down to about 1/3 of what it was in 1980 ish.

I agree people with guns do not stop crime all the time.

I agree that states have some right to permit where people can carry guns.

In Minnesota - people with a permit to carry cannot carry into a school.

They cannot carry into a business that has a sign saying "Guns are banned on these premises".

However, some states are saying guns are banned everywhere and these laws are being struck down by Federal courts because of the "bear" portion of the 2nd amendment.

For example, recently a court held it was not constitutional to ban guns on federal parks - so now people can bring a gun to a federal park.

State parks are a different issue.

But I would say to you that it doesn't matter if lots of people have used guns to prevent crime.

It doesn't matter if it is a good idea to let lots of people own guns.

What matters is what the constitution says and how the courts have interpreted the 2nd amendment right.

The 2nd amendment has been incorporated and is a fundamental right of each citizen of the USA.

The burden of proof is on the courts to deny a person the right to own a gun.

Like committing a person because they are insane - a court process would have to be launched to deny a person the right to own a gun.

Absent a court order denying gun ownership, after the government met its burden of proof (crazy - felon - restraining order - etc.) - anyone can own a gun.

Even kids can own a gun.

In Minnesota a child of 12 (going off memory - it might be 13) can take gun safety and hunt with a parent.

Some people think this is a bad idea - but that doesn't matter.

Most of the ideas I read require changing the 2nd amendment.

That is all I am pointing out.

Desertphile #101.

Assuming this person is a USA citizen and not a French person, I don't see anything in his rant which would preclude his right to own a gun and even buy ammunition for it.

People have a right to free speech and just because they say something you disagree with does not mean that another right they have is curtailed.

Now if this person was talking about taking his guns and shooting muslims or feminists that might be enough for the government to meet their burden of proof to take away the right of this person to own a gun.

But remember - the person has the right unless the government can meet their burden of proof - just like everybody has the right to free speech - but cannot use it to incite specific actions of violence.

So in principal I say yes - this person can own a gun (based on just your little snippet). His opinion and hate mean nothing with regard to his right to keep and bear arms.

I see that the international predictions market now has a USA gun legislation market: will President Obama close the "gun show loophole" regarding background checks? The stock opened at 9 cents. That's a damning indictment against the USA, recognized by international observers.

Since this is considered such a rare occurrence by some here, I thought it would be of interest...http://tinyurl.com/gl878pg

Riddle me this anti's--What is one to do when at the point of a criminal's gun?

ron: "Riddle me this anti’s-- What is one to do when at the point of a criminal’s gun?"

Er.... the first time or the second time? The first time, when I was shot in the back, I fell on my face in the hot Death Valley sand, stunned and unable to move my legs for about 30 hours. The second time, when the projectile passed so close to my right ear that the "clap!" of its passing damaged my ear drum, I flung down my backpack and ran, zig-zagging, into the Silurian Hills.

Why? Do you believe people have a choice in "what they will do" when a lunatic points a gun at them? You stupid shits, who have no fucking clue just how fucking dangerous guns are, live in a fantasy world where everyone with a gun is Bruce Willis.

Your "question" shows exactly how lazy your thinking is. The problem is FACING THE POINT OF A CRIMINAL'S GUN, which in your tiny little brain you must dimly perceive is a problem, else you would not mention it. You stupid shits are too fucking stupid to understand that a criminal with a gun looks exactly the same as a non-criminal with a gun; that forces us sane pro-life people to assume everyone with a gun is a threat and a danger and a criminal--- we have no fucking choice in the matter.

I realize you are too dim of wit to understand any of these facts.

Ron, why are children's lives less important to you than your hobby?

Greg Laden: "Ron, why are children’s lives less important to you than your hobby?"

Because freedom!

Or, in reality: because submissive, non-alpha male humans desire what they believe to be "respect." See, for one example:

http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/20/2/82

Ron and his pals use firearms as mating ritual tools.

ron, it isn't just a "consideration" that people with guns stopping crime is a rarity, it's a fact - one of those things you don't like.

Facts never get in the way of the agendas of the pro-deathers.

#107 "Ron, why are children’s lives less important to you than your hobby?"

The lives of children (and other innocent people) is THE REASON for armed self-defense (my "hobby"). They're of primary importance to me.

Why are they not to everyone?

(Thanks for asking...and I haven't figured out how to do the move in #85 to keep everyone safe)

ron: "The lives of children (and other innocent people) is THE REASON for armed self-defense (my “hobby”). They’re of primary importance to me.

Your behavior here shows the opposite.

"Why are they not to everyone?"

Ask the NRA.

DP, #111...I'm saddened that you were injured by either negligent or criminal acts involving firearms. I can see where you're coming from and that you may not have had an opportunity to return fire (if malice was involved). You may, however, be painting with too broad a brush regarding people who wish to travel with long guns (or sidearms or both).

I may be stupid, but I knew that you can't distinguish the law abiding from the criminal just on looks alone. I'm sorry you had to learn this in such a traumatic way. "You stupid shits are too fucking stupid to understand that a criminal with a gun looks exactly the same as a non-criminal with a gun; that forces us sane pro-life people to assume everyone with a gun is a threat and a danger and a criminal— we have no fucking choice in the matter."--I suppose that's how intelligent people write and reason, yes? Thanks for documenting those "facts".

Yes, Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson, and many other action actors have carried my gun in action movies...and it does, indeed, warm my heart.

I see in the news this morning that a three-year-old shot both of his parents with a hand gun, in Albuquerque. The boy has a fine future working for the NRA.

The boy has a fine future working for the NRA.

Shaping gun non-control policies, no doubt.

I agree with the general thrust of this piece, to call out all who voted against MT, a common sense change to our gun laws which will pose no serious obstacle to legal gun ownership when it passes.

However, I disagree with the author's choice to characterize those who vote against MT as being "by definition gun nuts". This is likely true of a few, but extremely unlikely to be true of all. I say this because opposition to any sort of gun regulation proposal, at least at the national level, is always conspicuously spearheaded by the industry lobby group the represents the interests of the manufacturers of the item in question. And like all industry lobby groups, this one is simply doing what they were sent there to do: whip support for any law that helps them push product, and whip opposition against any law which would hinder them to push product.

So, while it may be satisfying to caste all lobby apologists as nutters, this ultimately hurts the cause, because as much as you'd think otherwise, being labelled a gun nut is actually a politically preferable option to being labelled an industry pawn. at least with the gun nut label, Congressional R's can count on the support of the nativist wing of their base. And the gun lobby itself counts on this too. So let's acknowledge this dynamic and not play into it. Call it what it is: it's voting for the interests of an industrial lobby which produces a product whose use results in great physical harm to the American public. A public who, by the way, agrees with the proposed new regulation by a margin of about 9 to 1. Simply pointing out these facts deprives the industry's friends in Congress of the "plausible deniability" they need to continue supporting the lobby. But calling them all gun nuts renews their lease on this excuse.

What YOU can do about gun violence

gregladen — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 10:31:07 +0000

What YOU can do about gun violence

Why you have to do something about guns

This message is primarily for those living in the United States. In the US, we have an outdated Constitutional amendment that has been interpreted by many, including the courts, in a way that hampers effective legislation to address what is clearly a major problem with the proliferation and use of firearms in inappropriate ways. We are frequently reminded of this by the regular occurrence of mass killings such as the recent event in Oregon. But really, that is a small part of the problem, numerically. I lay out some of the numbers below, and address some of the arguments that regulation of guns should be absent or minimal. We have another problem as well, one that is paralleled in many other areas of policy. Special interest groups such as the National Rifle Association, through pressure and campaign financing, control much of the Congress.

Other countries have addressed their gun violence problem effectively. We can too. But in order for that to happen, this has to happen:

1) The specious arguments against gun regulation have to be called out for what they are, and ultimately, ignored.

2) Citizen pressure on our elected representatives has to be increased significantly.

3) Organized efforts against the gun industry and the gun lobby have to be supported.

Your role as a citizen is critical. There are three steps you can take. Here, I’m asking you to take one of them, the one that requires the least effort and would likely have the largest impact. First, the other two. You can learn more about the gun problem, by reading this post to the end, and reading other material. After that, don’t let the gun supporters off easy when they pull out their arguments. Tell them they are wrong, and why. I understand and respect the fact that most of you are not going to do this, but some of you may be inclined to do so, and I thank you for that. Another idea is to check your investments (like your 401k) to see if you are supporting the gun industry. If so, see if you can fix that. You can find information about that here.

The easy step you can take, and likely the most effective, is to send a note right now to your representative in Congress. I’m told (see this) that a written letter delivered by the US Post Office has a significantly larger impact when it arrives on the desk of your Congressperson than an email (or tweet or a signature on a petition), so do please spend the stamp and do that if you can. But an email is good too, and if that is all you have time for, please do it.

Write your own note, but here are a few suggestions.

Write your Senators.

You have two US Senators. Find out who they are and get their contact details here. Usually there is a form to fill out. I suggest you say something like this:

Dear Senator,

I am a voter living in your state, and you represent me in the US Senate.

Firearms have become one of the most significant sources of injury and death in the United States. Yet Congress has done little to address this problem. We have made cars and toasters safer with sensible regulation, but have not done so with firearms.

I am writing you to urge you to take action to address this problem. Also, please tell me what you have done so far and what you plan to do in the immediate future.

Sincerely,

your name here

Write your representative in Congress

You have one representative in the US House. Find out who that is here. Send that person a note as well. An example:

Dear Congressperson,

I am a voter living in your district, and you represent me in the House of Representatives.

I am writing to ask what actions you have taken to reduce gun violence and deploy sensible regulations of firearms. Also, what actions do you plan to take in the near future?

Gun violence has become one of the most serious problems we face in this country, including massive numbers of youth suicide. Yet, Congress has failed to act effectively to address this problem. I urge you to to do so.

Sincerely,

your name here

Read the rest of my post if you want more background before writing the notes. Or, just do it if you don’t feel the need to do so. Ask your friends and relatives to write their reps. Ask your Facebook friends and Twitter followers, and your buddies on Instagram and Pinterest to help out.

Gun morbidity and mortality rivals other sources

When people talk, especially in social media, about this or that alleged dangerous thing (pesticides, nuclear radiation wafting from Fukushima to California, failure to purge, vaccination) it is very rare that Godwin’s Law comes into play (the mention of the Nazis or Holocaust to eventually come up). But quite often someone will make the comparison between the deadly issue of concern and car deaths. “More people die in their cars than by eating GMO corn,” someone will say.

Indeed, we see reference to automobile deaths as a misleading rhetorical device to diminish the importance of firearm fatalities. I’ll quote from Briebart: “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) final report on death statistics for 2013 shows there were 35,369 deaths from motor vehicle accidents versus 505 deaths from the accidental discharge of firearms. That is not a typo—35,369 versus 505. Americans are 70 times more likely to die in a vehicle accident than by the accidental discharge of a firearm.”

The truth is that the average annual rate of death by firearms is currently about 32,529. About 67,000 people are injured annually by firearms in the US. So, while you were not looking, cars got safer. The annual rate of death by car has declined steadily in recent decades owing to increases safety standards, even as the rate of cars per person on the road has increased. It is about half as dangerous to ride around in a car these days than it was before aggressive implementation of safety laws, and for some groups this number has declined even more (i.e., children).

It is also true that gun related deaths and injuries have declined over time, but not by much (in recent decades) and the rates are now going back up. The reasons for the decline about 20 years ago are not entirely clear, but probably have to do with changes in crime related violent deaths. In the late 1980s and 1990s, there were major changes in the nature and character of the illegal drug trade, and major efforts to clamp down on drug production and distribution caused a significant increase in violence followed by a decrease in many communities. Murder cities (often with special names like Murderapolis for Minneapolis) emerged temporarily around that time as organized gangs changed territories and tactics. From one study:

Previous research points to several potential contributing factors including the cycling up and down of youth firearm homicides (more so than adult homicides), changes in markets for illegal drugs (particularly the crack cocaine market which swept across urban cities in the 1980s and crested about 1990), changes in juvenile arrest policies and penalties for drug-related crime in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, improved economic conditions, and an increase in community-based policing strategies and primary prevention strategies for youth, families, schools and communities

So the current situation, 67,000 injuries and over 32,000 deaths annually, being one of the major non-disease causes of morbidity and mortality in the US, especially for youth, is a mild improvement from a period of chaos a few decades ago, and the rate of injury and death is staring to climb again.

Most gun deaths are suicide (20,000 a year), followed by homicide (11,000 a year) and accident (under 600 a year). Despite the obvious importance of rampage killings such those over the last few years in Roseburg (10 dead), Charlestown (9 dead), Ila Vista (7 dead), Fort Hood II (3 dead), Washington DC (13 dead), Santa Monica (5 dead), Newtown (27 dead), Brookfield (3 dead), Minneapolis (6 dead), Oak Creek (6 dead), Aurora (12 dead), Oakalnd (7 dead), Seal Beach (8 dead), Tucson (6 dead), Manchester (8 dead), Huntsville (3 dead), Fort Hood I (13 dead), Binghamton (13 dead), most of the homicides are not random mass killings. But, since the victims of rampage killings are entirely innocent, and the killings are sudden, unexpected, shocking, and often target children, they constitute a significant part of the problem.

Anatomy of a suicide

Let’s talk about the single most important gun related problem for a moment: suicide.

Sensible gun laws can prevent thousands of gun related deaths a year. When people talk about suicide, gun owners often bring up the idea that suicide is a mental health issue, not a gun issue. Well, yes, suicide is a mental health issue, but it is abysmally incorrect to say that it is not a gun issue. Here is why.

The majority of firearms related deaths in the US are due to suicide. A recent study showed that about 20,000 people in the US die of suicide using a firearm. This is the largest single cause of firearms related death.

If a person attempts suicide by poison, their success rate is about 2.5%. Cutting and stabbing has a success rate of less than 1%. Jumping has a success rate of just under 20%.

The total amount of time from choosing to commit suicide and carrying out an attempt at doing so, on average, is incredibly short, measured in minutes. (There is obviously a large spread for this number.)

When a person attempts suicide and lives, the chances that they will attempt suicide again is very low. The rate of trying an additional attempt is about 10%. A large proportion of those who do attempt suicide change their minds and seek medical attention, or others find out what is going on and intervene, saving the person’s life.

The rate of success of suicide by firearm is about 85%. When a firearm is used there is little chance to reconsider. A large percentage of those who attempt suicide and do so with a gun probably would have gotten past this period in their lives had they used a different method. I don’t have data on this, but I suspect this is more true for younger people. Also, one could argue that people should be allowed to kill themselves. I’ve seen gun owners make this argument. However, while that may be true for some individuals, especially older ones, it is a rather cynical answer to the suicide problem and certainly does not apply to adolescence or young people.

It is probably the case that a large number of people who kill themselves with guns obtain the guns simply because they are easy to obtain. Given the short span of time between choosing to take one’s own life and carrying out such an act, it is likely that most of these guns were already in the household. It is likely that many young people who kill themselves with guns obtain a gun owned by the adults in the household, a gun that is kept unlocked with ammunition readily available, perhaps the gun already loaded.

Among those who make the strongest statements against any kind of gun regulation, based on numerous conversations I’ve had, seem to be many who prefer to keep a firearm loaded and at the ready, in a nightstand drawer or some other convenient location. In a household with younger kids, this is extraordinarily irresponsible. While it might be difficult to imagine how laws or regulations could change this extremely dangerous and selfish behavior, having such laws would allow for vigorous prosecution after the fact, and may lead to more thoughtful and safe behavior by such individuals in the long run.

But what about guns as self protection?

The most vehement and vitriolic verbiage spewed to support unfettered ownership of guns seems to come from those who live in fear of home invasions or other attacks, and feel that they require a readily available firearm to protect themselves. It is quite possible that this honestly does apply to a very small number of individuals, but that is a special case that we should find a way to handle as a society. Most people who have this view are not such special cases. Also, when one has the view that enemies can enter the home at any moment and kill you, and thus you must be protected, then one must also believe that one’s personal gun must be loaded and ready, not locked up or secured, at all times. And that is unconscionable behavior, and should not be legal.

A gun kept in your home is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in an unintentional shooting, a suicide, or by a criminal who has taken it, then to be used in effective self defense (see this. A gun can be used to intimidate an attacker, but it is not clear that this is a strategy that is more effective than other non-gun related strategies (see study below). Many call for more widespread gun ownership in order to “take down” criminals involved in random violent acts out in public spaces. But there is about one gun in the US per person, a lot of people claim to carry them around, yet these self-defense guns are almost never actually used. This is probably because criminals are non-random in their behavior, and individuals armed with legal (or illegal) firearms are rarely in just the right place at the right time. Also, when people do pull out guns and start firing them, it is not uncommon for the outcome to be something other than the bad guy being “neutralized” with no one else injured.

Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited. Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action. At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. (source)

A recent study looked at the use of firearms for self protection.

The data for the study come from information on personal contact crimes from the National Crime Victimization Survey for 2007 through 2011. They looked at cases where an offender intended to steal property.

Among 14,000+ cases just under 1% involved the use of a gun in self defense. When the incident was over, on average, 4.2% of the victims were injured regardless of how it went down, 4.1% were injured when a gun was used in self defense. In the case of an attempt to steal property, 55.9 percent of the time the property was taken overall, with a slight reduction to 38.5% when the victim used a gun, and if the victim used a self defense weapon other than a gun, 34.9% of the time the property was lost.

So, you can stop a robbery with a gun, a little. But any weapon at all has a similar success rate. And you have a good chance of being injured.

An interesting result of that study is from the literature review. The researchers found almost no good studies that would inform of the basic question that many assume the answer to: Can you really protect yourself with a gun? The assumption that we should have lax gun laws so one can defend oneself, with the cost of tens of thousands dead each year, is a rather bold and unfounded one. The study is a bit nuanced and complex, and the researchers admit that the data are insufficient to examine many important questions. From the conclusion:

…the data provide little evidence that using a gun in self-defense reduces injury. Slightly more than 4% of victims were injured during or after a self-defense gun use—the same percentage as were injured during or after taking all other protective actions. Some self-protective actions were associated with higher probabilities of subsequent injury. The reader must be warned, however, that the sample of those injured after using a gun (5/127) is really too small to warrant strong conclusions. The large majority of crime victims who are injured are injured before they take any action.

The evidence suggests that using a weapon in self-defense may reduce the likelihood of losing property during the commission of crime. However, it is not clear that using a gun is better or worse than using other weapons…

Gun culture

Having such lax laws, and a loud minority in favor of keeping those laws lax, and of course other factors, probably contribute to a sort of gun fetish among those sometimes referred to as “gun nuts.” How do you know if you are a gun nut? If you keep a loaded gun in your house, if you keep guns and ammo unlocked, if you are just a regular person with no special security requirements but have a concealed carry permit, or if you think 20,000 suicides by gun per year is not a problem related to gun regulation, then you are probably a gun nut. On occasion a gun owner sets up a trap in their home, luring burglars or home invaders known to be working in the neighborhood so they can be shot “legally.” That is of course, very rare. But if you think that is OK you are probably a gun nut. For that matter, if you think it is OK when a teenage boy, on a dare, enters a home thought to be vacant and is shot dead for it, you might be a gun nut. These are all self-justifying excuses to argue against sensible regulation of guns.

Our society as a whole pays a huge cost, greater than the costs of international or domestic terrorism, so that individuals who have this gun fetish can do more or less what they want. The benefit for this lackadaisical and protectionist view of firearms is virtually non-existent. Those who suffer from the nearly unregulated presence of so many guns are accommodating the desires of individuals who want unfettered access to toys they happen to find enjoyable, at best. At worse, our society is accommodating monsters, people who believe that carnage counted in the tens of thousands is necessary so they can be wrong about safety and wrong about security.

With our current gun laws, we are paying a very high price to support unjustified ignorance and madness.

Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998).

Branas, Charles et al. 2009. Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034.

Fowler, Katherine ,Linda L. Dahlberg, Tadesse Haileyesus, Joseph L. Annest. 2015. Firearm injuries in the United States. Special Issue on the Epidemiology and Prevention of Gun Violence. Volume 79.

Hemenway, David, Sara Solnick. 2014. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007–2011. Special Issue on the Epidemiology and Prevention of Gun Violence. Volume 79.

Hemenway, David. 2004. Private Guns. Public Health 78

ADDED because it is relevant to some of the discussion below:

Hat tip

Added because it is interesting with respect to specific policies that might be implemented:

gregladen Fri, 10/02/2015 - 06:31

Tags

ron, are you listening??

Er.. ah.... more than 99% of USA citizens don't have representatives in Congress, and have not since around year 1981. Ordering our employees in Congress to obey us does not work and will continue to not work until bribery is once again against the law, and treason is once again punished--- which ending the "citizens united" crime against us will do. Only after that is done will our employees obey us.

Thanks, Greg. I'm an hour south of Roseberg, and I regret that I hadn't done my part until now.

(Headline I copied on my way over here: "Mike Huckabee on Oregon shooter: 'It was a cop with a gun that stopped him.'")

Desertphile, you have a bad attitude!

Just send in the damn notes.

Mike Huckabee on Oregon shooter: Making completely irrelevant, out-to-lunch statements to pander to an unpopular and minority political group that holds America in contempt.

Worth adding:many gun "enthusiasts" trot out the old saw that an armed populace is less vulnerable to the government. Such people have usually not been to Afghanistan, or Somalia, or any other failed state where the populace is heavily armed and government basically non existent or very weak.

In fact what I find fascinating is all these people who seem to think that an armed populace will spontaneously form some kind of rebel army. It's a comic-book version of the way politics (and revolutions) work.

Many of these people are right in one respect: if you can go toe to toe with the local National Guard you are less likely to be tyrranized by such horrible ideas as rights for minorities, or women, or ending slavery. Those were so terrible the people took up arms to end them, usually wearing white sheets.

Jesse, I would go along with a plan where Texans can keep their guns, pay for repatriation of Texans who want to move out of Texas, then they can have their own little failed state.

As far as self-protection goes, there *was* that incident in July where a West Virginia prostitute shot and killed a likely serial killer while he was attempting to subdue her in a prelude to murder.

However the NRA isn't likely to trumpet this since the intended victim used the attacker's own handgun. No word whether he was an NRA member.

Gunlawscorecard has interesting map by state, drill-down.

Labels.
Some have asked that the "shooter" not be identified, but for some, "shooter" is a plus.

A modest proposal:
agree on a standard name, like "worthless" or "contemptible" or maybe "scum".
Then, one can give each a unique label by adding year and count, like
scum-2015-294 for this case.

This is at least more methodical, and may make Googling easier, although that might better use 2015scum294.

I have been reading this useful blog for several years without commenting. I am not a working scientist, but I have enough math and science education to be able to follow scientific arguments in some detail.

Kudos to you for making suicide a prominent part of this post. Most people arguing for increased gun regulation don't even mention it which makes me question their seriousness toward trying to reduce firearm injuries and deaths.

I have a number of issues with this post, parts of which I find ad hominem and offensive. I'd like to first ask: have you ever owned or even shot a firearm?

As to the “What YOU can do about gun violence”, one suggestion I’d have is this:
If possible, stay away from “Gun-free” zones.

What you can do about gun violence is also to get money out of US politics. Wolf Pac has a plan that seems to be realistic and some first victories.

Would have with many other political issues and the US culture war in general.

Enon Zey #10,

Why does it matter whether Greg owns or has fired a gun?

I see this all the time on comment threads, and it is a symptom of the "gun culture" that he is talking about. What, are you going to lecture us about the difference between auto and semi-auto now?

If you want to have a serious discussion about what you consider "offensive", please state your position. I may be a bit more objective about the subject than Greg, since I have handled a fair range of firearms, and hunted, and have been in situations where I (rationally) would have preferred to be armed. I get it.

But "gun nut" is a perfectly reasonable description of certain behaviors. Like wanting to carry at the mall or at work or on a college campus. Or stockpiling arms and ammunition, and wanting access to large capacity magazines. Or feeling that you have a "right" to buy and sell without being a licensed dealer and keeping records.

If you think that such behaviors are not indicative of some kind of irrationality, please explain why.

Enon, asking if someone has ever owned a gun does not add anything to this discussion. It derails. Most gun owners' attitudes about this are not much different from the general population. No one is advocating to take our guns away. Sensible regulation could substantially reduce the number of deaths and injuries without infringing on our rights.

"Enon, asking if someone has ever owned a gun does not add anything to this discussion. It derails. Most gun owners’ attitudes about this are not much different from the general population. No one is advocating to take our guns away. Sensible regulation could substantially reduce the number of deaths and injuries without infringing on our rights."

Indeed, the claims about "the gov'ment iz comin' for me gunz!" that some people make are just stupid, asinine, and false. Seven years so far, and Obama still hasn't taken my guns

I want to see ammunition as hard to acquire as it is for black people in Alabama to get a "voter ID." Create a law that mandates background checks for ammunition, with a two-year permit. Also ban Internet sales of ammunition in the USA.

A few years ago I purchased 2,000 rounds for my .45 caliber pistol and rifle, in bulk, and received it in two days (about 90 pounds of lead). It only occurred to me how scary that was when I opened the crate.

@Enon Zey - have you ever flown or owned a 747? Then why should you have any opinion on whether pilots should go on a bender before getting into the cockpit?

Whether someone has owned a gun or not is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the ease of obtaining a gun makes things harder or easier to kill people. And from my perspective it does.

One of the issues I have with guns is that it makes killing easy and escalates ordinary situations. I haven't used a gun. I have used other weapons, and even teach people how. One of the fascinating things is that if you carry one around there's a tendency to want to use it.

"Don't pull it out unless you plan to use it" is a good maxim, but with many people it becomes "I want to pull this out because doing so emphasizes my manhood."

And one of the other interesting things is that using a hand weapon of any sort takes a lot of training to do right. It's not easy to kill someone with a knife -- it really isn't. You have to get up close and personal. You have to know what you are about. You have to commit.

A gun takes part of that away. Guns are frighteningly easy to operate, and separate you from the person you want to kill or injure. that makes it easier to contemplate using one, and it also means that when you're drunk off a few beers and feeling belligerent you're much more dangerous. A guy with a knife or sword, even, who is drunk and stupid can only kill a single person at a time and is unlikely to kill anyone else.

Guns allow you to do something very very stupid very fast, with no time to reflect or even slow down. No other weapon I know of allows for that. it's why people who advocate carrying a gun everywhere scare the shit out of me. Imagine a local bar where everyone is armed. Oh, that's going to end really well, huh?

You want to protect yourself? Fine, use bo (it can be had around the house if you own a mop) or a machete. Carry a knife. I happen to like sais. The targeting is easier, and at close range it's faster, and you can't accidentally kill yourself with them. (Well, I suppose you could, but it would be hard to do).

What, you need to train a bit? Tough luck. You need practice to drive a car too.

I find it odd that we have all kinds of regulations on hand weapons but have a tough time passing even the most mild restrictions on weapons that do so much more harm and are far more likely to do harm in untrained hands. A guy with a katana is dangerous, but he can't do anything to anyone if people stay far enough away. There are restrictions on owning such weapons. But guns? No problem! That says something about American values I think, but I am not sure it's anything good. It's as though we'd rather that taking life should be easy enough for any fool to do.

It's all about POWER. The feeling of, and the projection of, personal power.

The right-wing mentality is built upon a Foundation of Insecurity.

Wielding a gun is an attempt to compensateand overcome these deep-seated feelings of insecurity through the possession of and association with the gun's power.

This does not work, however (but they are blind to this).

Owning guns does not confer security to the right-wing gun advocate, because it only brings a form of physical security and cannot provide the actual forms of security they ultimately crave for themselves. This creates frustration (which often comes out as anger, bitterness, and callousness towards gun victims).

When presented with the evidence of the significant collateral damage that goes hand-in-hand with gun ownership (as there is no widespread gun ownership without the violent, bloody deaths such as Roseburg, Sandy Hook, etc. that come as a necessary consequence), it becomes evident that guns not only fail to provide the desired security, but also guns reduce security because of these demonstrated physical risks of having weapons readily available.

This creates cognitive dissonance within the gun advocate. Pressing them on the issues of these risks and on the inevitable blood letting that will continue to occur heightens this internal tension and aggravates their insecurity; this tends to cause them to double-down on their demand for their security proxies: "More guns are needed" and "if everyone were carrying a gun, society would more secure", etc.

The ultimate way out is to find the means of reducing the insecurities of the right-wing gun advocates, so that they no longer see guns as the solution to their fears, but instead see them for what their are: instruments of violence, death, war, and accidents (and suicides) waiting to happen.

Arguing with them will not achieve this. Attempts to pass intelligent gun-control laws will continue to be seen by them as an attack on them personally, because they are an attempt to take away one of the more tangible things they turn to for security. And this only serves to make them more belligerent towards doing the safe & sane thing for society.

It will be interesting to see how the investigation in Oregon goes, especially with the sheriff in charge being an amazing dick.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/john-hanlin-sandy-hook-truther

"It will be interesting to see how the investigation in Oregon goes, especially with the sheriff in charge being an amazing dick."

The usual "he was hunting Christians" meme has already swept through the "social media," with the same claims being made that he asked his victims if they believed gods existed or not before he killed them.

@zebra #13 and others

I asked if Greg had owned or even fired a gun because I was curious, for several reasons.

I know that people have the right to hold an opinion even on matters about which they have no personal experience. OTOH, I've noticed that people who have no personal experience with science, even just some undergraduate lab courses, tend not to understand the ways of scientific thinking. Also, I sort of resent unmarried, supposedly celibate priests presuming to tell us about family planning. And Rush Limbaugh, with no biological children of his own, telling us about family values.

Secondly, but more importantly, my experience is that people who have never had any firearms experience at all often have a visceral fear and loathing of guns. That makes it difficult to have rational discussions of practical steps to reduce gun violence and has produced some bad legislation.

There are two issues where I have no political home. One is immigration - just as the American frontier closed, I think the time for high levels of immigration is over, but on ecological grounds. I don't want to see this part of North America with a population of 500 million, which is what we're headed for. Unfortunately, the only political parties and organizations who want to restrict immigration are nativist, know-knowing types. Nothing I care to join.

On gun control, things have polarized between fearful second amendment absolutists, resulting in bad laws, and fearful gun haters, also resulting in bad laws. I'm not comfortable with either side as currently constituted.

@Raucous Indignation #14

"No one is advocating to take our guns away."

Yes? And just what do you think the Australian model is, if not gun confiscation?

@Desertphile #15

Your suggestion we institute background checks for ammunition and ban mail order or internet sales is reasonable, just as we banned mail order sales of guns after the Kennedy assassination. But the most common suggestion I see from gun haters is that ammunition be made very expensive by taxes and fees.

@Jesse #16

If you don't think the ultimate goal of many gun haters is to turn us into England, then I don't think you're paying close attention.

You're absolutely right, alcohol and powerful machines of any sort don't mix. That's a whole another discussion, how can we reduce the power of the liquor lobby and nudge people to more sensible behavior around alcohol without returning to prohibition?

"One of the fascinating things is that if you carry one around there’s a tendency to want to use it."

You're probably right, at least for some proportion of the male population. But it's not my experience. When I'm armed I'm more aware and want to avoid confrontations.

More later.

Jesse +1

It is ironic that people who favor guns for their lethal efficiency, turn around and promote their proliferation by conflating them with less productive methods of destroying lives.

The arrogance, meanness, and stupidity are monumental.

"If you don’t think the ultimate goal of many gun haters is to turn us into England, then I don’t think you’re paying close attention."

If you think that you are engaging in hyperbole. As is the statement that "the Australian system is confiscation."

If you refer to shotguns and rifles, they are still legal, but not as easy to obtain as they were in the past. Estimates for the number of registered guns range from just under 4 to just under 6 million, as of early 2015. People who want a gun must have a license, demonstrate secure storage, and (typically, but there are exceptions) be over 18. Registration (since the mid 90s I believe) had to be by serial number except for some very old weapons (I don't have the year, but it was roughly 100 years prior) which do not need to be registered at all. Regulated militia? Certainly not confiscation.

The rate of deaths by firearms has gone down (since the laws were enacted) from a little over 2.5 per 100,000 to roughly 1 per 100,000. Usually we try to avoid assigning cause and effect to results, especially in uncontrolled experiments, but the fact that the major change in Australia in 1996 was the gun laws' enactment, it is difficult to find many other contributing factors.
Don't bother responding with the many "arguments" (from National Review and others of that ilk) that the changes in Australia didn't result in anything other than a spike in gun violence - they really had to torture the statistics to get there, and in the end all they had was pure crap.

@Enon Zey: I have a better question: Have you been a victim of gun violence? Well...I have. I hate guns. I also know that if I'd had a gun...I'd be dead. You may be too old for this but there was a toothpaste back in the '60s with an anticavity additive they called Gardol. The "Gardol Shield" protected teeth, they said. Guns are not a Gardol Shield. If we could get rid of cavities, we wouldn't need the GS. We can, however, get rid of guns. Australia proved it.

To Jesse #16:

“You want to protect yourself? Fine, use bo (it can be had around the house if you own a mop) or a machete. Carry a knife. I happen to like sais. The targeting is easier, and at close range it’s faster, and you can’t accidentally kill yourself with them. (Well, I suppose you could, but it would be hard to do).”

That might be fine when the attacker is using a bo or a machete or a knife or a sais.

But what if the attacker is shooting?

OR what if he looks better with his sword than you are with yours?
I'd side with Indy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YyBtMxZgQs

The NRO article on the “Australian Model”:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425021/australia-gun-control-obam…
…………………….
I might *briefly* consider giving up my guns,
as soon as the criminals, crazies and the evil no longer have guns.
But then, we’d still have this government.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century
criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

@23 - true. My thought was this: This moron not only thought that the Sandy Hook shootings were due to multiple shooters, he actively questioned the findings and conjectured that some of the parents were "crisis actors".

It's scary that someone with that history of foolishness is still trusted to be in office. I sure as hell would not want him overseeing any shooting at my son's school.

Hey, dean#24,

I wonder if your realize how sad what you said really is.

I was able to listen to most of President Obama's interaction with the "mainstream press". If anyone gets it, this President does. Are we really having discussions about who we want "overseeing a shooting at your son's school?".

I don't believe in prayer, but if I did, I would pray that this never comes up for you. I'm waiting for Enon to explain what it is about gun ownership that is so important that you and other parents have to even think about such a thing.

Yes Enon, I get how you feel. Do you get how dean, who has a son, feels?

Zebra, I'm genuinely confused about your point. My comment was about this sheriff, who has demonstrated that he has a screw loose (imo) due to his comments about Sandy Hook.
I won't say I haven't said something stupid, but I can't tell what it would be from your post.

dean, I said it was sad-- you have a son, and it breaks my heart to think about you facing that situation. You don't understand that?

Maybe it's too much time on the internet. For me, sad still mean sad.

Apologies zebra - I took the "sad" as a reference to some intent of what I said.

I spent 3 hours in our local Nature Center woods today walking and taking pictures just to relax after a long week. Apparently I relaxed my reading comprehension away.

I read today that the Congressional Research Service reported that the number of privately owned firearms in America went from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million in 2009, and that homicides involving firearms dropped from 6.6 per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000 to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011.

"....and that homicides involving firearms dropped from 6.6 per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000 to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011."

Indeed, cleaner air and water, and the end of the Bush2 Recession, and an increasing secular population, has lowered the number of almost all crimes in the USA.

I am an Australian, and maybe Enon Zey's comment about the Australian model gives me some right to comment.

I am a great admirer of the US, which has given so much to the world including the technology that I am using at the moment. Our countries are very similar, geographically large, Western, federal democracies with capitalist economies and a British heritage. Our societies though have some major differences, especially over this issue of guns.

I am a liberal (1) and cannot understand the US gun culture. I have many Conservative friends, most of whom would be Tea Party supporters if they lived in the States. All of my Conservative mates have a similar attitude to guns as mine. We are amazed that a country as great as the US has ended up in this horrific mess.

I have only known one person who owned a gun - he hunted ducks. All of his work colleagues thought him a kook.

Australia's response to the "Port Arthur Massacre" in 1996 is instructive. Our Conservative Prime Minister, John Howard implemented a gun buy back and a restriction of the types of guns that could be privately owned in this country. Howard implemented these policies in the face of opposition from his own base, particularly in rural areas. It is possible that only a Conservative could have effectively responded to Port Arthur. Such policies would have been more sternly resisted if implemented by the left of centre Labor Party. This holds some lessons for the US on Climate Policy. Will any important Conservative politician stand up to the Republican base on Climate?

(1) I don't describe myself as a liberal to my fellow Aussies, as our major Conservative party is the "Liberal Party". It is liberal in the 19th century sense rather than in a way that would mean liberal in contemporary USA.

See Noevo:

"OR what if he looks better with his sword than you are with yours? I’d side with Indy."

Actually, the Indy clip demonstrates exactly why having armed bozos with concealed weapons responding to imagined or even real threats is a very dangerous idea.

Because most, when confronted by an armed opponent, are going to either piss their pants or get the shakes or both. When they unload their 19 round Glock they may or may not hit their target. They won't hit their target with every round. And in a crowded scene, such as See Noevo's, those round are going to end up hitting innocent bystanders. It happens with trained police officers who often find themselves in stressful and potentially dangerous situations, and should be more likely to handle themselves well in such a situation than an armed bozo (or See Noevo).

It was a movie, See Noevo. Indy was firing blanks. His target was acting. It's not reality.

Reality is losing a leg at 9 because, when you're sleeping over at a friends, the two of you hear a noise in the back yard and your friend's single mom hauls out a 12 gauge and accidently lets lose about five feet from you.

Reality is getting shot in the gut because some punks stole a gun in a jewelry store at night, kept under the counter, for protection, then use it to shoot you while robbing your neighborhood grocery store.

Yes, I am the victim of gun violence, the 9 year old was my neighbor and very good friend, while the second was my father-in-law at the time. and I've shot guns but own none.

I know no one who has successfully defended themselves from an armed criminal with a firearm.

"I know no one who has successfully defended themselves from an armed criminal with a firearm."

In an area where there are many people running and/or hiding, every single Good Guy With A Gun looks and often acts exactly like every single Bad Guy With A Gun ; law enforcement officers cannot tell them apart, and must assume everyone with a gun is a valid and justified target. Potential victims must also assume every Good Guy With A Gun is there to kill them.

The stupid shits walking around with hand guns and rifles in shopping malls, and in restaurants, don't seem to have the brain power to understand why sane people are required to assume the gun-holders are there to kill people.

"I know no one who has successfully defended themselves from an armed criminal with a firearm."

I might also add that when my father-in-law was shot while his grocery store was being robbed, with a gun stolen from a jewelry store where it had been kept for protection, my brother-in-law was in the back with a rifle. He coudn't get a shot off during the robbery because his dad was in the line of fire and he was afraid if he exposed himself by moving to a better spot they'd see him and open fire themselves. As it happened, they shot his father and ran out the door unscathed.

“I know no one who has successfully defended themselves from an armed criminal with a firearm.”

Happens a lot in movies. Records show it to be so rare in real life that it is almost non-existent.

"“….and that homicides involving firearms dropped from 6.6 per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000 to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011.”

Yes, and it indicates an interesting pattern of action by folks like sn.
On the one hand the cry is that guns are needed to protect people and their property from the ever-increasing threat of assault, robbery, and murder that is plaguing the country, even though numbers show significant decreases in such things.
On the other hand, in cases like this, they lower themselves to touch on facts and say "See, nothing to worry about even though there are more guns around."
Whether they don't realize how two-faced they are, or they simply don't care, I can't tell (I do have strong suspicions).

"I might *briefly* consider giving up my guns,
as soon as the criminals, crazies and the evil no longer have guns." - SN

You *are* one of the "crazies and the evil."

Also you are stupid.

34,35

On the other hand, police officers, who receive at least some firearms training, appear to be good at defending themselves from not-armed, not-criminals who pose no threat. With deadly force.

Go figure.

Yes, the happy endings of hollywood ignore what happens in the real world of buck fever.

On the actual statistical front....

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/number-of-households-with-guns-on-the-decli…

Which brings up one of the issues Enon Zey will apparently not be addressing-- an increase in purchases, and where the guns end up.

There's no way this country will become Australia or UK or Canada, or any of those other places where it is so horrible and dangerous to live. You will always be able to drive around Montana with that rifle in your pickup. But it might be nice if people in urban centers could prevent trafficking from states with few restrictions and little enforcement.

Some 14-yr old gang initiate doesn't acquire a firearm from the local gun shop or the local bodega or from international smugglers (hollywood again). It almost certainly comes from someplace in the former Confederacy, straw-purchased and laundered through "sportsman shows" as we call them now.

But I guess illegal trafficking is protected by the constitution?

"law enforcement officers cannot tell them apart"

True. One veteran, John Parker, was on the campus, was carrying a sidearm, and made just such a comment:

“Luckily we made the choice not to get involved,” he explained. “We were quite a distance away from the building where this was happening. And we could have opened ourselves up to be potential targets ourselves, and not knowing where SWAT was, their response time, they wouldn’t know who we were. And if we had our guns ready to shoot, they could think that we were bad guys.”

One of my students, a former Green Beret (who, I will assume, knew something about handling weapons) talked to me shortly after the Virginia Tech shootings some years ago. He was much less polite about the "citizen loons with guns" so many claimed could have stopped that. Essentially, his argument was "shooting at targets in a training range teaches you how to avoid shooting your nuts off and qualify to have a gun. It doesn't teach you shit about how to handle a gun in a situation where there are other people around, with at least one person shooting back. It's hard to teach us those skills in the military. Civilians with guns in that situation are as useless as balls on a priest."

Yes, anecdotes are not data points, but it is an interesting view.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/armed-vet-destroys-gun-nuts-argument-on…

http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/2012/12/the-greater-the-number-of-gu…

Me: “… privately owned firearms in America went from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million in 2009, and that homicides involving firearms dropped from 6.6 per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000 to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011.”

Desert-baked: “Indeed, cleaner air and water, and the end of the Bush2 Recession, and an increasing secular population, has lowered the number of almost all crimes in the USA.”

That’s different.
A global warmer/liberal saying
1)our air and water are getting cleaner,
2)the cleaner air and water is a crime stopper, and
3)fewer religious people means fewer crimes.

"A global warmer/liberal saying"

A what?

"1) our air and water are getting cleaner,"

Our? No. The, yes.

"2) the cleaner air and water is a crime stopper, and"

Stop? No. Decrease, yes. It is an observed fact that when pollution in an area increases, crime increases. When pollution in an area decreases, crime decreases. The single greatest step any and all countries can take to reduce violent crime is to reduce environmental lead.

"3) fewer religious people means fewer crimes."

Yes, that is also an observed fact. The less religious a country is, the less violent it is and the fewer crimes. Even in the USA, the fewer religious people in each state correlates with fewer crimes; I gave a presentation on the subject, using FBI data and religious affiliation survey data.

Did you have a point? I stated three facts regarding why murder has been decreasing in the USA, and you repeated them. Why?

By the way, violence is also associated with ambient heat; as the world continues to warm, violence will continue to rise.

To dhogaza #34:

“I know no one who has successfully defended themselves from an armed criminal with a firearm.”

I don’t think I do either.
But I’ve read of a lot of people who defended themselves or stopped crimes with firearms. For almost two years I was keeping a file of news stories about such. I saw about two per month on average. Here are a couple:

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/local/2014/07/03/wheelchair-…

http://www.waff.com/story/25182262/burglary-suspect-recovering-from-gun…

Regarding the story in #43:

Questions for (concealed-carrying against school policy) veteran John Parker:

1)“Saying he does conceal carry in case “I’m in close proximity” to an incident where he might try to save some lives…”:
Would Parker have used his firearm if he HAD BEEN in close proximity to the shooter, and had not been quite a distance away from the building where this was happening?

2)“Parker admitted he’s not the type who believes that “there’s always somebody out there behind your back ready to do something like this.”:
Who in this world DOES believe this? I don’t know of anyone who believes this.

This is a question for Desertphile or anyone who lives in an area as he describes (#49) where people actually do carry guns in malls and restaurants.

WTF do the police do? What does a citizen do? Ignore it? In my part of the country, 911 would be flooded with calls.

"This is a question for Desertphile or anyone who lives in an area as he describes (#49) where people actually do carry guns in malls and restaurants. WTF do the police do? What does a citizen do? Ignore it? In my part of the country, 911 would be flooded with calls."

It is extremely rare that some asshole will carry a firearm into a business where I live. Where I live (the poorest region of northern New Mexico), rifles and hand guns are handled by almost everyone, from a young age; they are necessary tools when working cattle from horseback when up on the remote mesas and isolated canyons, and the Jicarilla Apaches hunt deer and elk as a family duty (a man who cannot or will not, is not a man). So we understand how goddamn bloody dangerous it is to carry firearms, and we don't do so in public places and in businesses.

It's the young white Anglo males from the cities that are the problems. When they show up with a pistol in their pants waistband or a rifle hung on a shoulder (which thankfully is extremely rare in Northern New Mexico), we call the state police and the police rush into the area by the dozens. The police rightfully must assume that anyone with a firearm in a public place is there to kill people.

That is not the case in most areas of Arizona, and parts of west Texas. The local culture is accustomed to seeing men with hand guns at hardware stores and driving in bars. People do not call the police when they see this, because it has been the case for over 100 years and is nothing new.

No Pueblo Indian, Apache, Genizaro, Mexican, or cattle worker in Northern New Mexico would ever think a hand gun is appropriate to have on a college campus, as a student or staff. It's the lazy, uneducated, coddled, obese, self-entitled, angry, frightened, pasty-white young males that do, and that's cause for concern.

See Novo: Regarding "Desert-baked: “Indeed, cleaner air and water, and the end of the Bush2 Recession, and an increasing secular population, has lowered the number of almost all crimes in the USA.”"

Start being respectful to your fellow commenters by not messing up their names, please.

The association between how many guns, the nature of gun laws, and the number and nature of homicides is complex and it is easy to cherry pick and find whatever you want. It is not surprising to me that the complexity is beyond the capacities of many individuals who also happen to be climate science deniers, because that is also complex.

Anyway, there is an overall association between numbers of guns and amount of killing and death/injury. But some of the hikes in numbers (like the Obama Gun Crisis spikes) are people who already own guns buying more guns. that would be an example of complexity. Cases where gun laws are restrictive or more numerous are often associated with regions where there has been a lot of gun related morbidity and mortality. Band aids are found more often on wounds than on non-wounds. This is expected. Also, it is complex.

Overall, though, more guns = more bullets hitting more people.

I added an interesting chart to the end of the post because I thought it related to this discussion.

Sn, is it imposible for you to fins anything on your own. First did you read his comment and understand it?

Google his name and you can find his article. In case you are too lazy to do that (as you always seem to be) he also said he and other students were taken into a classroom by a faculty member who locked the door. The faculty member asked if anyone was armed in case the gunman made it to their roo. He (the veteran inquoted) said he was and in the article said he would have used ilhis weapon if the need arose there.
I'm not sure how you mablnage to misinterpret the rest of his comment. I'm guessing it was intentional on your part, as usual.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/02/gun_control_by_state_…

"But I’ve read of a lot of people who defended themselves or stopped crimes with firearms. "

That would be amazing, because official records show it is extremely rare.
I should say - it would be amazing if the reports you read were real - I have no doubt there are many fake stories floating around.

"That would be amazing, because official records show it is extremely rare. I should say – it would be amazing if the reports you read were real – I have no doubt there are many fake stories floating around."

Indeed, many of the "a gun saved my life" stories appear to by mythical.

Some people argue that hand guns deter violence. The problem with that argument is that so damn many USA citizens don't give a shit if they die, or they have no idea what death means (no, really). People handle guns as if they are toys. In the most recent Los Angeles riot, there are videos of people threatening looters with hand guns, and the looters showed no worry or concern at all at lethal threat.

Greg, with reference to #50, I think President Obama did a pretty good job of un-complicating it. He pointed out that there are angry young men in other countries, there's crime in other countries, there's mental instability in other countries.

While he didn't use the expression, Ockham's Razor cuts quite cleanly here. Is there something special about our angry, criminal, disturbed young men? Is being homicidal one of the things that makes us exceptional?

Or is it simply that the easy availability of guns makes for more deaths when those individuals act out according to their natures?

This is the kind of question for which the term "no-brainer" was invented. We don't need fancy statistical analysis, just common sense.

To Greg Laden #50:

The ‘violence & guns’ issue may be intricate, indeed.
You used a form of the word “association” three times, and of “complex” five times,
but “cause” not once.

“Overall, though, more guns = more bullets hitting more people.”

And overall, more cars = more traffic fatalities.

Maybe we should ban cars, too. It might even help with global warming!

Me: “But I’ve read of a lot of people who defended themselves or stopped crimes with firearms. For almost two years I was keeping a file of news stories about such. I saw about two per month on average. Here are a couple…”
And here are a couple more:

http://wbtw.com/2014/10/21/1-dead-after-nc-grandfather-fires-back-at-tr…

http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/Suspect-Shot-by-Homeowner-during-Bur…

Here’s another, this one from my area:

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Man-Shot-in-the-Chest-Inside-…

This one happened about ten minutes from where I live:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/suspected-robber-toy-gun-s…

To zebra #54:

“…President Obama did a pretty good job of un-complicating it. He pointed out that there are angry young men in other countries, there’s crime in other countries, there’s mental instability in other countries…Is there something special about our angry, criminal, disturbed young men? Is being homicidal one of the things that makes us exceptional? Or is it simply that the easy availability of guns makes for more deaths when those individuals act out according to their natures? This is the kind of question for which the term “no-brainer” was invented. We don’t need fancy statistical analysis, just common sense.”

Your argument does SEEM to be a “no-brainer”.

Unfortunately for you and President Obama, one of the OTHER things that makes the U.S. exceptional is our Constitution and its Second Amendment. It’ll be tough to change those.

Also, I’m not sure things are so much better in other countries that are less-gunny than us.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Eur…

From the linked article:

“Politicians sell you emergency when they want to take something away from you. Terrorists are not the only people who know that a scared population is a compliant population.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425029/mass-shootings-umpqua-drama

"Who in this world DOES believe this? I don’t know of anyone who believes this."

So, why carry guns in public?

One of my facebook friends was quoting this tale about the 11 yo girl shooting two illegal immigrants, not realizing it was false:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/homeinvasion.asp

It’s the young white Anglo males from the cities that are the problems.

Yeah, we have a bunch of young-to-middle aged white guys on the east side of Michigan who are currently all butt-hurt because one of their group was removed from an elementary school when he sauntered in with a pistol in a holster on his waist.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/shooting-outside-police-headquarters-in-parra…

They should make a law against this kind of thing. (outside a police station, no less)

Greg:

Thank you for posting that chart at the bottom of the post.

Very interesting.

I also live in Minnesota and have a permit to carry (although I own no firearms).

I obtained one just to exercise my 2nd amendment right (and for fun).

One nice feature of the permit to carry in Minnesota is that you are pre-cleared, so you can obtain a handgun without the waiting period - just walk in and walk out with a weapon (if you needed one fast for the zombie apocalypse).

You can already get a rifle in Minnesota without a waiting period - the waiting period is just for handguns (at least that is my understanding).

It was pretty easy to get a permit to carry in Minnesota - take a four hour class, demonstrate proficiency (shooting 15 rounds at 15 feet and 15 rounds at 25 feet, if I recall correctly - pretty easy) and fill out a form and pay a fee.

You get a nice card and everything.

It also shows on the back of your drivers license.

What is your perspective on the chart and where Minnesota falls?

From my perspective, Minnesota is pretty low among states, and I wonder if you think we are an anomaly?

Just curious.

By the way - thanks for not banning me from your site.

You are very tolerant in letting me post about global warming, and I really appreciate it and enjoy your site and sparring with your other guests.

"By the way – thanks for not banning me from your site."

Thank you for doing nothing worthy of being banned for.

RickA,

First, the chart is a bit misleading in the sense that there are background checks. The question is, where do most Minnesotans buy their guns? What percentage of guns are linked to background checks?

In any event, as I said above, the relationship is complex. More gun laws can reduce gun misuse. Or, more gun laws can be a response to widespread violence from guns. That is the reason that the chart is made the way it is. The blue blocks are meant to demonstrate the overall gestalt of the legal and social response to gun ownership, and this grades as expected under the hypothesis that more regulation generally reduces the violence.

Note that in Minnesota the vast majority of citizens want universal background checks. The reason there is not such a rule is because our legislature/governor have almost always been "mixed government" (neither DFL nor GOP in charge in all houses/branches) or GOP only, for a long time. We had a brief DFL only government, but they were swamped with fixing up the mess left behind by a GOP/GOP/GOP mix for several years. Background checks were proposed, opposed in the legislature by the minority, supported by the citizens, but the gun lobby won.

Expect the background check boxes for this chart in Minnesota to turn blue eventually.

ron, is there anything resembling a point for your post at 67, or are you just pulling an sn?

I agree that background checks are inevitable in Minnesota and probably in the entire United States.

With the permit to carry in Minnesota - it includes a background check - and really it would be fine with me if they did a background check before someone purchased their first gun.

Not sure how many times you need to do it - but maybe every 5 years (like the permit to carry renewal).

By the way - I should also say that I don't think a background check violates the 2nd amendment.

So that sort of legislation, so look for mentally ill people, is probably fine.

On the other hand - since so many of the gun deaths are suicide related (like 2/3rds), I think barring anyone who ever attempted to commit suicide (and obviously failed) from getting a gun, just because they tried to commit suicide - would probably not be held constitutional.

I guess it also depends on your definition of mental illness - do only mentally ill people commit suicide? What about terminally ill people?

Do we bar people with depression or bipolar disorder from getting guns?

I see a lot of grey areas and difficulties with background checks and trying to only find mental illnesses which might increase the risk of harm to others (as opposed to the person who buys the gun harming themselves).

I actually see the right to die becoming a personal right at some point (who is the government to tell me I cannot kill myself)?

After all - most of the anti-suicide laws are religious in nature .

#70 People in favor of "common sense" gun laws, who wish to disarm the law abiding populace in order to disarm the criminal underclass often point to Australia as an example of positive reform. The link in #67 demonstrates that there are still events where criminals get their hands on firearms and use them to kill people, even when response times from police are absolutely minimal (as this occurred just outside a police station).

From the story:
"A police source said there had been increased "chatter" detected in the past week relating to a possible attack on the Parramatta headquarters.

The officer, who works at the State Crime Command headquarters, said that every officer had been ordered to wear their guns on them at all times this week, even while at their desks."

So, in response to "chatter", there was an order to keep weapons handy. If weapons were not at hand, one can imagine the carnage would have been much greater.

It doesn't get much more "common sense" than that, thanks for asking.

To Desertphile #63:

“Did you have a point? I stated three facts regarding why murder has been decreasing in the USA, and you repeated them. Why?”

Why? For entertainment value.

In fact some of them are so good I’ll show them again:

-‘OUR air and water are NOT getting cleaner, but THE air and water ARE getting cleaner.’

-“It is an observed fact that when pollution in an area increases, crime increases. When pollution in an area decreases, crime decreases. The single greatest step any and all countries can take to reduce violent crime is to reduce environmental lead.”

-“The less religious a country is, the less violent it is and the fewer crimes. Even in the USA, the fewer religious people in each state correlates with fewer crimes.”

It was pretty easy to get a permit to carry in Minnesota – take a four hour class, demonstrate proficiency ... and fill out a form and pay a fee.

Which is inadequate. All states should require not only demonstrating proficiency in how to correctly point and discharge a firearm, but also demonstrate:

* Proficiency in safety issues, safety features, etc. I.e., show that you know how to be sure that a loaded gun only ends up in the right hands under the right circumstances.

* Proficient knowledge of the laws and legal issues surrounding shooting another human being (civil and criminal). I.e., know what you're going to face when you decide to shoot vs finding another solution to your "situation".

* Proficiency in treating gunshot trauma victims (suicide attempts, accidental discharge, kids playing with guns, domestic violence victims) -- to the level of being able to increase the odds of their survival until paramedics arrive to take over.

Do we bar people with depression or bipolar disorder from getting guns?

If you don't, you might as well advocate for allowing children to carry loaded guns, too. You'll get similar results in the end.

RickA, Ron,

Most of the time, the problem with these discussions is that there is no specificity, which leads to rhetorical fallacies cropping up--like the Nirvana Fallacy (it isn't a good idea because it wouldn't be perfect) and Slippery Slope (if guns are registered they will be confiscated).

So, as I've mentioned a couple of times, we have a problem with trafficking, because individuals are allowed to sell guns to other individuals, and of course there are no real background checks when that happens. This provides access for gang members and the mentally ill as well.

How would you fix that? Or does the second amendment say something about your ability to sell your gun to your cousin, who may be a little shady, or a little unstable, so you have a constitutional right to do that?

And what does it say about buying dozens of handguns and not being required to account for them-- is that a part of "keeping and bearing arms" by an individual as interpreted by SCOTUS?

These are the kinds of common sense issues that most people would probably agree need to be addressed. What do you think?

Brainstorms 77,

This obsession with the mentally ill is just a red herring-- and equating people suffering from depression with children is both absurd and offensive.

Brainstorms #76:

Gun safety and the legal issues is part of the 4 hours.

No treating gunshot trauma required in Minnesota.

I guess that will be up to each state.

Here is an idea (just running it by you):

Draft everybody when they turn 18 for a 2 week intensive training course in firearm safety, medical stuff as you outline above, and reactive fire in a crowd training, etc.

Then make everybody do a weekend per year to brush up on their skills.

Then require everybody to own a firearm and allow them to carry it if they want (carry optional).

I think the Federal Government could also do that - what do you think of that idea?

#78 A bit off topic, but suicides are regularly cited as a reason to restrict Rights also. A woman just used drain cleaner to blind herself. http://tinyurl.com/pu28mb7 Shall we ban all things that are harmful to humans? Sometimes people misuse products. http://tinyurl.com/pjfbdmw I hear you saying that weapons are designed to do what they are doing...but I believe weapons can be used virtuously. You do too, that's why you call the cops, to virtuously use their weapons.

Prisons are very secure. Even so, contraband finds its way in. http://tinyurl.com/oyvmuja That's when you ARE treating everyone like a criminal. On the free side of society, we're supposed to give people liberty.

SCOTUS is not the final authority, nor should it be (Dred Scott?). I can appreciate that now it's become the ATM for Uber Rights based on behavior instead of immutable characteristics that you might agree with them, but I won't even cite Heller or McDonald in order to dash your faith in that august group.

Trafficking is a problem, but why would another set of laws change anything? Background checks are a joke (less than 6% of "prohibited people" caught applying are prosecuted http://tinyurl.com/d65aedq ).

How would I address these issues? I would not begin with civil government having final authority over the matter, because they simply don't. Civil govt isn't around when someone wants to break the law. This is where a strong family unit and upward mobility (aka hope and effort towards a better future) govern one's actions. But when all the available energy is being pumped into destroying the economy and the family unit (aka societal deterioration), you shouldn't be surprised that people misuse a product that can be used virtuously.

zebra:

Yep - those are tough problems you outline.

The 2nd amendment would permit registration laws (you get to keep and bear, but you have to disclose).

If you had a garage sale and sold firearms, a law could require you to register the new owner (like a car title).

You could even require a background check and waiting period before you transfer the property to the new owner.

A good registration law would take care of both the number and resale of guns (and background checks). A gun is like any other piece of personal property - so if the government wanted to, they could make you register how many lawn chairs you own, and who you sell them to (i.e. at a garage sale).

Of course, they wouldn't do it for lawn chairs - but they could if they wanted.

Same thing for guns - they could if they wanted.

I am not advocating this - just saying how your problems could be addressed with a constitutional law.

You could also make it illegal to resell a gun with no serial no. - but that is already illegal and happens all the time so never mind.

Criminals will not abide by any of the laws I am talking about anyway.

Brainstorms #77:

I doubt the depressed or bipolar would agree with you.

How long would you preclude them from getting a gun?

What if a depressed woman had a stalker?

What if a depressed woman had a restraining order?

What if a depressed person had completed treatment and were not symptomatic?
For 1 year or 5 or 10 or 20?

What if you were misdiagnosed as depressed?

You see the legal morass you are getting into with this line of thinking?

Lots of potential problems.

Still, I am sure something fairly minor could be enacted - but I am not sure how much good it will do.

It is a little bit like passing a law wishing that people would just be nice to each other.

zebra, I was not equating people suffering from depression with children. Accusing me of doing so is both absurd and offensive.

I was equating outcomes from giving both groups loaded weapons.

I expect you to discern the difference.

Apparently sn is also ignorant of any results from social statistics, and doesn't think environmental lead is a hazard (or if it is people should just move away). That's the result of never learning math past basic addition and subtraction and never studying "anything that doesn't have a direct application" - at least in his point of view.

Here in Michigan the city of Flint has been having no end of problems with its water supply since a governor-appointed city manager moved them off a supply of water from Detroit "to save money". The reason they were on Detroit water was because of problems with the infrastructure in Flint being outdated, with massive lead problems. Now tests show the local water, in homes and schools, has nasty high lead levels (not that there is a safe lead level) and the recommendation from government to date has been: don't drink the water, buy bottled water. Not a viable option for many of the residents of the city, or for the school district. (Of course, as one tea-bager in the region said on a news site, "If a kid's family can't afford bottled water he wouldn't have a chance of success anyway." Right up sn's alley, write off a generation because they don't have the benefits he enjoys. We also know that the local/state government had not done the required safety/health investigations of the infrastructure, and did not have a plan in place to deal with problems such as this.

http://flintwaterstudy.org/2015/09/commentary-mdeq-mistakes-deception-f…

Thanks Governor Snyder.

(Latest discussions lean toward putting the city back on the pipeline from Detroit, but without the state picking up the tab, leaving that for the city. Because why should a state government be concerned with the health of residents it put at danger?)

The link in #67 demonstrates that there are still events where criminals get their hands on firearms and use them to kill people,

Yes it does. The only people who try to claim that the types of laws discussed here will magically stop people who want to get a gun and do something from doing it are the people misrepresenting the intent of the laws.
The point is that we have ample evidence that shows such laws do not hinder gun rights but do result in a reduction of gun crime - partly by their existence, partly by the increased enforcement.

Rick A

"Criminals will not abide by any of the laws I am talking about anyway."

As opposed to the kind of laws criminals will abide by?

So, you are basically making the Nirvana Fallacy argument. It will not be perfect. But no laws are perfect in their implementation, so you would then logically have to argue that we should have no laws at all. You are obviously smarter than that, but you are trying to defend an indefensible position.

The government doesn't register lawn chair sales because it can't demonstrate a compelling interest. It does regulate automobile sales. That's because autos are items that can be stolen easily and resold, and requiring title transfers inhibits that process. Not perfectly, since VIN numbers can also be fudged, but it makes it much riskier and not nearly as profitable net.

There is no reason for anyone to buy dozens of handguns, but even if you argue that you are a collector, you should not object to demonstrating that the items are in your possession on demand. If, indeed, we have a law that requires sales to be made through licensed businesses or registered with at state agency, that's hardly a burden.

I think Hillary and Bernie (and Biden?) should put ‘more aggressive gun control measures’ at the top of their respective presidential platforms.

Don’t you?

RickA #83: You see the legal morass you are getting into with this line of thinking? Lots of potential problems.

These are not hypotheticals; we already have analogues in our laws:

Someone is diagnosed with epilepsy or macular degeneration... Does the DMV allow them to keep their driver's license?

Do you want them to?

Why does the DMV not allow 14-year-olds to get a driver's license?

Do you want them to?

How about for convicted drink drivers?

"You see the legal morass you are already in with this line of thinking? Lots of potential problems."

88 "I think Hillary and Bernie (and Biden?) should put ‘more aggressive gun control measures’ at the top of their respective presidential platforms."

Why do you think that?

"I think Hillary and Bernie (and Biden?) should put ‘more aggressive gun control measures’ at the top of their respective presidential platforms."

Why do you think that?

He doesn't "think" it, I suspect. He wishes to believe that politicians who say they wish to prevent firearm murders are committing political suicide; he is of course correct--- the USA's culture of death and fear would never allow voters to support measures preventing murder by hand guns and rifles. USA citizens love killing and mailing people easily and from a distance: it's as American as Napalm from 30,000 feet.

I like the idea being spread around Facebook at the moment:

“How about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion — mandatory 48-hr waiting period, parental permission, a note from his doctor proving he understands what he’s about to do, a video he has to watch about the effects of gun violence, an ultrasound wand up the ass (just because).

“Let’s close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a strange town to get a gun. Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun.

It makes more sense to do this with young men and guns than with women and health care, right? I mean, no woman getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in seconds, right?”

To Desertphile #91:

“I mean, no woman getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in seconds, right?”

Right. But tens of millions of women have killed over 55 million other people in the U.S. in the last 40 years.

"Right. But tens of millions of women have killed over 55 million other people in the U.S. in the last 40 years."

Heh. Why was that not mentioned in any news media?

To Desertphile:

You’re ready and willing to surrender your .45 caliber pistol and rifle and 2,000 rounds, aren’t you?

I wouldn’t be.

But you are, right?

"You’re ready and willing to surrender your .45 caliber pistol and rifle and 2,000 rounds, aren’t you?"

Huh? I don't get it, sorry. Why in the world would I wish to "surrender" my weapons?

Heard this on the radio news today :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-06/us-boy-kills-eight-year-old-girl-…

This sort of ... just has to stop doesn't it?

@88. See Noevo : I think Obama should act and start adding reasonable gun laws into the US legal system right now. I think the other politicians form both parties should support him on that too.

I wish I could see that happen although I know it won't.

To Greg Laden #90:

Me: “I think Hillary and Bernie (and Biden?) should put ‘more aggressive gun control measures’ at the top of their respective presidential platforms. Don’t you?”

You: “Why do you think that?”

Well, for starters, for all the reasons you cite.
Please re-read both your piece and President Obama’s statement http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/10/02/president-obamas-statement….

At a minimum, ‘more aggressive gun control measures’ should be in the top two of their platform positions.

The other, of course, would be ‘more aggressive measures to combat anthropogenic global warming/climate change’.

And the more detailed the policy positions with their impacts on the various stakeholders, the better.

It’s the only right and decent thing to do, for them and for you.

@Brainstorms,

The incident StevoR references should give some insight into why you can't focus on the mentally ill in this context. The issue is the gun culture, not the aberrant behavior of the individual.

When I was in elementary school, there was this classic bully-- the kid who got a growth spurt, and was also really heavy (for those days), and who physically tormented everyone during recess. One day, he tormented me one too many times-- the really skinny little kid in the class. It was my first fight, and I had no clue what I was doing-- but I had rage, and I was fast and well coordinated. I remember this still because I went far beyond knocking him down, and got in some serious trouble over it. No psych counseling unfortunately in those days, and it took a lot of time and trouble before I worked it (mostly) out.

But there was no shotgun in the schoolyard, and in all the tv westerns I watched, the good guy never pulled his gun except as a last resort. If not for that rage, I might have been the hero, and maybe there would have been a hollywood ending where we became good buddies as we matured.

If you look at the rage shooters-- ex-wife, family, that little girl-- it is pretty much what I did as a child. They lose it, but the culture says shooting is the first resort, and the guns are there. No chance at all for a hollywood ending, or even eventually growing up and rejecting violence.

If you look at the history of most of the planned mass shooters, they are not hearing voices or hallucinating. They have personality issues, and are immature, and internalize some distorted, paranoid view of the world, and again guns are part of their coping mechanism. My goodness, now we have two at least living with their mothers who take them to the shooting range?

And in the criminal culture, the same applies. It isn't the Jets and Sharks fighting it out with knives and chains, where the appearance of a gun is a Big Deal. SN points out that there is violence in the UK; yep, and something like one fifth of the homicide rate. Go figure.

It isn't about mental illness, and it isn't even about safety training. It's what Desertphile says-- it's about recognizing firearms as tools, not ornaments or statements, or, as you described early on, as a psychological defense against the insecurities imposed on us by just-- reality. The gun culture makes that exceedingly difficult.

Brainstorms #89:

Good examples.

In Minnesota getting diagnosed with epilepsy or macular degeneration does not result in lose of drivers license.

If you have a seizure while driving - you are supposed to report it and then be seizure free for 3 months before getting permission to drive again.

For vision issues - you have to fail the drivers renewal test.

14 year olds can drive on the farm in Minnesota and many do (and own guns).

So you are correct - these are real world issues and the response to these are nuanced and do not demonstrate that all mentally ill people will be banned from owning guns just because they are depressed or bipolar.

I am afraid gun control is not a very simple issue, and background checks, while they can certainly be beefed up, will not stop future mass shootings.

Especially if the nuance which your examples demonstrate are extended to mental illness (which they will be).

Zebra #93:

Yes - it seems to me that these most recent mass shooting are not rage shootings.

They are well planned, cool, calculated events, committed by people who all obtained guns legally, well in advance of their actions.

I think this is a way young people are committing suicide, death by mass killing.

If they don't get shot - they kill themselves.

Not sure how to stop it - because even if all guns were taken away, I am sure this type of person would still find a way to die by mass killing.

" I think Obama should act and start adding reasonable gun laws into the US legal system right now. I think the other politicians form both parties should support him on that too."

The phrase "both parties" implies the USA only has two political parties.

"Huh? I don’t get it, sorry. Why in the world would I wish to “surrender” my weapons?"

I'll take a stab at it:
Because you're a victim and don't know it. If they can take away your slaves, they can and will do absolutely anything. Now is not the time for reason. It is not the time for understanding or nuance or complexity. Now is the time for blind hysteria, paranoia, and berserk whininess against the pagans who refuse to live in the nineteenth century bible belt. For verily the Lord sayeth unto you hug thou, kiss, and fondle your assault weapons lest ye be barbecued and eaten by liberals and goblins. Lo! Verily! And Hallelujah!

Plus mindlessness is fun and easy.

To Desertphile #100:

Me: “You’re ready and willing to surrender your .45 caliber pistol and rifle and 2,000 rounds, aren’t you?”

You: “Huh? I don’t get it, sorry. Why in the world would I wish to “surrender” my weapons?”

Well, in THIS world, if you lived in Australia, would you have refused to surrender your .45 caliber pistol and rifle and 2,000 rounds?

Hopefully, this comment comes out of "moderation" soon. (I didn't bring up abortion, Desertphile did.)

To Desertphile #91:

“I mean, no woman getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in seconds, right?”

Right. But tens of millions of women have killed over 55 million other people in the U.S. in the last 40 years.

Desertphile, sn doesn't need to give a reason for what he says, the fact that he says something automatically means it is correct. /snark

You have to wonder how he would respond to a demand that the Republican "candidates" remove all the bigotry, racism, and outright lies from their campaigns.
I doubt he would endorse removal of things that are fact free, as are the positions and statements from the right: he only has problems with things that are fact based.

Zebra: The incident StevoR references should give some insight into why you can’t focus on the mentally ill in this context.

I'm not. But you sure are. Your emotional issues over it seem to have blinded you to where you can't see the simple point that was being made. This isn't about the mentally ill. I suggest you just drop it.

RickA: I am afraid gun control is not a very simple issue, and background checks, while they can certainly be beefed up, will not stop future mass shootings.

I'm glad that you got the point. We cannot simply wave the 2nd Amendment over our heads and say, "The Bill of Rights is clear and obvious: Guns For Everyone!"

There are many dangerous things in the world that are regulated & restricted by society. There are many situations and conditions of people that necessarily restrict what they can & can't do and what they can & can't possess, all in the interests of public safety.

Guns are not excluded from these considerations, the 2nd Amendment notwithstanding. Just because the 2nd Amendment does not explicitly prohibit allowing 12-year-olds to buy guns and ammo does not mean that it's allowable. The same reasoning holds true for a number of other members of society.

Brainstorms #104:

I agree that guns are not excluded from these considerations.

Unlike most kinds of dangerous things however, the second amendment is added protection over and above most items, applied to guns.

So a knee jerk ban on the sale of guns in Minnesota (as an example) will never survive a constitutional challenge.

Ditto for a city (say Minneapolis) - cannot do it.

No law taking away peoples guns will survive a constitutional challenge.

You could buy them - if the decision to sell was voluntary - that would be constitutional.

You can certainly do background checks - if a state or the federal government wants to.

Where you have to be nuanced is the reasons why you might fail a background check.

Since the 2nd amendment is a fundamental right, on the same par as freedom of speech or your fourth amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure - the law will have to be nuanced or it will get struck down.

That is my only point.

With 350,000,000 guns already in the USA - and more being made and sold everyday - there is just not a lot we can do about this problem - except maybe try to make it uncool to commit suicide by mass murder.

By the way - what did you think of my idea up above in #82.

With a republican house, senate and President, there is no reason the government couldn't do what I suggested.

After all - if they can make us buy insurance, why not a gun?

They already have the power to draft - so why couldn't it be for just 2 weeks?

There are a lot of people who do go the other way - and argue that if everybody was armed (and trained to use them in a crowd), that would be a better solution than trying to reduce the number of guns.

How would you feel if the government ordered you to buy a weapon?

It is always interesting to look at things from a different perspective - because it could happen.

Interesting article from Volokh conspiracy, which is pertinent to this post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zer…

The 2nd Amendment gives you the right to own a gun.

The 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to own explosives, explosive chemical precursors, cartridges, primers, fuses, or any type of ammunition.

Let them buy guns. Keep the ammo in the armories. Then we're safe, and the gun enthusiasts can have their guns.

That's probably about as win-win as you're going to get, and no one's fundamental constitutional rights will be violated.

Re: A lot of people argue the other way. How would you feel if the government ordered you to...[insert pointless demonstration of pique here]...?

There are a lot of people who argue baloney. This is why reason matters.

Brainstorms #110:

Yeah - that won't work.

Heller basically said a gun which cannot fire bullets is useless and struck down the law in question (requiring keep the gun safed, unloaded and ammo in a different room).

Keeping the ammo in an armory would be like requiring your gun to be unloaded and the ammo in a different room - except even more useless if you needed to shoot an intruder (please wait while I drive to the armory and get my ammo).

A gun without ammo is going to violate the right to keep and bear arms - so that won't be an option.

Sorry. That is not even a realistic option.

#106 Brainstorms, you are the one being emotional with your earlier rant about what would properly be described as Authoritarian Personality. I'm being practical, but my opinions are informed by some life experience beyond video games and social media, so I'm sharing some of that. I don't care about sticking it to "those people", because I'm just an AP person who happens to be "on the other side". And as I've said, there are reasonable people with reasonable reasons to have firearms.

I'm trying to deal with how to fix a problem.

I'm also informed by having followed this debate for a while, and there is just a lot of nonsense being spouted. The second amendment, even as interpreted by this ridiculous SCOTUS majority, is not the issue. Take away the second amendment, and the problem would remain. Take away the mentally ill, and the problem would remain. You are simply spouting the NRA position, while at the same time claiming you want a solution. That's how good, as President Obama said, their propaganda machine is.

"because I'm not just an AP person who happens to be on the other side."

Obstreperous Applesauce #111:

The fact you think my idea is unreasonable doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

Sure - you think it is baloney.

But it would be a better deterrent than trying to get rid of 350,000,000 guns which are already here.

My only point is my idea is constitutional - and could therefore happen.

Training everyone is as they turn 18 would sure cut down on accidents.

Other countrys do this. Switzerland and Israel come to mind.

Having everyone over 18 trained and armed would really cut down on death by mass killing (in my opinion) and would probably keep the body count per incident down also.

Something to think about.

"which is pertinent to this post:"

Marginally. The discussion here centers on gun deaths: that article deals with total homicide rate (gun + other means). As has been pointed out here, gun deaths, other than by suicide, are at almost historic lows now. (It is also true that areas with more stringent gun laws tend to have lower gun-death rates. It's an association, not a universal law.)
The point of that article is that there is no meaningful association between gun laws and overall homicide rate (not just homicide by shooting). That isn't a surprise: the coupling of low incidence of gun deaths with the larger incidence of death by other methods washes out the association with gun laws - laws aimed at only one type of homicide.
I found it a pleasant thing that he included the data he used - I saved it to look at later.
That post and this one tackle two different things: here the discussion is focused on gun deaths, there it is a discussion of homicide rate in general.

Lets think through the different solutions to this problem.

1. Take. As in take away all guns. This will never happen.
2. Buy. As in offer to buy all guns. Could offer, many will not sell. I bet desertphile wouldn't sell (for example).
3. Register. As in have everyone report every gun they own. Could happen - not unconstitutional. I would question the compliance rate. What good does this information do for us?
4. Check. Background check at point of purchase. Could be done. Last few mass killings all passed this hurdle, so how useful is it?
5. Mandatory mental exam for everybody - then flag crazies not to be able to buy weapons in the future. Unconstitutional.
6. Make mass killings illegal. Check - already done.
7. Tech to prevent a weapon from firing on innocent people - science fiction - not possible yet.
8. Tech to prevent a weapon from firing without biometric registration - could be done - won't stop crazy from using a weapon they purchased legally, but would cut down on stolen weapons being used improperly.
9. Laws related to ammo - like only 2 bullets per clip. Could probably do. I bet human ingenuity would create huge aftermarket to fix this (like 3D guns, etc.).

Can you guys think of anything else?

#110 For each of the 350,000,000 firearms out there, how many rounds of ammunition do you think there are? More than zero? More than 1? Over/under 50...100...more?

RickA -- 116

No. You missed my point. How I FEEL about your hypothetical is irrelevant. I do THINK that your hypothetical is beside the point however, and that it says more about how you feel about government than what I think about gun control.

Further, gun control is not the same as getting rid of all the guns. You are simply being manipulative.

RickA,

OA is just being polite by saying that you are being manipulative-- what you are doing is trolling, and not very interesting trolling at that.

There is no perfect solution to the multiple problems created by the US gun culture. That doesn't mean that changes in the laws would not have a beneficial effect, without excessively burdening those who would like to own guns.

The first step is to eliminate individuals selling to individuals.
The second step is to share all transaction records with law enforcement, including LE from different states and the feds.
The third step is to require liability insurance, as with automobiles. That way, market forces will operate to improve general safety practices.
Fourth, require that purchasers of more than say 4 firearms demonstrate that all previous purchases are in their possession or sold to a licensed, brick-and-mortar business.
And so on.

Not that hard to figure out and implement. Local laws like CC would vary of course, and local LE would be able to pay attention (or not) to what might be considered dangerous individuals who also have guns.

It's all about responsibility.

“RickA, OA is just being polite by saying that you are being manipulative– what you are doing is trolling, and not very interesting trolling at that.”

RickA,
In case you haven’t noticed yet, zebra’s and Scienceblogs’ definition of “troll” is
“anyone who posts comments which disagree with them and with the liberal agenda (e.g. gun control, global warming/climate change, abortion, evolution, etc.).

It makes no difference how extensive and persuasive your arguments are. If zebra and the others here at Scienceblogs don’t like your arguments, you’re a “troll”.

"It makes no difference how extensive and persuasive your arguments are. "

You would not know that since you've never had any extensive argument or point supported by data. You don't even read the articles you present.

zebra #121

Your point #2 could be done by law - I don't see any legal issue with that.

Your point #1 - I don't know how you do that. Passing a law that you cannot sell an item of personal property? I don't know what the laws of Minnesota are on this? I have heard of scalping laws for resale of tickets - not sure about alcohol or cigarettes to another adult? So I will put this down as a maybe. Is this a taking? Not sure about that either. Could the state of minnesota bar me from selling any item of property? A car, a house, . . . Not sure this would pass the legislature even if it was constitutional.

Your 3rd point is interesting - liability insurance for what?

If you use the gun to commit a crime yourself (like a mass shooting), no insurance claim would be paid (the intentional criminal act voids insurance).

If the gun is stolen, you are off the hook (the criminal act of another voids insurance claim).

It would work for accidents - i.e. you shoot someone by accident cleaning your weapon or something like that.

But your umbrella policy probably covers that already.

Your fourth point - I suppose a law could be passed for this - but it seems tough to enforce.

Of all your points - I would be in favor of #2 - daylight is ok.

Doubt the criminals would report their private sales - but could pass the law.

In SN World:
Extensive = long winded or Gish gallop.
Persuasive = specious verbiage that only gullible fools will gobble up.

SN is all about pushing buttons, baseless assertions, and self-righteous snark. He couldn't construct a reasoned argument if his life depended on it, and wouldn't recognize the difference if Jesus himself came and spelled it out for him.

He is one of those rare people who has absolutely zero critical thinking skills and probably thinks that they are tools of the devil.

"SN is all about pushing buttons, baseless assertions, and self-righteous snark."

I am still waiting for him to explain why he asked if it's okay if I surrender all my guns and ammunition. Surrender to whom? And why?

OA #120:

I really don't like the idea that the Federal government can order me to buy something. However, the Supreme Court said it was ok for health insurance.

I merely extrapolate to the Federal government ordering you to buy a gun, and gave you a rationale which would support that action.

I am not saying they will - merely that they could - partly so you will look at the issue from the other direction.

I was against the government being able to order me to buy anything - I thought it was unconstitutional - but I lost that battle (Supreme Court said it was ok).

This is an example of a hypothetical that would fall under the law of unintended consequences.

But I agree - it is very unlikely to happen.

#121 Zebra,
How do your proposals enhance Liberty?

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr5.html

To Desertphile #125:

“I am still waiting for [See Noevo] to explain why he asked if it’s okay if I surrender all my guns and ammunition. Surrender to whom? And why?"

I am still waiting for you to explain why you haven’t answered this question of mine:
Well, in THIS world, if you lived in Australia, would you have refused to surrender your .45 caliber pistol and rifle and 2,000 rounds?

"Well, in THIS world, if you lived in Australia, would you have refused to surrender your .45 caliber pistol and rifle and 2,000 rounds?"

To whom? Why?

Sn, you incredible lying tool, are you implying guns were confiscated in Australia?

"Sn, you incredible lying tool, are you implying guns were confiscated in Australia?"

Oh, is that what the genius is implying? If so.... how very odd. I wonder why. No one in the USA is talking about anyone "surrendering" their weapons; no one in Australia did so, or is doing so.

It appears that once again I was "thrown" by the denialism / conspiracy mentality.

Denialists often say or write something that has no basis, no connection, in what everyone else has said or written, and only denialists (I assume) can see the connection (which I also assume is founded in conspiracy ideation). I saw the same behavior among dangerous, abusive cults: it's called "language loading," and it is used exclusively to be divisive--- only cult peers understand each other.

I had no idea why "SN" here asked me if I would be happy "surrendering" my weapons; the question has no connection to anything written in this article, nor to any of the comments, and certainly not to anything I have written. That behavior is like trying to understand the thought processes of an insect. One must be a paranoid conspiracy alarmist to understand why "SN" asked the question, or one must have studied such people.

RickA,

The government can't prohibit me from selling private property?

How about Oxycontin? Which I legally obtained?

Gun regulation as I described already exists to one degree or another in various states. It takes a few seconds to look that up, so I am just going to stick with labeling you as a troll-- a lazy troll.

To Desertphile:

Me: “Well, in THIS world, if you lived in Australia, would you have refused to surrender your .45 caliber pistol and rifle and 2,000 rounds?”

You: “To whom? Why? … No one in the USA is talking about anyone “surrendering” their weapons; no one in Australia did so, or is doing so.”

Maybe I had some bad info, or perhaps more likely, a bad understanding. I guess I was thinking of stuff like this:

“Gun buybacks have been held in Tucson (one in 2013) and Phoenix (three in 2013)…
Unlike the voluntary buybacks in the United States, Australian buybacks of 1996 and 2003 were COMPULSORY, compensated SURRENDERS of particular types of firearms made illegal by new gun laws.

The 1996 "National Firearms Buyback Scheme" took 660,959[2] long guns, mostly semi-automatic rimfire rifles and shotguns as well as pump-action shotguns, and a smaller proportion of higher powered or military type semi-automatic rifles…
The 2003 handgun buyback took about 50,000 licensed target pistols…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program

@zebra #40

On the contrary, I think cracking down on straw purchases and the very small number of gun dealers who thereby facilitate trafficking of guns across state lines to criminals is one of the most practical things we can do.

I hadn't looked in on this discussion for a few days. Typical that it seems to have degenerated into the usual name calling and finger pointing. I'm back to where I started from - no political home. The petitions I've seen, and been invited to sign, are appalling non-specific. They come down to appeals to legislators to do something, anything about gun violence, no matter how ill conceived, out of fear. On the other side, the NRA has completely abandoned its founding principles of supporting training, safety and reasonable regulation.

zebra #133:

Good point about prescription drugs - I bet you are right and it is illegal to resell.

I hadn't thought about that.

I was thinking of things like alcohol and cigarettes, and struggling to think of anything I couldn't resell - but I didn't think of drugs.

So I will give you that one - good point.

The government can ban the resale of certain things - like prescription drugs.

Enon Zey, #135

OK, I'm inviting you to sign (metaphorically) a petition along the lines of my #121. Very specific.

So, if you really want to get away from the whole trolling and finger-pointing business, why not take a concrete position on those points?

(I even think you could find a "political home" if you agree with them.)

I await your reasoned analysis.

@zebra #137

I have supported liability insurance for some time. It would provide a strong financial incentive for individuals to demonstrate competence and safety in using and storing the guns they own.

I'd have to see how a ban on individual to individual transfers was structured and enforced - you might get a lot of pushback on this from rural residents. That of course is a big part of the difficulty in coming up with politically practical approaches to gun control - there's a big urban/rural divide.

Better records and requiring people to show they actually have their firearms could definitely put a crimp in the black market in guns.

Now, point me to a gun control organization whose priorities are requiring liability insurance and increased funds for suicide research and prevention, and I might have a political home.

For what's it's worth, I do have a political home of sorts. I am a great admirer of Sam Smith, long time activist, journalist and editor of the 'Progressive Review'. He's walked the walk and achieved many good things (such as help organize effective opposition to the interstate highway system slicing through the heart of DC).

Despite all his excellent journalism, I almost never see him quoted by liberals. That may be because he's been consistently scathing in his criticism of Democrats, he has always supported people being able to have guns in the home for self-defense (that makes him a "gun nut" by Greg's definition), and he has been unrelenting in attacking the Clintons for their venality and corruption. (Sam Smith can't possibly be part of a vast right-wing conspiracy, better to just ignore him.)

http://prorevnews.blogspot.com/2015/10/gun-notes.html

Enon Zey,

Can you explain the functional difference between "straw purchases", which you want to "crack down on", and "individual to individual transfers"?

So, I think California has something like what I am talking about-- if you want to sell a gun to someone, you do it through a dealer. Not very complicated or burdensome. See what you think.

As for Greg-- I'm not sure exactly what his position is WRT someone wanting a gun to keep in the house and being a gun nut. I gave some examples of what I think qualifies; that's not one of them. The woman with no law enforcement status who tried to kill a shoplifter, on the other hand, represents the mentality that concerns me.

Sure. A straw purchaser is someone who buys a gun for the specific purpose of transferring it to someone who wouldn't pass a background check. Example: an ex-con convinces his girlfriend to buy a gun for him. Big problem: people who buy multiple guns for the purpose of taking them across state lines to sell to gangs for profit.

OTOH, individual transfers also include transfers within a family and transfers to neighbors and friends. There are a lot of people, particularly in rural areas, who will resent having to drive a hundred miles just to legally transfer a rifle to a favorite nephew.

I am not saying I am necessarily opposed to the idea, just that I'm suspicious of proposals that are drawn too narrowly and provoke people to opposition who otherwise might be on our side.

The woman who shot at the shoplifter was incredibly ignorant. It's illegal everywhere (except perhaps Texas) to deploy deadly force to protect property. I'd say education, but some people are simply willfully ignorant.

Greg plainly stated that anybody who keeps a loaded gun in his house is a "gun nut".

Enon Zey,

My question was obviously rhetorical. The girlfriend can certainly claim that she changed her mind after buying the gun, and decided to give it to her boyfriend as a gift. Just like the uncle and the nephew. Functionally, all individual sales are straw purchases in that they bypass the intent of the law.

I refer you again to the California law, and laws in various states, which you can easily find with a quick search. You and I are not going to work out all the tiny details of the "ideal" law here, but there will certainly be accommodations for specific circumstances.

I'm also not going to quibble about Greg's wording and intent-- you and I would agree that if it is too hard to access and get the gun loaded, it defeats the purpose of having it. That may be where regulations regarding insurance would come in; again, details to be worked out by the interested parties.

As for carrying at the Home Depot-- I go there all the time, and yes, anyone who shows up armed is a gun nut. I would argue that whatever fantasy prompts someone to do that is indicative of a questionable mental state to begin with. Talking about education and training is just silly; the more people doing it (goal of the NRA and right-wing politics), the more the group will include those for whom training will never work.

Enon Zey:

I am sure it would be jarring to see a civilian carrying a gun at Home Depot.

However, what if you saw a cop carrying a gun at Home Depot?

That seems almost normal.

Cops carry guns at schools and no one even blinks.

Put a uniform on and it is ok to carry a gun.

Where street clothes and people think you are a gun nut.

Kind of interesting.

"However, what if you saw a cop carrying a gun at Home Depot?"

Police officers in the USA tend to be low hierarchy, submissive males; they are therefore more dangerous than average citizens. When I see a police officer anywhere who is carrying a gun, I get the fuck out of the area just as quickly, and for exactly the same reasons, I flee when non-police are walking around with fire arms.

While I mostly agree with desertphile, I'll simply mention that the comparison between a police office carrying at a public store and someone not clearly identified as such doing the same fails on its face. Rightly or wrongly, there is the expectation that an officer has had more training in the handling of a weapon than the typical civilian who simply wants to "exercise a right", so the first reactions to the two situations will not (in general ) be the same. It is as false as arguing therr should not be any speed limits on public highways because "there aren't any on a race track and very few accidents there result in death."

So yes, when I see the local clown carrying an automatic on his hip, wearing an NRA cap and a cameo shirt heading for my table at the bookstore, it isn't a soothing sight, it is disconcerting.

So it is not necessarily seeing a person with a gun that is scary. It is seeing someone who you assume is less well trained, is associated with the NRA and wearing cameo.

What if a state required permit to carry holders to wear a uniform (to be determined) when they carried, to permit ease of identification? That way when the cops get to the scene and there is a permit to carry person there - they can be easily identified, to lower the chances of friendly fire from the cops.

I think that the number of people shot by permit to carry holders is a lot smaller than the number of people shot by cops (at least in Minnesota) - so I am not sure your local clown fear is rational.

But everybody is entitled to their own phobias.

What one or two new measures which have been proposed here or in Washington D.C. would have prevented Roseburg?

Desertphile – No response to #134?

So it is not necessarily seeing a person with a gun that is scary. It is seeing someone who you assume is less well trained, is associated with the NRA and wearing cameo.
Maybe I didn't make my point clearly l. It would be the second time today, in two different spots.

It is a reasonable assumption that an ordinary joe who thinks there is a need to carry a weapon is not as well trained as a typical police officer. There may be exceptions - it is impossible to tell whether a person is or is not former military, for example - but in general there is no great hurdle to get a carry certification. That in itself is concerning. Second is the appearance issue - the difference you picked up on.

I don't think the dress idea you give would matter in general (I know it wouldn't to me) as the training issue isn't addressed. I also have doubts that it would be accepted by the folks we're talking about: I could see the objection being it isn't needed because they are simply exercising a right.

Well poop. Not the day for phone posting. Rock (and others) sorry about screwing up the blockquote tag.

Sn, when you advance to the point of being able to ask an intelligent question you'll get an answer. I have a feeling that will not happen for a very long time, if it ever does.

RickA, not Rock. Crap on autocorrect.

RickA 143

I was going to forego anymore commenting today, but what the meh...

I go on heightened alert around anyone with a gun, but there is a difference. Police have an institutionalized and regulated role in society to keep the peace. It is a fulltime, supervised career (often life long) and snarky objections aside, is about more than just strutting around with a gun pretending to be John Wayne.

However problematic policing is (and it is a relatively new concept as we understand it today) it's not helped by a situation where every wingnut and his half wit cousin self-deputizes, essentially turning the clock back to a time before law and order came to the wild west.

So no. It's not about who designs your clothes, even though seeing police decked out in military gear and looking hopped up on roids is disconcerting. It's about everybody moving their mindset out of the 1800s and into the 21st century.

dean #149,

Sorry, but I think you miss the point here. The reason to be concerned is not training. The reason to be concerned is that it is irrational to be carrying a loaded gun at HD.

There is no explanation-- "I'm packing heat while shopping for plumbing supplies because..."-- that makes any sense.

The cop is armed because it is part of the job description to engage with violent people, even if all she is doing at the moment is directing traffic. But it is not desirable, and you can ask any cop, that some wannabee citizen responds to a bank robbery with guns blazing.

So-- what is the justification for carrying a loaded gun into a public space? "Because I can get away with it", or "because I can even recklessly discharge it and get away with it" does not count as justification.

RickA 143

If you've ever been exposed to security work, you've probably run into people who've failed to make the cut onto the police force. Some of them are great, but some are just gun toting cuckoo for cocoa puffs, and they have more than your average amount of training.

You really ought to step back and have a good, hard rethink before you further advocate slathering society with extra unregulated lethality -- especially if all you are doing is trying to fulfill some dogmatic, social Darwinist vision of the "intelligence" of uninhibited marketplaces.

To zebra #153:

“The reason to be concerned is not training. The reason to be concerned is that it is irrational to be carrying a loaded gun at [Home Depot].”

At what, if any, locales do you think it IS rational for a citizen to carry a loaded gun?

I’ve carried concealed into Home Depot. No problems. In fact, I carry to virtually all places as a matter of routine.

"The reason to be concerned is that it is irrational to be carrying a loaded gun at HD."

Personally, I agree. There is no need for these folks to be walking around with a gun strapped to their hips, especially when the reason so often given (protection against an attend by a bad guy) is so lacking. As the saying goes, the fact you can do something doesn't mean you should.

But my view of what's irrational is something I feel like basing a nan argument on. The lack of training is, in my appraoch, a more solid point

dean,

I understand your position, but irrationality is not a subjective call. Where there are remaining stricter laws, you have to justify a license to the issuer. For example, transporting lots of cash or jewels or some other occupation that might make you a target.

See Noevo 155: There are no such public spaces.

An ordinary citizen (and I include myself) would rationally be concerned in isolated situations, even though the probability of a confrontation is low. For example, if I drove a lot at night far from police response, I would keep a gun in the car. But I would leave it there when I went to the mall or a stopped at a diner.

If you feel afraid when you are surrounded by fellow citizens, that probably indicates that you should not be armed. I would use a yes answer to "would you carry a gun to go shopping at HD" to disqualify someone who was applying.

And FWIW, if I saw you, armed, "reaching for your waistband" at Home Depot, I would grab a shovel and take your head off. And ask questions later, because "I feared for my life". See how that works?

It is far more rational for me to do that than for some random idiot to shoot at a shoplifter.

It is precisely because of flawed people like sn carrying a weapon that we should be concerned when we see an open carrier.

"It is precisely because of flawed people like sn carrying a weapon that we should be concerned when we see an open carrier"

The odd person wants us to believe he believes women in the USA have killed 55,000,000 people. If he really does believe that, he shouldn't have access to knives, let alone guns.

@zebra #142

I thought that there was a significant difference between those trafficking guns for profit and those transferring guns as gifts or favors. After looking into the latest information about trafficking from police and other investigators, I see that I was wrong. We need to address all forms of gun transfers if we are to reduce the number of guns getting into the hands of gangs and other criminals.

Where I live we have had a rash of shopping center parking lot robberies in 'nice' neighborhoods, so I can see why some people might want to conceal carry to and fro HD.

Enon,

You sound like someone willing to learn, but you also sound like you are trying to justify something that has an abstract appeal without the life experience and understanding that provide a pragmatic context for your analysis. More study and training is in order.

Not to go all Sun Tzu on you, but if you end up shooting someone to prevent being robbed in an HD parking lot, you have demonstrated that you are an inept and pathetic loser on the field of individual combat.

Say you are a nice suburban mom and you need to pick up some mums to put on the front porch this time of year. What are you thinking?:

"I'm carrying, so I will park at the far end of the building where it isn't well lit, and there is a pile of lumber someone can hide behind, even though it is almost closing time and very dark. And of course, it would be embarrassing to ask someone to help me, so I will go out all alone and make myself vulnerable loading the plants into my SUV."

Come on, dude. Someone is approaching you in that situation saying "I work here would you like me to help?" How close do you let him get before you brandish? How stupid will you feel if he does work there? Will that make you hesitate too long? How horrible will you feel if he just doesn't get the danger, as Desertphile says, and he does work there, and keeps coming, and you kill him? Or.... will that make you hesitate too long?

Well, OK, I will be all Sun Tzu, even thought it is often incorrectly overused. If you need a gun to buy mums....

You have already lost.

@zebra #161

The tone of your post is very condescending - I just noted that considering some of the robberies where I live I could understand why some people might want to conceal carry, not that I do. I don't even shop at HD.

I would never brandish a gun just because someone walked up to me - you're just coming up with hypotheticals to label me as some sort of gun toting gun nut.

OTOH, I have been knifed. Considering the statistics, it is very unlikely that I'll be knifed again. I wasn't prepared the first time, but I am now.

Enon,

I am not being condescending to you. I am, however, putting you on the spot, because the points are important, and you appear to be one of the rare people in these discussions who is not so constrained by ideology as to never see beyond it.

I said I get it, and I do. But that's empathy; I know how you feel. I'm not sure that you are correctly projecting that onto the people we are talking about, who for the most part have not experienced violence and fear in the real world.

It's a serious question, open to anyone who wants to give it a shot (heh). How exactly would carrying in any public space like HD help? What possible scenario produces a net positive outcome?

To aebra #163:

“It’s a serious question, open to anyone who wants to give it a shot (heh). How exactly would carrying in any public space like HD help? What possible scenario produces a net positive outcome?”

I could give you limitless possible scenarios producing a net positive outcome, but here’s one that happened about fifteen minutes from me.
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Mercy-Fitzgerald-Hospital-on-…

P.S.
The doctor who saved the day was actually breaking the hospital’s gun-free zone rules by having his weapon on him. Good for him, and for those he saved.

"The doctor who saved the day was actually breaking the hospital’s gun-free zone rules by having his weapon on him."

Hurray! One person with a gun did a good thing, while 32,000+ people with a gun did an evil thing. Woo hoo! We need more guns, so that two people with a gun can go a good thing, and 64,000+ people with a gun can do more evil. Why, it's just common sense!

See Noevo 164,

You could give me "limitless possible scenarios" but you chose one in which the doctor in question was not carrying in a public place like HD, but was armed in his office-- a private space, just like one's house.

So, the woman wasn't saved. Perhaps the doctor was saved, because he had a gun in his private space. There is no objection to that from me, and if someone like a psychiatrist who deals with potentially violent patients wants a carry license, I would gladly give him one. As I suspect most people here would.

It's people like yourself that are the problem. And your inability to justify your position even with a hypothetical reinforces that concern.

There are some people who carry a leatherman on their belt and some who don't.

There are some people who carry a gentleman's folder (knife) in their pocket and some who don't.

There are some people who carry a gun and some who don't.

A gun is a tool like a knife or a leatherman and sometimes a tool can be handy and other times you will not need it.

In our country, I get to decide what tools I carry on my person (everyday carry). It is my choice - not yours.

In Minnesota, stores have the right to post "Guns are Banned on These Premises" - and then I cannot carry my tool (the gun) into the store. That is their right.

Some stores ban guns and some don't - that is their right.

Individual freedom and individual rights are a good thing.

I am glad my constitutional rights (the first 10 amendments) are not subject to a majority vote - or I would find my speech banned, and my house subject to unreasonable searches, and have no representation.

Desertphile #166:

You said - 32000 people with a gun did an evil thing.

22,000 of those killed themselves with a gun.

Is that an evil thing?

I don't think so.

Religious people think it is evil to kill yourself - but I am neutral on this issue.

So I set aside 2/3 of the gun deaths per year - which only leaves 11,000 who killed someone else with a gun and which you consider to be an evil thing.

Some of those were justified homicides and some were criminal acts (I cannot remember who many of each).

But your number is exaggerated by counting suicides.

To zebra #165:

“You could give me “limitless possible scenarios” but you chose one in which the doctor in question was not carrying in a public place like HD, but was armed in his office– a private space, just like one’s house.”

A hospital seems like a pretty public place.
It’s just another place of business, and anybody can walk into one off the street.
Just like they can walk into a limitless number of places. I bet you’ve heard, and know the derivation of, the phrase “going postal”. But fired, disgruntled employees aren’t unique to post offices, of course. Here’s another
http://www.11alive.com/video/61515386001/1/Disgruntled-Ex-employee-Open…

And what’s with the “It’s people like yourself that are the problem”?
You want to take my guns and CC permit away? On what Constitutional and legal basis, and how for me, specifically?

See Noevo,

I would deny a carry permit to <i<anyone who doesn't supply a rational explanation for why he or she wants and needs it. You have failed to do so, given a couple of opportunities.

"I would deny a carry permit to anyone who doesn’t supply a rational explanation for why he or she wants and needs it. You have failed to do so, given a couple of opportunities."

Indeed, and being unhappy with one's penis is not a valid explanation.

#170...how's about "it's the most compact and effective tool that can be utilized (since you'll dispute safety) to defend my body and those of innocents in my proximity"

We can go into why my body is valuable in society, but this would go the way of a pro-life argument, which I'm going to guess you'd oppose.

On what basis would Darwin have any objection to my weapon of choice?

"We can go into why my body is valuable in society, but this would go the way of a pro-life argument, which I’m going to guess you’d oppose."

Do you *REALLY* not understand how asinine your "guess" is?

Ron 172,

But you haven't provided a rational explanation of why you think you would need it at Home Depot or the mall or other such public spaces.

(I'm putting aside the question of efficacy for the moment.)

(And by the way, bringing up Darwin, if you mean the Darwin, makes one question your rationality a priori. No possible connection I can see.)

"But you haven’t provided a rational explanation of why you think you would need it at Home Depot or the mall or other such public spaces."

One never knows when a gun battle will break out between the human carnivores near the meat section and the vegans near the produce section.

#174 The rational explanation of RKBA at a place outside the home / public spaces is that it is where my body is. In order to defend my body the weapon needs to be in close proximity to my body.

Attempting to predict when and where a crime will take place is not something to wager one's well-being on. Indeed the "gun-free zone" shootings seem to prove my point. Movie theaters to military bases have been recent crime scenes...many retailers declare themselves to have a no gun policy on their premises. Does softening a target make it more or less attractive to criminals?

#173...are you asserting that being pro-life and pro-self defense against criminal violence via weapons is asinine?

"#173…are you asserting that being pro-life and pro-self defense against criminal violence via weapons is asinine?"

I am "asserting" that your assertion that someone in this blog forum is not pro-life is asinine.

zebra says #170:

I would deny a carry permit to <i<anyone who doesn’t supply a rational explanation for why he or she wants and needs it. You have failed to do so, given a couple of opportunities.

It would be good to be king.

However, you don't control permits to carry in the United States.

Ron doesn't have to justify his decision to carry - that is his choice.

Home Depot can ban guns with a simple sign - and if they don't that is their choice.

See gun rights are like free speech rights - the default is they exist.

The burden of proof is on those trying to take them away.

So it is your job to justify why someone shouldn't have a permit to carry.

You can do this by showing the person is a felon, or has a restraining order against them, or is mentally ill.

You cannot (nor can anyone else) justify taking away someones permit to carry because you don't agree with their reason for wanting one.

The 2nd amendment is a personal right, no matter how irrational you think that fact to be.

Ron 176,

You sound more and more irrational the more you write.

You are talking about the mass shooter scenario?

So, if I were interviewing you as to why you want a permit, you would say "because I am concerned that I will be the target of a mass shooter"?

I'd put you on the no-sell list in a heartbeat. Maybe even have you in for an involuntary psych evaluation.

Look, there is an infinitesimally small probability of that happening to you. As Desertphile has pointed out, you and your gun and your paranoia are much greater threats to us than any shooter is to you. That's why it is rational for us to attempt to minimize the number of people carrying firearms in public spaces-- we are protecting our bodies and the innocents in proximity from your potential dangerous acts.

#179 I'm not only speaking about "mass shootings"...I'm talking about crime, from theft to murder, done against me or those in my proximity. I recognize that these rates are dropping, and that's positive...there are places and times that are likely more safe than others, and that's positive. In that awful instance of a mass shooter, there are not many other things I'd want at my disposal than a weapon.

I appreciate that the odds against me are minute. I can make them even smaller, and I will, with or without Official Government Blessing.

You can call me paranoid and I'll call you irrational. We're back on the playground...

If we're going to debate what is and what is not rational...it sounds like a moral argument, to which I would wonder what is your external standard of morality? If you don't think rationality is a moral question, to what authority do we turn to determine what is rational thought and what is not?

It's called freedom. Funny how some pro-choice people (#178 this is an atheist blog, is it not?) would advocate choice in one realm and not in another.

Unless you want to make the E PLURIBUS UNUM case...which would favor concepts like property rights http://tinyurl.com/p5v7nvf and man over government http://tinyurl.com/mcmhe7...we're all left to do what is right according to our conscious...so if some wish to not carry a weapon, they should be allowed that freedom, but others do..."The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may
exercise it by themselves, ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." Thomas Jefferson writing to Major John Cartwright June 5, 1824

It's called a negative right because it doesn't impose a duty on others. http://tinyurl.com/q75fgx5 You're turning a negative right into an imposition on individuals to provide a justification or ability to clear myself from suspicion.

What we're doing now is taking property rights and negative rights and turning them into positive rights (see bakers/photographers being forced to provide services). People are no longer allowed to refrain from health insurance, etc...

Ron 180,

Irrational is not an insult. But now you are just being incoherent, and I can't follow what you are trying to say at all.

I was just in a big long debate involving "rights" and "morality", where "the liberals", as you would call them, were all ganging up against me. So if I could figure out what the heck you are talking about, I might find it amusing. But just being practical:

Some lady in a Home Depot parking lot started shooting at someone who was running with some merchandise, being chased by HD security. That's one of the things we're talking about here.

Do you feel that you have a "right" to just start shooting at someone because "theft is being done to those in proximity to you"?

If so, what I said about not giving you a carry permit holds. You are obviously not qualified to be in possession of a firearm, whether in a private or a public space. You present a threat to others (me, for example, who goes to my local HD fairly often,) if not yourself.

Don't I have a "right" to shop in an environment free from the risk of death at the hands of some nutjob?

zebra #181 asks "Don’t I have a “right” to shop in an environment free from the risk of death at the hands of some nutjob?"

The answer is no.

The reason is because nobody has the power to grant you that right.

Nobody has the right to be free from a criminal act.

Who would give you that right?

That is like saying you have the right to flip heads 100 times in a row - who has the power to grant you that right?

Nobody can give you the right to be free from death at the hands of a nutjob.

That is why some people find it rational to carry.

Because they know they have to protect themselves - they cannot rely on government to protect them. Because any individual can be subject to a crime committed against them at any time, anywhere, by a nutjob or even by a rational criminal.

That is reality.

If a person wants to pretend that just because a law is passed saying nutjobs shouldn't shoot people in mass killings - that this will protect them somehow - well - that is their choice.

Other people know that no matter how professional the police force, and no matter how many laws are passed - that shit happens and you have to be responsible for your own safety - because sometimes you just don't have the luxury of calling the cops and waiting to be saved from harm.

To zebra #170:

Me: “You want to take my guns and CC permit away? On what Constitutional and legal basis, and how for me, specifically?”

You: “I would deny a carry permit to <i<anyone who doesn’t supply a rational explanation for why he or she wants and needs it. You have failed to do so, given a couple of opportunities.”

I have a feeling what you consider a rational explanation and what my state considers a rational explanation are different, thank goodness.

‘Target shooting and self defense’ were explanation enough for them, as I recall.

#181 perhaps you're referencing this Home Depot incident:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3270903/Michigan-woman-charged-…

My understanding is that this woman was not directly in harm's way. I wasn't there. The criminal seems to be attempting to disengage as he flees. So, IF those are the facts, it's a "bad shoot". Shooting a fleeing suspect, unless he poses a threat, is not appropriate. That being said, a tire seems to have failed shortly after she shot, helping police apprehend the criminal.

By way of contrast, this seems to be a "good shoot": http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/1-Shot-Dead-at-Waterbury-Cafe-…

What say you about this case?

We who wish you no harm are not the one's you should fear, but the random, unpredictable criminal is the "nutjob" we all wish to avoid.

Just because this language of "rational" is being linked to RKBA...http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/14/a_rational_case_fo…

"There is a legitimate, rational use for guns, a use that results in crimes deterred and lives saved. The left’s argument that people may use guns for illegitimate purposes is senseless. Why should those who use guns rationally be sacrificed for the sake of those who will use them irrationally? We don’t ban cars simply because some people will drive recklessly. We don’t ban alcohol simply because some people will get drunk and attack their neighbors. The same should apply to guns. The individual has volition and he has inalienable rights. The freedom to possess a gun to defend himself follows logically from those two premises."

**Note: I didn't label "the left"...

ron and friends,

I would feel much safer being robbed by a rational criminal than being "protected" by immature and irrational wannabees like yourselves.

And I expect the majority of citizens and LEO would agree; it's just common sense. You are that woman at Home Depot, and she is you.

"I would feel much safer being robbed by a rational criminal than being “protected” by immature and irrational wannabees like yourselves."

Now who's being irrational?

Why would you take guns away from women?
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/burglary-suspect-in…

"a use that results in crimes deterred"

But again, that is so rare as to be immaterial to the broad discussion. It is the same as arguing against seat belt use in cars because someone knew someone who wasn't wearing a seat belt and survived a severe accident.

#188 Are you willing to be consistent, then, in your belief that crimes are so rarely deterred by guns, that you would call for all police / military to eschew their weapons?

a) It is a fact that a civilian with a gun stopping a crime is incredibly rare
b) Are you trying to say the role of the military is equivalent to a civilian carrying a gun in daily life? If so, that is too foolish to deserve a response.

@zebra #163

I didn't express myself well. I avoid violence by being aware of my surroundings in a way I didn't used to, but not by carrying in HD.

"One point I’d like to make in this context is that the best defense against violence is always your own mind. People tend to overlook this because it sounds like an empty platitude, but it’s true. Some people acquire the maturity and understanding to avoid violence early on, but these days—and this is obviously a good thing—most of us go our whole lives without encountering violence, so we need to be taught what to look for. We also need to be willing to see it, and we need to know how to manage our distance from it."

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/self-defense-and-the-law

I am sure we can both come up with scenarios where it would be good to have a well-trained person with a gun around even in a retail environment. Why else hire armed security guards? Unfortunately, the requirements for concealed carry permits are pretty superficial.

Enon 163,

I appreciate you taking the trouble to find a quote that shows you understand what I am talking about. I think we could have some good debates, since I don't agree with many aspects of Harris's approach, but that is spot on.

As for retail spaces and armed security guards-- no, I'm just trying to be practical, and I can't see how it helps, except for the extremely rare active shooter case with ideal conditions. Some places in the developed world still have actual police that don't carry guns, but relatively non-lethal weapons.

(Not to mention, we have cases of psychologically unfit cops who are "trained" but still kill people with no justification. Where do you find people to fill those armed security guard slots in all the stores in the country?)

I wasn't kidding when I said earlier that, if I were in an advantageous position, and I saw someone in a public space reach for a gun, I would do my best to take them out, even by using potentially deadly force like a knife or a club. I think a citizenry with that attitude is far better protection than some yayhoos like those commenting here parading around with their guns.

Anyway, stay vigilant. And if you have bad dreams, I hope they get less difficult over time.

@zebra #192

Thank you for the good thoughts. Actually, the attack was a long time ago and the wound minor. It did act as a wakeup call - having had a sheltered childhood, I had no street smarts at all, zilch. I do like Harris' point that many (most?) people have a 'can't happen to me' attitude and avoid thinking about the possibility of violence happening to them. The probability is small, smaller than many other bad things that can happen, but it's certainly not negligible. We know that people in general are very bad at probabilities and risk assessment.

I continue to be astonished at how people move in an urban environment without any awareness of what's happening around them. The pocket computers (aka smartphones) that people are absorbed in have just made things worse, I OTOH, never wear earbuds - one's ears are a front line of defense.

What do you think of Sanders' point that there is a urban/rural divide about guns? I do open carry when I'm out in the boonies, where law enforcement is sparse and wild animals common.

I find it interesting that there are states (Vermont, the Dakotas) with very liberal gun laws and high rates of gun ownership, yet their homicides rates are similar to the UK. Gun violence in this society (outside of suicide) is primarily an urban phenomenon. DC, with its strict gun regulation, has a homicide rate an order of magnitude greater than Vermont's.

While I think that absence of effective gun control is a problem, it's not a monocausal, or one dimensional issue. It's worth considering that the environment in which people live can foster a culture of fear, lethality, and the cult of the gun. Poverty matters. Race matters. Demagoguery and crappy politics matter.

And city planning certainly matters. For instance, it's now understood that warehousing people in housing projects is one of the things that effectively destroys communities and fosters chaos. If you're interested in this, the writing of Jane Jacobs makes for a very readable way into the otherwise boring subject of planning and zoning.

#190 b
I'm trying to say that you're targeting guns, and to be consistent you should be eager to express that nobody should have them...otherwise we're bickering over training and who trains...and that the general citizenry is less able than other classes of citizen...creating a tiered system for Rights (something I might assume is a non-starter, but I could be wrong).

“a) It is a fact that a [law abiding] civilian with a gun stopping a crime is incredibly rare”

[Note: I took the liberty of inserting “[law-abiding]” because it’s assumed in the sentence and because it’s useful in my last sentence below.]

Actually, it’s not incredibly rare. I could post lots more stories of such, in case you haven’t read the ones I and others have already posted above.

What IS incredibly rare [and technically non-existent] is a law-abiding civilian with a gun committing a crime.

"What IS incredibly rare [and technically non-existent] is a law-abiding civilian with a gun committing a crime."

Do you still some times wonder why people think you are an idiot, or pretending to be an idiot?

Actually, it’s not incredibly rare. I could post lots more stories of such, in case you haven’t read the ones I and others have already posted above.

sn, your cluelessness about reality and general dishonesty is astounding. Are you truly so stupid that you think unsupported personal claims are the same as data?

You know that old saying, usually stated by liberals:
“If it saves just ONE life, it’s worth doing.”

Well, maybe some would advocate disarming everybody, including the police.
It would have saved this guy:
“[Suspect] Hammond grabbed [sheriff’s deputy] Sandberg's gun during the struggle and shot…”
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sheriffs-deputy-fatally-shot-patien…

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/10/18/man-trying-to-be-good-guy-with-…

"As if to reinforce the fact that shooting incidents are so commonplace as to be business as usual, the undeterred theater managers told guests they could get a free coupon to see another film some other day or wait until staff could mop up the blood and resume the film."

While we’re at it, lets’ ban Taco Bell signs, walking next to tall buildings, chocolate manufacturing, condoms, roller coasters…
http://www.oddee.com/item_96835.aspx

" It was certainly not his intention to shoot himself in the leg. But his gun went off, because that’s what guns do."

Golly. Mine must be defective. They only go off when I touch the "bang switch".

Again, as in post #81, some will misuse the product, but that's not the fault of the product. These products can be use for virtuous purposes. (Like this woman did...http://www.wtok.com/home/headlines/Man-Killed-During-Alleged-Burglary-3… Why do we want to disarm women and lower their odds of surviving a hostile encounter?)

"Again, as in post #81, some will misuse the product, but that’s not the fault of the product."

"Misuse?" ROTFL! Good gods that's hilarious! Dude! Hand guns are *THE SAFEST* when they are not used as intended! I wish everyone misused them.

#204 Guns don't "go off" spontaneously, just as toasters and ovens don't heat when you leave your dwelling.

This whole discussion is twisting language in order to attack an inanimate object, when the desire is to take away the ability of the individual to KABA...which is why post 195 goes unanswered.

In a culture where we force people who sell booze or cut hair or teach children to pay a tax for a government license, I'm sure it does seem odd to let people roam free with firearms, but just as scissors don't randomly cut your hair, neither do firearms spontaneously discharge.

Desertphile #204:

I cannot tell if you think a handgun is misused for a suicide or if that is an intended use.

Please clarify.

Since 2/3's of gun deaths are suicide I figure I should understand what your definition of intended use is.

I am pretty sure the label says - be careful not to shoot yourself with this gun - so I doubt suicide is an intended use.

2/3 of the deaths caused by misuse is not "the safest" - but that is just my opinion.

Or maybe you mean the subset of accidental shootings - maybe those are intended use?

Or wait - maybe you are referring to when the gun is pointed at somebody else and a person is shot on purpose?

Please clarify.

"I cannot tell if you think a handgun is misused for a suicide or if that is an intended use."

Heh. You are complaining about not being intelligent. No one can help you there.

The proper use of a hand gun is to kill a human being. It is therefore a good thing when hand guns are misused.

“Since at least 1950, all but two public mass shootings in America have taken place where general citizens are banned from carrying guns. In Europe, there have been no exceptions. Every mass public shooting — and there have been plenty of mass shooting in Europe — has occurred in a gun-free zone. In addition, they have had three of the six worst K–12 school shootings, and Europe experienced by far the worst mass public shooting perpetrated by a single individual (Norway in 2011, which from the shooting alone left 67 people dead and 110 wounded).

“Mass killers have even explicitly talked about their desire to attack gun-free zones. The Charleston, S.C., church shooting in June was instead almost a college shooting. But that killer changed his plans after realizing that the College of Charleston had armed guards. Holmes decided not to attack an airport because of what he described in his diary as its ‘substantial security.’ … Holmes decided not to attack an airport because of what he described in his diary as its “substantial security.””

And more examples of concealed carry to the rescue…
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425802/gun-free-zones-don't-save-…

Well look at that.

In a recent poll, 63% blamed mass shooting on mental health and only 23% on gun control laws.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/26/gun-control-a…

the gun violence culture can also be blamed on gun violence tv shows watched by parents with children in the same room digesting it all. i hope tv executives think about this. not every child copes well with seeing drugs and guns so much a part of our culture

It is a shame that Gun Violence has become a part of the American Culture. The violence is doing nothing but tearing this country down. There is not a source to blame but I think it is very important that we start pay attention of deranged behavior.

President Obama's Statement on Shootings in Oregon

gregladen — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 07:42:35 +0000

President Obama's Statement on Shootings in Oregon

"We are the only advanced country in the world that sees these shootings every few months."

gregladen Fri, 10/02/2015 - 03:42

Tags

I deny the absurd claim that the USA is an "advanced country."

So long as there are people and organizations in this country who profit politically and financially from these atrocities by fostering gun fetishism and paranoia about gun control we won't be able to fix this.

Ways to makes things better exist, We need to hold those who stand in the way responsible for the death.

Dear POTUS, how does your office intend to stop criminals from committing crimes? Can we agree that the shooter broke a number of laws? How would another law or set of laws make crime impossible?

The State is not a Savior. It's laws will not protect people in the face of criminal behavior. Tilt at that windmill all you want, and go for full on confiscation if you so desire, but your faith in the State is simply misplaced.

Another gun free zone, another mass shooting.

None of the laws which were proposed and are being proposed are constitutional.

If people want to "fix" this the 2nd amendment needs to be amended.

I don't think that will happen - but that is the solution.

"If people want to “fix” this the 2nd amendment needs to be amended."

Good fucking grief. Is there *ANYTHING* you comment upon that you actually know something about? That is, something that is not wrong, stupid, asinine, and based upon conspiracy ideation?

Well-regulated militias (the Second Amendment) exist in many dozens of countries, and they lack the violent, death-centric culture the USA has. Do you *REALLY* believe your solution (changing the USA Constitution) will magically make USA citizens less violent? Or are you just pretending to be a moron?

"None of the laws which were proposed and are being proposed are constitutional."

So you use denial by personal opinion on this just as you do with science. How telling.

"So you use denial by personal opinion on this just as you do with science. How telling."

It is spooky behavior. Denialists do not accept the fact that their behavior is frightening and incomprehensible to people who accept reality; when people tell denialists that the denialists' behavior is creepy, denialists think those people are not being honest. Seeing people insist observed reality isn't real just.... gives me the screaming willies. More spooky yet, denialists tend to know the reality they reject is true, even as they reject it--- they really can, and do, believe diametrically opposite things, and they know they do, even as they also know they don't.

Pliny the Younger mentioned the ability among some Roman senators around 1,890 years ago. The senators literally believed the catastrophic social disasters they were observing happening were not actually happening.

#2 "Ways to makes things better exist, We need to hold those who stand in the way responsible for the death."

Love that we can blame those law abiding citizens who wish to retain the ability to physically defend themselves. POTUS can come out and make disparaging remarks at such people and target executive orders and cabinet members to victimize those who play by the rules (even if nobody else does). 'Merica

Obviously the more mass shooting there are the more people may buy guns to "protect" themselves.
They may also see any attempt to curtail the purchase of firearms as the Government attempting to put them "in harms way"
Trying to implement any changes on a continental scale are doomed to failure, even such a change here in Europe has never been attempted. Perhaps in the US a start could be made not at the continental or the state level but at the county level

dean #5:

This is not based on personal opinion but on Supreme court decisions.

In addition to being an electrical engineer, I am also a patent attorney - so I read a lot of supreme court decisions and am fairly current on gun control legal opinions.

Heller held the 2nd amendment is a personal right, just like the 1st, fourth, fifth, sixth and so on amendments.

Most of the legal attempts to control guns have been struck down and I anticipate that most of what is being proposed would also be struck down.

Not everything - I am sure we could legislate for mental health and background checks - but if it got to strict it would probably get struck down.

So this is more than just personal opinion - it is part history, part fact and part an informed legal opinion.

Desertphile #6:

Of course amending the 2nd amendment will not change people's behavior.

I am telling you that to ban guns or take away guns or any other law which gun control advocates wish to pass to "fix" this problem - you will need to amend the 2nd amendment.

Do you disagree?

Desertphile:

If you could magically take away all the guns in the USA - do you think people who engage in mass shootings would just shrug their shoulders and give up on mass murder?

Or do you think they would build bombs out of propane tanks, or use knives or some other technique to kill mass quantities of people?

I don't think passing laws or changing the constitution will stop mass killings - do you?

A gun is just a tool - take away the gun and people will just switch to another tool.

Do you disagree?

I am truly interested in your thoughts on gun control.

"If you could magically take away all the guns in the USA ...."

No: I refuse to consider it. I have the right to own guns, and I emphatically defend and support that right for myself and every sane, competent USA citizen.

"do you think people who engage in mass shootings would just shrug their shoulders and give up on mass murder?"

Idiot.

Dear ron, how do you intend to stop those in possession of guns from committing crimes? Can we agree that the shooter broke a number of laws because he had access to guns & ammo? How would avoiding another law or set of laws to control gun access make crime and/or gun ownership impossible?

The Gun is not a Savior. Its power will not protect people in the face of criminal behavior. Tilt at that windmill all you want, and go for your own full-on gun ownership if you so desire, but your faith in the Gun is simply misplaced.

Another easy-access gun zone, another mass shooting.

"Dear ron, how do you intend to stop those in possession of guns from committing crimes? Can we agree that the shooter broke a number of laws because he had access to guns & ammo? How would avoiding another law or set of laws to control gun access make crime and/or gun ownership impossible?"

A few hours ago some batshit carzy lunatic told me, via Youtube, that if USA citizens would just all walk around with pistols and rifles, mass shootings would not happen. He insisted people should walk around in restaurants and shopping malls with hand guns, and that would solve the problem.

Any time and every time I see someone with a hand gun in a shopping mall or restaurant, I'm going to warn people to flee, then call the town, county, and state police. It is my civic duty to do so.

"Denialists do not accept the fact that their behavior is frightening and incomprehensible to people who accept reality"

As I've said, locally the anti-vaccination folks are the largest group of science deniers, with a few who view children as property and so base opposition on "don't mess with my property."
The one thing they all have in common with their beliefs is an immense amount of self confidence - not just about the vaccination stuff, but everything. Somehow they've become so sure of themselves that a moment of self-doubt never happens - but as a consequence neither does a bit of reflection on what they say or do. The results, when I've some in class, or a friend or another faculty member sends me a bit of "research" an anti-vaccer has submitted, the fact that it doesn't take long at all to point out the mis-stated or fabricated statistics and explain why they are wrong isn't important. My degrees (or those of other faculty) are meaningless, as are the explanations - because they KNOW they are right.
Long winded comment, but that is the basis for my comment that rickA is very similar to our anti-vaccination folks: no end of comments which are without substance but presented as though they had all the evidential weight of the universe behind them.

They project the same opinion one of my wife's nieces stated about the two of us: "The problem with you two is that you wait to make decisions based on facts rather than what you know is true."

RickA hasn't tried that one yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did.

"As I’ve said, locally the anti-vaccination folks are the largest group of science deniers, with a few who view children as property and so base opposition on 'don’t mess with my property.'"

Pardon me while I shudder in dread....

How many of those anti-vaccination lunatics claim they are "parents' rights activists?" I have been avoiding these assholes since my dance ticket is full already, with Creationists, free energy lunatics, and deniers of climate change--- in the past I have seen articles about ":Parents' rights activists" (and "men's rights activists) but one must draw the line on how many k00ks one deals with.

Since year 1985 I have worked against the child-rapist cults in southern Utah and the Arizona Strip, where old men insist they have the right to rape little girls because they are "married." You may recall the outrage in these areas when the legal marriage age was *RAISED* to 16 years: the child advocacy groups I belonged to had tried to get the age raised to 19 years old, up from 13, and the state "compromised" to 16.

#8 Laws were broken but not "because he had access to guns & ammo". They were simply his weapons of choice.

A gun indeed can protect one in the face of criminal behavior. That would be what they call "The Point of the Argument". There are many documented self-defense uses of firearms every year, from minors to the elderly, the firearm is a great equalizer (but when one believes in Darwinistic Natural Selection where it is appropriate that the strong kill the weak...it does follow Darwin's twisted logic that the weak should remain weak / unarmed).

What's an "easy-access gun zone"?

My arguments don't work in the reverse, and yours don't work in any direction.

"A gun indeed can protect one in the face of criminal behavior"

"... but almost never does," you forgot to add.

"In addition to being an electrical engineer, I am also a patent attorney "

So your opinion on issues like this should be taken just as seriously as the ramblings of an engineer who dismisses evolution, or lawyers who dismiss climate change - not at all seriously.

ron, you're ignoring the (blood) price that goes along with your gun worship. Are you that callous towards everyone? Or (for you) just faceless victims of gun violence, accidental & intentional? I'm sure the families of those Oregon victims feel otherwise. Go ahead and tell us all how you invalidate them.

Go ahead.

More guns bought "for protection" end up killing children & others related to the owner (plus suicides) than kill or deter "criminal behavior" -- by a wide margin.

ron will now invalidate this... Go ahead, ron.

Now tell us how owning that gun protects those children from the criminal behavior of having a loaded firearm available to them in the first place. Go ahead, ron. Tell everyone how my arguments don't work.

Be sure to write it in blood.

I'm not ignoring the blood. I'm advocating the bloodshed of the criminal over the bloodshed of the innocent (current policy's product).

The victims of crime are innocent and should not be disarmed (but, by policy, they were!). Families in Oregon should be armed if they desire to learn proper usage and handling of firearms for personal protection (http://tinyurl.com/o44xeo3). I'm advocating in favor of innocent victims of crime. Others are advocating disarming people who will not break the law. The results are abhorrent to all who don't follow Darwin's delusions.

When seconds count, the cops were 480 seconds away.

Why do we call the cops? Because we need someone to shoot back! Deny that. Go ahead and tell us we call the cops so that we can read poetry together or some such.

Go ahead.

#19 almost never does? Even the CDC disagrees with you. http://tinyurl.com/o3x9q73

#20 Kids using weapons to protect themselves

http://tinyurl.com/osysm6s
http://tinyurl.com/q7u53r7

dean #17 said:

"So your opinion on issues like this should be taken just as seriously as the ramblings of an engineer who dismisses evolution, or lawyers who dismiss climate change – not at all seriously."

It is totally up to you what weight you give my personal opinion. And the fact that I am an attorney does not mean you should turn off your own brain and just agree with what I have to say.

If you choose to give it zero weight - that is up to you.

No hard feelings.

Unless you want to just ask wanta-be mass murders to just please don't kill people - I assume people who want to "fix" this problem will do it by passing laws.

I just thought you should be aware of the problem with most of the gun control laws passed in the USA - which is that they are unconstitutional.

Many have been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and they continue to get struck down at the rate of one or two per year.

For example, the law that Heller struck down was a DC law which required the gun to be safed, locked and the ammo had to be in a different room (and I believe also locked).

Heller (who was a retired police officer) pointed out that a gun for self-defense needs to be loaded and ready to be used, to be of any use - and the Supreme Court agreed and struck down the law in DC.

Bans on possession of pistols in Chicago were struck down.

Bans on bearing guns are being struck down (the right to keep and bear arms has two parts).

Bans on guns at Federal parks are being struck down.

And so on - many many laws are getting struck down in many states.

Those are facts (sorry).

So - you tell me what law you think should be passed and I will tell you if I think it will pass muster (if you are interested in my opinion).

If you are not interested - that is ok to.

Desertphile #22:

Then we agree.

I guess I am confused about what you found so objectionable about my point that to "fix" this we need to change the 2nd amendment.

How would you "fix" it?

The interpretation of the 2nd amendment has changed:

"Justice Stevens and his colleagues were not saying, a mere seven years ago, that the gun-control legislation in dispute in Heller alone was constitutional within the confines of the Second Amendment. They were asserting that essentially every kind of legislation concerning guns in the hands of individuals was compatible with the Second Amendment—indeed, that regulating guns in individual hands was one of the purposes for which the amendment was offered.

So there is no need to amend the Constitution, or to alter the historical understanding of what the Second Amendment meant. No new reasoning or tortured rereading is needed to reconcile the Constitution with common sense. All that is necessary for sanity to rule again, on the question of guns, is to restore the amendment to its commonly understood meaning as it was articulated by this wise Republican judge a scant few years ago."
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-second-amendment-is-a-gun-c…

"Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon."
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-s…

The Supreme Court case before Heller was Miller from the 30's.

In Miller the weapon was a sawed off shotgun and the Court held that because the military didn't issue sawed off shotguns to each infantry soldier as a normal part of their arms, that it was ok to regulate sawed off shotguns.

The implication being that since each soldier gets issued a rifle and a pistol, it was not ok to regulate those.

Then Heller held the 2nd amendment is a personal right.

So I don't think it will be very easy for the Court to reverse Heller.

It would be a bit like the Supreme Court reversing Roe v. Wade.

So while it is possible for the Supreme Court to reverse Heller - I consider it very unlikely.

Which is why if laws are desired to control guns, the 2nd amendment will have to be changed (in my opinion).

I don't think that is very likely to happen.

How much like Byron Smith is the average gun owner?

gregladen — Sat, 03 May 2014 10:33:39 +0000

How much like Byron Smith is the average gun owner?

I refuse to live in fear. I am not a bleeding heart liberal. I have a civic duty. I have to do it. Burglars are not human, they are vermin. I try to be a good person, to do what I should, be a good citizen.

Those are among the words uttered by Byron Smith shortly after he murdered two teenagers in his home last Thanksgiving. There had been numerous break-ins in Smith’s neighborhood near Little Falls, Minnesota. Byron set a trap, making his home look vulnerable and unoccupied. If the burglars were to break into his home, they would come in a certain way, and end up descending the stairs into his basement. There, he set up a sniper’s nest of sorts, with food and beverages and ammo, and waited. Eventually the trap was sprung. One of the two teenagers that had been carrying out these break-ins descended the stairs, Smith shot him dead, and dragged the body out of sight. Then the second teenager came down the stairs, and he shot her. She did not die easily, so he shot her a few times. Then he said a few words into the recording machine that had been running the whole time. Eventually, but not right away, he reported the incident. There are more details, but that is the gist of what happened.

Byron Smith was convicted of homicide. It turns out that setting a trap for possible home invaders and then killing them is not considered one’s right. Or, as Smith might put it, one’s duty.

There are two things about this incident I’d like to point out, one pretty straight forward, the other likely to be controversial. Let’s start with the straight forward one.

The chances of this working are slim. If there are burglaries happening in your neighborhood, and you set up a trap like Smith did, the chances that the trap will work are not high. But the trap did work for Smith. I know this is only a single incident, but think about this for a second. It is safe, though not statistically provable by any means, to assume (or at least, guess) that for every trap-setting Byron Smith there is a large number of others doing the same thing but not getting results. In fact, there are probably a few people who have actually managed to trap people this way, but did it differently than Byron, less overtly, and that we don’t know about. My point is simply this: Among the gun owners in this country who feel it is OK to arm themselves with the expectation of killing one or more intruders, it is likely that a non-zero percentage of them are just like Byron but maybe a tad smarter, or a tad less interested in falling on the proverbial sword once the deed is done.

The second point is that anyone who decides that it is OK to arm themselves with the expectation of killing an intruder is at least a little like Byron Smith. Oh, no, you may say, a person arming themselves is simply trying to protect themselves and their families from danger, they are not attempting to kill someone. But that does not really make a person that different from Smith. There are multiple alternatives to killing intruders. One set of alternatives has to do with keeping intruders out to begin with. Smith made it easy for the intruders to enter his home. What about a person who has $350 to spend on protecting their home, and has the choice between reinforcing the possible entrance ways vs. purchasing a firearm? If one purchases the firearm and keeps it loaded and handy, but has easily broken doors or locks, that is a little like setting a trap, because it is relatively easy for someone to break into your home and, once they’ve broken in, relatively easy to shoot them. That is a passive setting of a trap.

Think about all the different aspects involved here, most of which can be ascertained from looking at the Smith case. Do you feel that taking a life is equivalent to protecting your home? Are you prepared to own a dangerous weapon? Are you prepared to keep the weapon ready and loaded? Did you spend money and effort on arming yourself instead of securing your home better, under the false assumption that you can’t really stop a determined burglar? Did you avoid making it clear someone was home? Do you find yourself checking on your firearm and making sure it is extra handy, instead of taking other action, when you hear about break-ins in your neighborhood? Just how much like Byron Smith are you?

I suspect that the majority of people who arm themselves are not a lot like Byron Smith. But is it OK to be half like him? 10% like him? 1% like him?

If you want to contemplate these questions, I ask you do do one thing as part of that process. Listen to the tape Smith made. Listen to the whole thing, and do so along with reading about descriptions of what happened, what he confessed to, what he was convicted of.

Here is one of the many available descriptions of the event.

Here is the tape. Listen to all of it and imagine yourself being a little like Byron Smith. Or, perhaps, ask yourself how much like Byron Smith is your neighbor, friend, relative, or enemy?

gregladen Sat, 05/03/2014 - 06:33

Tags

Years ago, when I was in Texas, a home security expert came to give a talk to us at work. She made several points that hit home to me, lessons that keep me mindful to this day. It turns out that she was working for a company that sold a legal version of pepper spray, but even after that full disclosure she talked about the following ways people can protect themselves from burglary:

1. Burglars do not want to face a confrontation with the residents. They want to get in, get stuff and get out. They don't want to be endangered (despite the high risk of such in their chosen professions.)

a. If you have no dog, set out dog dishes anyway. Preferably on the patio. Even more preferably, dog dishes appropriate for a big dog. Burglars do not want to face big dogs.

b. Set out big muddy workboots on the patio. Gives the illusion that there is a construction worker inside. Sexist, perhaps, but still something that the burglars would rather avoid.

c. Set light-timers, random if possible. A potential burglar casing your house will be suspicious that you keep odd ours.

d. Shut the garage door, especially when the car is not in it. Don't advertise that you aren't home.

e. Motion-sensitive lights. Obvious reasons.

2. Guns. In order to keep your loved ones safe from accidental death or injury, guns should be locked and encased and secure. This means that if there is a burglar in in the house who awakens you, it takes time and makes noise to retrieve and load and arm the guns. They are pretty much useless when there is an intruder.

a. If you keep a gun in your nightstand, against all caution and safety rules, you will be able to retrieve and arm yourself more quickly. However, your eyes are not dilated when you are startled from sleep and it can take several mindues for them to adjust to the light. A burglar's eyes will have been adjusted to dark or dimmed light well before you. They know this and will use this knowledge against you. In order to shoot to kill someone, you need to know where to aim and you need to do it quickly and accurately, or the intruder may be able to wrest your gun form you. Think it can't happen? It happens to cops and they are trained not to let it happen.

b. If you have kids or college age students who either come in late or surprise you coming home, are hard to discriminate from burglars when you are startled awake and can't see very well. You wouldn't want to kill your child, or your roommate, would you?

3. Pepper spray, or something similar, needs not be so accurate. It has a wide spread and will incapacitate a burgler. While they are incapacitated, you have time to bind them and call 911. I would rather call the cops and tell them to come and arrest an intruder than to call an ambulannce and the cops because I had killed someone who was about to take my television.

I can think of nothing that I own, or have owned in the past that is worth as much to me as the value of a human life, even that of a burglar. I would rather see someone do 90 days at a work farm for stealing my stuff than to live with the knowledge that I had killed someone.

And that's why I don't keep a gun in the house, and that is why I think that Smith was given the proper sentence.

After she gave that talk, we had a lunchroom discussion among us coworkers. He had been a Dallas cop, and was a conservative "pro-life" Christian. He made the point that according to Texas law, self-defense included leaving your house with your

(cont) "someone leaving your house with your" personal property. I told him I thought that would be immoral and no longer self-defense because at that point the homeowner is no longer in danger.

I have weapons but not for protection, I enjoy target shooting (I say weapons not just guns because I have bows and crossbows in the house as well) but I don't expect them to protect my house from burglars. I expect my big noisy dog to be much more effective for that. The apartment building I used to live in I was the only occupied apartment out of three on my side of the building for about a month and someone broke into the building one night. I have no idea who because as soon as my dog barked just once with her deep hound baying they took off before even reaching my apartment door. I've always loved having dogs for companionship but after that I will never live alone without one again.

Property is just that, property, things. I could never use any of my weapons to kill another person for breaking in to steal stuff. I just couldn't. I would have to be in fear for my life or my nephew's lives to even consider it (I'm not a violent person, the idea of killing someone makes me sick, but I'd kill to protect those little boys).

Disgusting article.

How do you quantify those seemingly quantified qualities of being ".. half like him? 10% like him? 1% like him?"

I think the article overgeneralizes the tragic and stupid circumstances of this popular murder. I guess that I'm 0.00032% like Byron Smith. I'll show my work :-)

In 2010, 16,000 people were killed in homicides (this excludes the 38,000 that used them for suicide, and 225 who were killed without assignation of intent).

One way to think of it is that 50 million gun owners resulted in the death of 16000 people. Let's assume that all homicides are mantrapping cases, like Byron Smith's. That means that the average gun owner, by one measure, is about .032% like Byron Smith.

Clearly, the number of mantrapping cases resulting in murder is much, much less than that, easily by a factor of 100 and more like a factor of 1000.

Dan, I don' t know how one would quantify that, and it is hardly the point. Indeed, the idea that one can't quantify this easily IS a big part of the point.

I didn't realize there was a word for this. Thanks for pointing it out.

It seems obvious that if 100 million of America's ca. 310 million people were "like Byron Smith", this nation would be an even uglier place than it in fact is. (Would you, like most of us, agree to place more typical perpetrators of actual violent crimes in that category? They are still a tiny fraction of the population.) Others of your commenters have tried before to point out that there are reasons for owning guns other than protection from human predators - target shooting, hunting, protection of self or farmed animals from dangerous animals - and it's been water off a duck's back. That said, though, human predators are a real danger in some areas, and it is not possible for the average working-class person to secure her house - or an apartment, which she cannot legally modify - to the point where nobody can possibly break into it. You may have heard of the well-publicized recent case in which two men in a rural area spent twenty minutes breaking down the barricaded door of a young widow with a baby. When they broke in before any rescue arrived, she shot and killed one of them, saving herself from sure gang-rape and murder. Did that make her "like Byron Smith?" I would say it made her courageous, if not an outright hero for very possibly saving her baby's life too. You already think me an Untermensch anyway, so I don't mind acknowledging that I would do the same without hesitation if my life or my loved ones' lives were at stake. Every other animal on earth will fight tooth and nail for its life when it is attacked; is that evil?

Greg, I would have to say that an incident such as this one almost never happens. I remember only one incident that is only slightly similar to the story at hand: a store owner who set an automatic trap about 40 years ago. I think it was in Miami. This was after his store had been broken into and burgled multiple times. If memory serves, the man was convicted for doing so. I have never heard of any other incident even remotely like this one. The blogs that discuss home defense actually do what you suggest. Better locks, deadbolts, steel doors, panic room, etc. I have been a recreational shooter for about 50 years, and I know a lot of shooters in several states. No one -- not even one person -- that I know is anxiously awaiting the day that they can kill an intruder. The firearm is the last line of defense when all else fails. Stay upstairs and call 911. Shout down that you are armed and have called the police. Of course, not every intruder is after your TV. Some are intent on mayhem of one sort or another. The advice that I have heard time and time again is to retreat to your designated panic room with your loved ones, call 911, and, if the intruder tries to get in, shout that you are armed and will use deadly force. In most cases, that is all you need to do, for the intruder will flee. As the earlier post by Jane relates above, one rural woman was able to save her life and the life of her child because she was armed and trained. I strongly encourage women, disabled, and elderly people to think about arming themselves as a final defense against "bad guys." I think that the anti-gun movement in our country today is ignoring these citizens, when I see them suggesting that we just run away or hide. Not everyone has every option available. Gary Kleck's research suggests that firearms are used in preventing violent crimes more than two million times a year in this country. The overwhelming majority of the time the firearm was not even fired. So, instead of relying on anecdotal evidence, we need to rely on good research. I hope that I didn't stray too far off-topic. To answer your question, "10%, 1%?" I would say that nearly everyone who is a good citizen and a law abiding firearm owner would say: 0%.

"Others of your commenters have tried before to point out that there are reasons for owning guns other than protection from human predators – target shooting, hunting, protection of self or farmed animals from dangerous animals – and it’s been water off a duck’s back."

Jane, you are doing it again. Making shit up. I have been a strong supporter of gun ownership rights for years. I've recently changed my stance but I've never declared what it is and no, the world is not made up of people who either agree with Jane or disagree with Jane. Things are just a little more complex than that.

But you assume otherwise, so you fill in the blanks. Really, you have to stop doing that.

I won't bother with the rest of your comment because I chose to fill in the blanks instead of reading it until you do the courtesy to me of paying attention to what I'm saying rather than simply characterizing it in a way that suits you.

Double Helix: "Greg, I would have to say that an incident such as this one almost never happens"

Yes and no. First, that's what I said. This exact scenario never happens. But I also pointed out that even though it must be rare, having the mantrap work must be even more rare. Do the math.

I don't really think my point is so obtuse or difficult mathematically to understand. It is like the cockroach theory in economics.

Having said that, it does actually happen more often than one might think if we just slightly relax the definition to not require that one be a full blow Byron Smith. As I stated, it happened up the street from my house a couple of years ago, clearly (different but similar enough) but the event was not treated as a bad thing by the community because the perp did not document his opinion about it so clearly, and it was a single clean shot with no messiness. There were no charges no court case.

If a gun nut sits his gun-loving ass in bed with a loaded gun next to him on the night stand and has doors on his house unlocked or easily broken into and he makes it look like nobody is home every single day eventually some kid might walk into his bedroom and he gets to blow the child away. This is the same thing Byron Smith did but less elaborate. This happens far, far more often than once every 40 years. Happened twice in my own stomping grounds in a few years. Has I not been paying close attention, when my neighbor killed the kid a few years ago I would not have noticed because it was not a big news story.

On top of this, (and I can't believe I'm explaining to you what I just wrote instead of just telling you to go read the damn blog post) the number of times it actually works and someone is killed must be very very small compared to the number of people with loaded guns next to their night stands and less than adequate physical security on their doors sitting there right now as we speak.

<iI would have to say that an incident such as this one almost never happens.

There was a similar incident in Montana just last week, which resulted in the death of an exchange student from Germany. I can't speak for others, but I did not hear about the Smith incident until reading of it in reports about the Montana case. In the Montana case, AFAIK there are no indications that the deceased was performing or attempting to perform an illegal act; the gunman was lying in wait for somebody.

The Montana case made international news because a foreign national died. Since I didn't hear about the Smith case before it was brought up in the reporting on the Montana case, I must ask: How many more such incidents were there that may have been reported locally (as I assume the Smith case was) but never made national news? That's in addition to Greg's point that others may have set such traps but never had anyone fall into the trap.

Eric, I would like to know that too. I suspect it is much more common than people tend to assume. Between gun owners accidentally shooting relatives or neighbors and gun owners passively setting up traps by not securing their homes but arming themselves, it may be a significant percentage of the category of gun deaths/woundings that don't fall already into the big categories of suicide, armed robberies, gang warfare, etc.

I suppose one could make a category that includes those two classes plus "authorized killings" that were not fully justified and work on that problem as a societal issue.

Improving locks in your home doesn't prevent burglars from smashing your window with a metal pipe, knocking out the rest of the window, and entering your home, as in this case. That's a felony, by Minnesota law.
The felons already had rap sheets, Kifer for stealing prescription drugs. A juvenile turned one of Smith's stolen guns in to the police, saying he bought it from Brady.
The Brady family has possession of Smith's nine war medals, which may be a federal crime under "stolen valor" law.
Why hadn't these thieving felons been arrested before? They were so dumb they even drove to Smith's house in a car containing stolen prescription drugs from one of their previous burglaries. It sounds like the local police expect the citizens of Little Falls to settle their beefs with criminals themselves.

AnnM, it is simply not true that hardening the target has zero effect. That is a fantasy held by those who don't want to bother with it. Burglaries are foiled all the time by precautions homeowners take. Please do not use my blog to spread such a pernicious rumor.

Otherwise you prove my point nicely with your implication that the people of Little Falls need to take matters into their own hands. Do you? Are you armed and ready? Is the safety on your loaded firearm off, just in case?

My point was only that some of my neighbors were arrested and jailed for felonies, including theft and drug dealing, so I wonder why the police in Little Falls didn't arrest and jail the teens after they committed burglary and drug theft.

I think because they didn't put it together until later. Actually, the cops were acting in a relatively nice helpful manner, and let it slip. I guess I'd prefer that over what often seems to happen.

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/20205312/little-falls-shooting-ear…

I'll hone a finer point on it: Suggesting that there is a 1-in-2 ("half like him") 1-in-10 ("10% like him") or 1-in-100 ("1% like him") chance that any gun owner would behave like Byron Smith is divisive and offensive.

Not all gun owners are nuts and premeditated murderers, except to an anti-gun nut.

Dan, I did not say what you claim I said. Read the post again but more slowly.

Yes, that's not *exactly* what you said. You say that most gun owners are not a lot like Byron Smith.

Or maybe you're saying that some gun owners are a lot like Byron Smith. It's not quite a logical inverse.

Then you go after the excluded middle, with how okay is it to be half like him, or a tenth like him, or a hundredth like him.
My objection is that I think you estimate of the frequency of this kind of behavior is high by five orders of magnitude, and that this blog entry is an appeal to emotion (disgust).

I'm pretty sure I understand what you mean.

Now that you reread it slower, aside from the backpedal work, you are getting closer!

I'm asserting that something everyone assumes, with no real data, to be extraordinarily rare, might be somewhat more common. I adduced evidence. You find my proposal unbelievable, so you state I am wrong but you are arguing from incredulity.

Tell us about your door locks and firearms.

Why should I have to lock my doors to deter garbage from entering my home to steal the stuff I worked for. Screw that!!!!! Come in uninvited with the intent to steal and you won't have to worry about jail. And I damn sure won't be making recordings or statements to the police.

To quote a close friend who's an engineer and lives in a rural area, "doors are a convenience for people with manners." Large windows, which are becoming more and more popular, are an invitation to smash & enter.

The vast majority of residential buildings can't be effectively secured in a manner that will prevent intruders from gaining entry. This is a factor of the perversity of the housing market, whereby properties appreciate in value even though the buildings do not keep pace with current life-safety technology in such matters as natural disaster preparedness (e.g. earthquake bracing, storm shelter, etc.), not to mention energy efficiency.

In a crime-ridden society, large windows, accessible from the ground, are a life-safety hazard. Putting bars over them merely produces the further perversity of symbolically imprisoning the innocent (not to mention making escape in a fire more difficult or impossible: trading one life-safety hazard for another).

Research in criminology demonstrates that the most effective deterrent to crime is not the severity of the sentence, but the swiftness and certainty of the sentence: the high probability of being caught quickly, tried swiftly, prosecuted effectively and convicted, and then sentenced to whatever term of incarceration or other penalty is provided by law. A real solution to our crime pandemic necessarily requires hiring more police, using "community policing" methods where officers have good relationships with the neighborhoods they patrol, and having neighborhood watches where neighbors are properly trained to "observe and report."

The actual benefit of firearms for home defense comes from the mere fact of "keeping and bearing," not "using" them. This is essentially a "deterrence" policy, as with nuclear weapons in international relations. But as with management of the strategic arsenal, firearm ownership requires training oneself to keep a cool head and constantly check and cross-check one's assumptions, and practice until all of this (as well as the mechanical routines of maintaining and operating the weapon) become second-nature. The same can be said for driving an automobile, and frankly we are far too lax in allowing both activities for people who are clearly not capable of doing the minimum things necessary for the safety of others.

But there's another factor that deserves a long look.

Our culture glamorizes criminality.

Just look at what's in the movies, on TV, in the popular music, and on the video game console. The fact that one of the most popular video games awards points for running over cops with stolen cars, tells you everything you need to know.

Bottom line: fix the culture first, and the rest will follow.

Lastly, if you have a few hundred bucks to spend protecting your house, consider a video & audio recording system that backs up its recordings to "the cloud." That's one type of "trap" that's 100% legal, and with good pictures & audio, it will get results.

Anyone who buys a gun for self defense and is not ready to kill outright is a fool. Anyone who goes to bed with a loaded weapon beside his bed is a bigger fool. You let a burglar takes what he wants while calling 911. More innocent people are shot by startled sleepers then burglars.

Greg, this was a well-written article about a truly tragic case...gut wrenching.

Mr. Byron stated "I refuse to live in fear". However, that is precisely what he was doing. Fear is what made him murder those children, and I think fear is what motivates many people to purchase firearms while willfully ignore the data concerning them.

After a garage fire a few years ago my wife and I purchase a comprehensive alarm system. If someone breaks in the screeching alarm goes off and the police and/or fire are summoned. Having a good relationship with the neighbors helps, too. (They detected our garage fire while we were asleep!)

Mike Haubrich's recommendations are spot on. Don't live in fear. Live in knowledge and reason.

G ... "The vast majority of residential buildings can’t be effectively secured in a manner that will prevent intruders from gaining entry. "

A oft repeated but unsupported statement that is not admissible in this conversation as a fact. Experts actually tell us that burglaries are thwarted frequently, and this is often due to infrastructure. So no, we are not dismissing hardening the target, and therefore, we are also not giving a pass to monsters like Ralph who are laying in wait for the opportunity to kill and get away with it.

Let me remind you of the critical point Mike made in the first comment:

Burglars do not want to face a confrontation with the residents. They want to get in, get stuff and get out. They don’t want to be endangered (despite the high risk of such in their chosen professions.)

This is why locks are so effective as deterrents. Sure, a determined and competent burglar could enter through a window, if he has decided to hit your house specifically. But unless you're a 1%er or a drug kingpin (people in those two categories can probably afford to take more thorough security measures), you're probably being paranoid if you think a burglar would want to target your house specifically. And an incompetent burglar is likely to cut himself badly (i.e., arterial bleeding) if he screws up the window entry. More than one would-be burglar has died of injuries suffered in a botched window entry, without a shot being fired. Most burglars are smart enough to know this, so if it's too hard (or too risky, because you've successfully simulated being home when you're not) to go into your house via the locked door, he'll pick somebody else's house. That's the whole point of your precautions against burglary (as well as car theft): to make the would be perp choose a different target.

And if you do have a gun in the house, which is not properly secured and not in your hands, guess what any burglar who does get in your house will go for first. Where I grew up (Miami in the days of the Cocaine Cowboys), that was the most common method for getting guns into the hands of bad guys. Even if you do surprise this burglar by coming upon him with your other gun in your hands, he might shoot you first.

Happened in my hometown about a year and a half ago:
http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2013/06/27/intruders-shooter-wont-be…

Long story short, a house was broken into Thurs night. Homeowner thought the burglar would come back to "finish the job" the next night, so he left the windown unlocked that the burglar had used the first time and slept on the first floor with a gun, literally on the floor, rather than the couple's upstairs bedroom. They also set another TV where the first one had been stolen Thurs night, and left the light on so that it, and other electronics, would be clearly illuminated.

Sure enough, the guy came back in through that window. Homeowner called out to the guy, and he allegedly made "a motion" at the homeowner. Homeowner shot and killed the guy; no charges filed.

" I adduced evidence. "

You didn't. You argued by anecdote.

"you are arguing from incredulity. "

I didn't. My argument was quantitative, and the numbers were taken from FBI crime statistics from 2010.

"Tell us about your door locks and firearms."

Sure, Greg. This is my last post in this thread.

Marlin 336, a 30-30 deer rifle, lever action.
J Stevens 87A, 22 caliber, built in the 1940s, semi-auto.
Colt M1911A, a 45 caliber from 1943, semi-auto.
Ruger Old Army, a black powder cap-and ball revolver.

All the guns are stored unloaded and separated from their ammunition. None of the guns are stored in the bedroom.

We have deadbolts and lockable windows, but we don't use them if we leave the barky dog in the house. A 911 call will bring the sheriff in about 30 minutes: they're spread pretty thin.

I'd give up the semi-auto weapons if our legislators had the fortitude of the Australians or the Scotch in the wake of mass murders of children. I'd give up all the handguns, although I don't think black powder weapons have killed anyone in this century.

I'd cry to give up the 30-30: My grandfather was a subsistence poacher during the depression and that is what he used.

"You didn’t. You argued by anecdote."

There is not as distinct a line between anecdote and evidence as Wikipedia may lead you to believe.

I and others have cited cases that are very much like the Byron Smith case and suggested the hypothesis that this or something like this happens more often than once in a blue moon. I also argued, from logic, that since the chance of something like this actually coming to fruition is low, that for every publicized and known Byron Smith scenario there may be a larger but unknown number of guys sitting there with their weapons ready but their homes unsecured hoping for a shot. This is a pretty solid argument as it is given: As a proposal to consider what might be really going on. I attempt no strong conclusions here.

Good for you on the door locks and the dog!

Byron Smith case

On this blog, so far no one has said that their house was burglarized or guns were stolen.
A gun was stolen from my car. (In the western U.S., assume drivers are armed, especially on roads with signs like, “Next gas, 85 miles.” California police have told me to drive as if every driver has a gun and might shoot you if you cut them off.
I sympathize with Smith. In my case, the person who probably stole my gun also stole three checks out of my checkbook and forged them, so he was easily caught and went to jail—for three felonies, nine months. I got that money back from the bank, but nothing for the gun.
I have never been burglarized, but I don’t care if people shoot rats, mice, thieves, or burglars in their basement. I thought “vermin” long before I heard Smith saying it on tape.

The west has a lot of vigilante justice. A boy tried to carjack a woman at a strip mall near me, in California. A man emerged from another car, shot the perp, and began yelling, “Help me. I shot a carjacker.” Some men pulled tire irons out of their car trunks, and began beating the perp, while others queued up to run over him. I’m not saying that’s right, but the fewer criminals running around, the safer we all are.

Keep doing felonies, and one day your prospective victim gets the upper hand. It could occur in jail, in prison, in the home of one of your victims, or on the street. If Smith wasn’t in prison, would you feel safer in his company or with one of the thieves he killed? Think about it.
As for me, I watched the ex-wife of the man who stole from me load garbage bags with everything he owned and throw them in a dumpster. I’m satisfied.

Q.E.D.

Greg's article makes sense, interesting read. I believe Smith was driven insane by these kids... I wonder if the percentage of people "like" Smith would increase having been harassed, broken into 11 times and $42k of cash and belongings stolen including precious memorabilia? I've been broken into a couple of times and it was infuriating... I felt helpless, violated and wanted revenge; certainly not the level of revenge that happened here however I wonder if I'd feel the same after the 11th time? Take a look at this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2616183/Minnesota-intruder-tria…

Shooting burglars, bad. Hiring goons (cops) to kidnap (arrest), assault (subdue), and forcibly inoculate them with HIV (imprison), good.
"Prisons are built with stones of law
Brothels with bricks of religion"---Blake

G … “The vast majority of residential buildings can’t be effectively secured in a manner that will prevent intruders from gaining entry. ”
A "oft repeated but unsupported statement that is not admissible in this conversation as a fact"

Fact. C'mon, people tunnel into bank vaults if they have enough time. An oxygen lance will cut a hole in a vault door. Brick falls to a sledgehammer. No man-made barrier is invulnerable.

The fact that rarely highly motivated and capable, well equipped criminals can break into very hardened targets does not mean that if you have good doors and windows, locks, etc. that they are meaningless.

The only way a "good window" deters a burglary is it makes enough noise when it shatters to attract a neighbor's attention. If your house is out of earshot, you'd need ferroconcrete walls, multiple deadbolts on solid oak doors and steel shutters on your windows, or anyone with a 3' wrecking bar can get inside in two minutes. Even with those barriers, 1/2 hour, tops if the burglars have a 6' crowbar. It's just time, noise, and neighbors that deter.

(Greg Ladin): "If one purchases the firearm and keeps it loaded and handy, but has easily broken doors or locks, that is a little like setting a trap, because it is relatively easy for someone to break into your home and, once they’ve broken in, relatively easy to shoot them. That is a passive setting of a trap."
How do you feel about cute chicks jogging alone? Blame the victim here, too? Or should they just lie back and enjoy it?

You've created a false scenario. There are a number of effective ways to deter burglars. It simply isn't true that they do whatever they want whenever and wherever they want to.

Anyone seriously interested in deterrence should contact their local organization (with the city/county/whatever) that helps with this. You can go to a couple of meetings, get some training and information, experts will usually be available (free) to look at your home and make specific suggestions. Then you spend a little money on upgrades and your chances of getting broken into go way way down.

What works best changes with time and varies with locality.

For the most part upgrades are more effective and cheaper than arming yourself and you don't have to kill anybody.

Of course, if your aim is to kill someone, and that appears increasingly evident to be the objective for some, than just leave your door unlocked but don't go to sleep, and keep your gun loaded but don't put on the safety. The life you take might be your own or a family member, but you'll get what you wished for eventually.

"if they have enough time."

That is the issue, isn't it? Tunneling into a bank vault, or burning through a door, take time, dedication, and being hidden from view. And is an extremely rare event.

The comparison of crimes with this sophistication to a breaking and entering is foolish. It's rather like saying high speed on public roads is not a danger to life since accidents leading to death in Nascar (Or Indy Car racing, or Formula 1) are almost non-existent.

(Greg Ladin): "You’ve created a false scenario."
Where?
(Greg Ladin): " There are a number of effective ways to deter burglars."
Asserted but not demonstrated. The only effective deterrent I see is human attention (neighbors or real-time security).
(Greg Ladin): "It simply isn’t true that they do whatever they want whenever and wherever they want to."
Strawman.

We have agreed that people with time and the right tools can get through any human-made barrier, right? Most houses aren't built like bank vaults and cannot be hardened to vault-level at a reasonable price. All it takes to get through a brick wall is 30 minutes and a sledgehammer. All it takes to get through a glass door or window is a rock.

(Me): "if they have enough time.”
(Dean): "That is the issue, isn’t it?"
Yes.
(Dean): ""Tunneling into a bank vault, or burning through a door, take time, dedication, and being hidden from view. And is an extremely rare event. The comparison of crimes with this sophistication to a breaking and entering is foolish."
Not at all. We construct a continuum: how much time, how hard the barriers. Your house falls somewhere between a tent in the wilderness and a bank vault in Manhattan.

Malcolm, we have come to an impasse. Your argument is limited, incorrect, and your counter arguments have turned into mush.

Greg, we have come to an impasse. Your argument is limited, incorrect, and your counter arguments have turned into mush.

I am a gun owner, a strong supporter of the second amendment,and I believe in the right to defend my family, myself, and my home against a threat to our lives. Having said that, what Byron Smith did was not self defense. It was an execution. These kids were unarmed, and after the first shot, were no longer a threat. You don't shoot someone in the head while they're lying on the ground bleeding unless your primary intent is to kill.

In making the choice to own a firearm for personal defense, I see it as my responsibility to ensure that my response to a threat is reasonable and appropriate. That means determining when lethal force is justifiable and when the correct course of action is to simply stay behind a locked door, call 911, and wait for the police. If I'm forced to fire my weapon in self defense, I have a responsibility to use ONLY the force necessary to neutralize that threat. I'm not going to shoot to kill. Rather, I'm going to shoot to end a threat, not a life. For example, if an intruder is in my home and armed, ideally I would attempt to disarm and detain them. If the situation escalates beyond that point, the intruder tries to attack despite a warning and a visible gun for example, I will fire. I will keep firing until there is no longer a threat. If two rounds are enough to put an intruder on the ground and cause them to drop their weapon, the threat is over. There's no need to keep firing. At that point, I'm going to try to keep this person alive until police and medics arrive.

Backing up some, I would also like to say that there's no way I'm going to go stumbling around my house in the dark or fire at something I can't see. If I can't identify my target, I will not fire. Period.

MK, and you are three.

The law enforcement in the little falls area focus on DUI's, Robbery is mostly ignored and the victim of stolen items are just "out"

There are huge national/cultural differences in what is allowable or considered acceptable in defending oneself or ones home. One of the most interesting parts of "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" (for me) was where one of the protagonists was feeling threatened, and put a golf club out in each room. Soon thereafter he gets a bodyguard who promptly removes all the golfclubs, because that would (should something happen) show the authorities that the homeowner intended to use physical force in defending his own home. Which is a big no-no in Sweden, evidently. Totally weird to me.

@ Greg Laden

I don't understand your last comment. Could you explain, please?

I was saying that MK sounds like he is three years old when he just repeats back what someone else says as his argument.

There was a story being passed around the SCA years ago, when I was active in the society, about a lord (SCA heavy-weapons enthusiast) who defended his manor (garden-level apartment) with a deadly weapon (katana). There was a bad lock on one of the two entrances to the apartment, and the landlord hadn't fixed it. It was a very hot night, and he didn't have A/C, so he was sleeping in the buff. When he heard the noise, he pulled on the only clothing to hand (a pair of socks) and pulled down the katana from its display rack on the wall. He emerged from the bedroom to find an intruder with a baseball bat in his kitchen. The intruder had just unlocked the other door to allow his accomplice in, but on seeing the resident, charged him with the baseball bat. Note: baseball bats are not good weapons to use against katanas. The resident took one swipe, laying open the man's forearm. The other burglar fled. The resident then performed first aid on his defeated foe and called the police. The burglar attempted to press charges, but the judge dismissed the case on castle defense grounds. I'm sure the fact that he rendered aid to the burglar helped, by making it clear he only wanted to neutralize the threat.

I generally agree with Ryan R concerning (responsible) gun ownership and self defense. Byron just appears to me to be a person who (understandably) became frustrated with home invaders, but who (not as understandably) allowed his frustration to lead him beyond the "boundary line" of self defense. However, while I do believe that responsible gun ownership is a good thing, it's not yet clear to me how much preparation (firearms training, etc.) should be required to qualify a gun owner as "responsible", especially in view of the fact that a home invader might himself/herself be armed and trained in the use of firearms.

Any homeowner who has ever been through a break in (like myself) and has come home to the damage done by burglars getting in and then the interior of the house is also in shambles from the burglars doing their thing, probably has no sympathy for these white trash criminal teens wahtsoever. These teens had PREVIOUSLY STOLEN HIS GUNS! Some revenge was warranted. Regardless of the law, they are dead from their greed and stupidity. No daddy in their house? His absence is part of the root of the problem here. Regardless of the law (not allowing the outright execution of a home invader) these dumb F**K teens are gone because when you break into someone's house you are risking your life. May the world learn from the teen's trashy criminal stupidity! I saw the mother of the teen boy killed smiling when the verdict was read, if she could have seen a video of him getting the bullets in his body as well, she might not have smiled nearly as wide...

Hi November Echo. I agree with you. The weird part is that most of you, along with Byron Smith, would consider me a bleeding heart liberal. I voted proudly for Obama twice ( though I do not consider him a true liberal). However,as far as crime is concerned I am very conservative. My heart breaks that these kids are dead,but they would not be dead if they had not been breaking into houses. They were not innocents. I certainly was not doing that at their ages. Where were the parents? I agree the mother of the boy seems troubling with her grinning. She looks like a meth addict to me. The girl's parents seem far more decent and genuinely sad. I do not believe Mr Smith is a danger to society and did not deserve Murder 1. I hope he wins his appeal. I have also been the victim of teenage crooks and it is hard to get past.

Yes, they were not innocents. But they were murdered in cold blood.

As if the same thing hadn't happened millions of times throughout history long before the first gun was invented.

In the Code of Hamurabi the burglar was to be buried in a hole dug in front of the entryway he had used to break into a home.
If a man's house was burgled his entire community had to chip in to replace all he had lost so they had a stake in bringing the burglar down and burying what was left.

I think this old coot is a murdering scumbag, but murdering scumbags used everything from fire hardened wooden spears to cross bows before guns were invented.

Take Otzi for example, the Neolithic CSI case. Shot in the back with a flint tipped arrow and with blood stains from up to five other humans found on his clothes.
I figure he was chased into the mountains after he had murdered some people.

Advice to all: If you break in someone's house you might get killed. So act accordingly. These young people would probably be alive today if they hadn't made such a foolish decision.