McCardle on New Gun Laws

Megan McArdle is a libertarian journalist who occasionally makes waves by being intelligent and independent-minded and willing to say publicly what she thinks. Her latest wave-making exercise: There’s Little We Can Do to Prevent Another Massacre.

I saw it satirized by Kathleen Geier in Political Animal, who wrote:

McArdle is the libertarian super-genius who thinks training little kids to gang-rush crazed gunmen, kamikaze-style, would be a far saner and more effective policy to stop gun violence than some latte-sipping liberal conspiracy like stricter gun laws. The idiocy of this suggestion is so perfect it’s downright inspiring. A zillion points for Gryffindor!

Yeah, well, no. McArdle may be wrong, but she’s not wrong in the way mocked by Geier. Personally, I’ve been avoiding the week-long national outpouring of televised grief-and-outrage porn. I’m deeply offended by the media’s response to the shootings, and don’t feel like lending it my attention. And I think gun control makes a lot of (obvious) sense, and the thinking that underlies the Second Amendment is no longer valid. But I also don’t have an answer to annoyingly intelligent and rational gun-enthusiast McArdle, when she argues that “the things that would work are impractical and unconstitutional. The things we can do won’t work.”

I think the point McArdle is making is animated at some level by the same disgust I feel with the media response. Yes, I get that you feel really, really badly about the senseless killing of lots of innocent children and their teachers. Guess what? Everybody else feels exactly the same way. But the problem of an event like the Newtown shooting is an actual problem in the real world. It will be solved (or not) by reasoned action, not by your outraged feelings.

Toward the end of her piece, McArdle writes this:

There’s a terrible syllogism that tends to follow on tragedies like this:

1. Something must be done

2. This is something

3. Therefore this must be done.

. . . and hello, Gulf War II.

Yup. Emotion is a terrible guide to action, because emotional outrage is such a ready handle for manipulation by the irrational and unscrupulous.

113 Responses to “McCardle on New Gun Laws”

  1. knarlyknight Says:

    Good post. Many comments here and elsewhere could be taken as an emotional response to the tragedy, yet people making those comments may also recognize the problem is far deeper than access to weapons, and may be uncomfortable with the sneaking suspicion that curtailing gun ownership might be a small bandaid on a large gaping wound. But gun control is something even if mostly a gesture of respect, regret and apology to past victims and a promise to our breathing (hyperventilating) kids that we are a sane society run by responsible, intelligent adults.

    Training the sheep to mob the attacker might be appropriate depending on circumstances (e.g. a high school football team in a small room with an vs assailant with a hand gun – yes; a group of primary kids in a gymnasium – better to hide.) Other measures could be taken as well, e.g. more secure doors and emergency rolling gates to “lockdown” sections of hallways.

    Heck, if I were doing the policy work on this I’d even be willing to investigate a gun control exemption for teachers while in classrooms, recognizing of course that Adam Lanza’s mother was a teacher in the school and was in a huge way responsible for what happened.

  2. shcb Says:

    I thought it was interesting that McCardle didn’t even consider the simplest and most cost effective (and effective) method of protecting the children. Let a few of the teachers return fire!

  3. enkidu Says:

    Now is not the time to talk about gun laws and gun culture in America.
    How about… now?
    Because the now I mentioned earlier isn’t now anymore.
    That was then. This is now. Now it is time to change.

    How about some simple things:

    – close the gun show loop-hole, sorry if that is your livelihood, mb you could get another line of work or open up a shop.

    – strengthen background checks and federal databases (sorry state’s rights, we as a nation have a problem, let’s do something smart for a change, k?)

    – limit magazines to a small number. A very small number. How about 1? 2? I’d try 4, mb 6. If you can’t hit your target with the first one, what makes you think you’ll hit it with the next dozen or two?

    – tighten gun laws – if lil ricki won’t give up his 40 round banana clip and when the feds raid his meth lab and find a clip of bigger than legal capacity, why there is another thing we can charge him with. Win win.

    – a buy back program for assault rifles – I think this worked well in Australia, we could try a voluntary thing? But if we really want to put a dent in it, we’d need to make military grade weapons illegal. Not sure any current politician has the balls for this (mb Hillary)

    turning to healthcare

    – undo the damage Reagan did.

    – Better treatment (there are some drugs targeting autism and other personality disorders). Some day radical gene therapy may reverse some of the worst problems. Universal genetic testing and neonatal care (this should really be a separate item). yes, wwnj, the UN blue helmets are going to forcibly swab your cheek then create a clone army of fat lazy stupid people on welfare to vote for their one world government.

    – Awareness. We live in a metro center where there are lots of people with autism spectrum and other issues. Autistic children are mainstreamed in our schools as much as possible. We interact with children and adults on that spectrum every single day. They are happier, we’re grateful to be so lucky and humble that we can do so little. But it is common human decency to do everything we can.

  4. enkidu Says:

    One more thing: body armor should not be allowed outside the military.

    Wear it while committing a violent crime and get a free upgrade to the electric chair! Double sentences when we visit lil ricki’s discount ice lab and find him tweaked out in full milspec regalia.

  5. shcb Says:

    I agree with you on the upgrading the punishment for the above, don’t limit magazine size, it’s a fools errand, although i don’t have a problem with it in principal, it’s the same fools errand whether you or I say it. Criminals by definition don’t abide by the rules unless there is a strong motive. The same for the vest and anything else you want to add on to it. Wait! Why not just execute anyone that kills someone in the process of a crime! And in a year or two, if your lawyers can’t convince your peers in a couple months you’re on your way to meet your victims in heaven, on your way to hell.

    I think we may be on to something here, if you use one of the above items you don’t like we cut back on the time the killer(s)have to live, add the number of dead or injured to the list too. You kill 4 people you have 2 weeks to mount your case, kill 1 you have 2 years, something like that. It is unconstitutional of course but if times are so dire we need to trash the 2nd and 10th, what the hell, let’s trash the whole damn thing.

    Now of course none of this helps protect us from the suicidal kid we are seeing recently (since 1936 or so), the only thing that seems to stop them is law abiding citizens with a gun. “When seconds count the police are only minutes away”.

  6. enkidu Says:

    So… basically your solution is more guns, more ammo, more violence, but you are ok with ignoring the Constitution, due process and Law in general. Well, all righty then.

    Smaller clips means more reload time, more chance of a jam, more chance to have a police officer take down the mad dog. Or as was the case in most of these incidents, when psycho can’t get his shaking hands to load another high capacity magazine and alert civs tackle and subdue him.

    Point of fact, when wwnj Jared Laughner shot Gabby Giffords, he was subdued without using any weapons. A civ with a gun rushed to the scene and nearly shot the guy who had taken away the wwnj’s boomstick. But your ‘plan’ means lots more mistakes, lots more violence and death to maybe reduce violence and death? Talk about making no damn sense at all.

    So you don’t think increasing mandatory minimum sentencing has any effect? mb in the Wingnutoverse, but over here in reality, risk/reward rules the day.

    How about trying to restrict access to high capacity magazines and bring an end to sales at gun shows. An assault weapons ban with teeth might work. But only if you listen to commies like this socialist:,0,6774314.story

    Your other great plan is to confront these types of heavily armed and armored psychos with a 112 lb female principal armed with a hand gun or maybe you are for giving them assault rifles. How long does it take to unlock the gun cabinet, take out the gun lock, load and chamber the first round, then put on the armor, buckle down your kevlar helmet and hopefully return fire? Seconds count, right? Utter pantswetting nonsense. gunporn bullshit fantasies that, curiously enough, almost never seem to happen in the real world.

    Victoria Soto dedicated her life to educating children, she gave her life to save them. You dishonor her and every victim with your wwnj nonsense.

  7. knarlyknight Says:

    Besides, arming everyone just ensures that sooner or later a teacher or armed school security guard will take out a bunch of students in a fit of wwnj hurf durf (aka goes psycho.)

    Good editorial and some good comments afterwards:

  8. shcb Says:

    Boy, pretty much exaggerated everything I said, but that is the norm. Let’s just talk about the magazine size. I have no problem passing a law limiting the number of rounds in a gun, let’s make it 8, the number in an M1. Fine, done, 8 it is. If that makes you feel better 8 rounds is plenty for any self protection weapon. Won’t do any good but if it makes you feel better pass the law. I’m all for making the death penalty mandatory for using a gun with more rounds, or wearing a vest, or using bullets that will pierce a vest in the process of a crime. I would also limit the time to death, figure out a way to make that constitutional, fast track courts etc. so we agree on all that. Will it help?

    It won’t help in cases like this where the kid wants to die, he will find enough 8 round clips to do whatever needs done if no one is able to shoot back. Last night I took my old shotgun and loaded 3 shells in it (that is all it will hold) now I haven’t used it in 3 years so I’m rusty but I was able to load 2 shells, chamber a round and load the third in about 10 seconds. Supposedly the kid at the school shot everyone three times, the proper amount, so it would take me 10 seconds to load, let’s say 5 to shoot and a round number of 15 to find my next target, that means someone of my low skill and practice level could kill 2 people per minute fairly easily. It took 20 minutes for police to arrive at Sandy Hook, that is 40 people I could have killed with an old 3 shot shotgun. If I have a 6 shot revolver to cover anyone trying to rush me while I reload do I really need anything more to kill 25 people? So you can do what you want but it really won’t help much even if crooks follow the law.

    Limit the number of rounds, there is a chance the kid might muff the loading process. A better chance (if he abides by the law before showing up at the school) is to have the custodian shoot him while he is reloading, but of course the custodian has to have the ability to do so. Remember the kid has to unholster his sidearm to shoot the janitor rushing him without a gun, something he probably has time for, but the janitor can already have his gun unholstered and shoot the kid before he can respond once the covering fire of the rifle has subsided.

    Will someone get killed in the crossfire sometime? Yes. Will it be a tragedy? Yes. Will it save other lives? Yes. Should every teacher have a gun? No. How many teachers should have guns? About 4%-10% if they can keep secret who has them.

    How long does it take to unlock the gun cabinet, take out the gun lock, load and chamber the first round, then put on the armor, buckle down your kevlar helmet and hopefully return fire? Seconds count, right? Utter pantswetting nonsense. gunporn bullshit fantasies that, curiously enough, almost never seem to happen in the real world.

    Yes the 112 pound female can take down the 20 year old snot nosed kid with the gun, but why would she do all the crap above? Just take the gun from her holster, aim and pull the trigger, walk over to him and put one more in his head. Done.

  9. knarlyknight Says:

    tl;dr – but a glance at the above shows that lots of energy goes into childish wwnj gun fantasies.

  10. enkidu Says:

    So your solution is guns guns guns and more guns. Riiiiiight. That’ll sure bring down the gun violence. Yup. Hurf durf durp indeed! Lunatic logic.

    Please name one – one – mass shooting tragedy in the US that was halted mid-massacre by an armed civilian. I’m sure you can find something. Or just shift the definitions: iirc while the head of the lunatic fringe NRA spoke a wwnj in PA was busy shooting people. Because spanking. Is three a massacre? He also died (not sure if that was a police bullet or his own), so make it 4. 3 police officers were also injured, but thanks to their body armor at least one of them will be home for Christmas (without that armor, people are incredibly fragile in comparison to a bullet, just saying). So tell me again why civ body armor sales are legal?

    Or how about Columbine? iirc there was an armed security guard on site who fired 4 rounds at those creeps. Not one hit. I was in Japan on biz when it happened, my first son’s birth just weeks away. I recall apologizing to my colleges and hosts ‘I’m so sorry. America isn’t all like this.’ Just the lunatic fringe.

    An under-trained unarmored, under-gunned custodian ‘rushing the perp’ who is clad in body armor, has a couple of large caliber handguns, an assault rifle, high capacity mags, mb a helmet, cop killer ammo and a ugly wwnj attitude? How do you think that is going to play out?

    Your approach to life reminds me of a kid’s game we play with at a friends house. It’s called “Bop-It!” A little gizmo you hold and when it tells you “twist it!” you have to twist the little thing at the end, “bop it!” bop the big button on the side, “pull it!” pull the thing over on the other end. It gets faster and faster, giving you different combos, patterns and so on. But you make me think wwnjs would snap up a toy where every response is “shoot it!”. I bet you’d snap a brace of em up if they were shaped like your favorite (unregistered, possibly illegally modified?) assault rifle.

    Turning schools into armed camps with bunkers, racked AR15s, squads of SWATed up steroidal goons from washed-out-cop private ‘security’ firms is a recipe for more disaster, not less.

    I feel sorry for you wwnj. Truly. The Wingnutosphere must be the most awful howling hell of paranoia and violence. Reality beckons… tis the season of peace. Give it a chance. Change. I doubt you have the brains or the balls, but again, reality beckons… turn off the hate radio, switch off fox, stop shoving wwnj nonsense into your head.

  11. shcb Says:

    Offhand i can’t think of a mass shooting that was stopped by an armed, non police, citizen. Generally a mass shooting is defined as 4 dead in a short period by a single shooter. For some reason the death toll in situations where the armed citizen ends the killing is usually 2 so they don’t count as a mass shooting. You might be able to count the Colorado Springs killings as a mass shooting depending on how you term short period of time. There were only two killed in the Springs but that event was a continuation of the Arvada shooting. I doubt you will see the logic here but oh well.

  12. knarlyknight Says:

    It appears you live in a culture of violence. Can we do a quick unscientific poll?

    1. Who here has seen a gun fired with intent to main or kill in real life? (civilian, not war) (If so, where?)

    2. Who here has seen a gun used to threaten or intimidate another person? (if so, where?)

    3. Who knows someone that was a victim of a crime with a gun? (if so, where did it happen)

    4. What country do you live in, do you feel safe at home, do you live in a rural or urban setting?

  13. knarlyknight Says:

    Clarification, # 1 refers to maim or killing a person, not hunting.

    My answers:

    1 & 2 Never seen a gun fired to hurt or used to intimidate another person.

    3. I know of one person mugged by a crackhead in Miami, USA with a gun held to her head.

    4. Canada, yes always feel safe at home, urban setting (close to City center)

  14. knarlyknight Says:

    Not saying we don’t have shootings here, but you’re more likely to read scary messed up sheit like this here:

    Wonder how many dead if they were both armed?

  15. knarlyknight Says:

    Oldest Canadian

  16. enkidu Says:

    1 – never
    2 – never
    3 – never
    4 – this is America, there are 300+ million guns floating around in the hands of some very sketchy people, no i do not feel safe in America. Safe at home? Yes, we have a dog, he’s very territorial, any funky noises and he is up and alert. We have this thing called a telephone that allows us to summon security personnel that we collectively pay for. Socialism at its best.

    So wwnj, your only example is a former policewoman thwarting a crazed gunman. I suppose it might meet the criteria if you include the perp killing himself. Way to move the goalposts! Hey have you been working on your Xmas eve screed? It is kind of a tradition around here. What sort of nonsense will be under the Xmas tree this year?

  17. shcb Says:

    I didn’t think you would see the logic.

    Actually we spent last night and today at my father’s side, waiting for him to see the angels, kind of changes the priorities.

    Merry Christmas my friends.

  18. enkidu Says:

    Sorry to hear that.

  19. shcb Says:

    Thanks, he passed away the day after Christmas, he was a simple man with so much integrety when we met with his attorney the lawyer choked back some tears. Said how much he respected my dad.

    RIP Chuck Mayer

  20. knarlyknight Says:

    indeed, RIP.

    in the news…

  21. shcb Says:

    Yeah, one of my facebook people had a link to an official looking bill from Wyoming making it a felony for any federal agent to enforce any of the current gun control bills floating around congress. They included bans on assault weapons or high capacity magazines. I don’t know is it was real or not but I thought it would be an interesting exercise in federalism if it were real and came to pass.

    Thanks for the condolences

  22. enkidu Says:

    You nullifiers want another go at the whole Civil War thing I take it?

    You don’t need a howitzer to hunt. A revolver or pistol with a half dozen rounds in it should be sufficient for home defense from scary monsters and such.

    Would it be too much to ask that every gun sold have a background check? Make both parties come in to the local gun shop, provide a series of fingerprints, ID, mb a DNA swab (hey, it’s the future already). Shut down the gun show loophole.

    Maybe make clips with more than 6 or 8 rounds illegal (we’ll buy em back).

    Or maybe make it illegal to own a un-registered gun.

    If you want to see the NRA pro gun nutters in full flower, watch this:

    Alex makes a very very powerful case (why he shouldn’t own anything more dangerous than a spork)

  23. shcb Says:

    “Would it be too much to ask that every gun sold have a background check?”

    What happens in the case of a private sale? What about trades?

    “Or maybe make it illegal to own a un-registered gun.”

    I already made the point I ain’t gonna tell the government what I have, most liberty oriented people won’t either, sorry, we’ll take the chance of jail time with the bad guy in a pool of blood instead of me.

    “(we’ll buy em back).” they ain’t for sale.

    But let’s say we pass all the above laws, how much difference to crime do you think it will make? Really make?

    “whole Civil War thing I take it?” I think the thought process of folks like me is we will just ignore Obama and his thugs until better men are in power and scoff at this thought process that we shouldn’t protect ourselves. If I give Obama my guns now I will just have to buy them again in the future, I can just ignore him and save the hassle.

  24. enkidu Says:

    As usual wwnj, you argue against a straw man that is nowhere near my position or any generic normal person (you might call them a liberal, or worse!)

    So, how about mb… private sales need to happen at the gun shop: fingerprints, ID, bkg √, record read, medical/psych history. Black market sales will happen, but they’ll be less frequent and easy as just walking into a gun show or craigslist with a bunch of money. Private sales need to be regulated. Sorry if that is way too much to ask, but it shouldn’t be a problem for decent people. I have to undergo a more stringent check to volunteer at my kid’s grade school. Every year!

    If the law changes and says you need to tell the gov that you own firearms, that is the law. Break it at your peril. Most normal folk would just declare their weaponry on the provided form. Done. Gosh that was hard. But if you use an unregistered weapon, even in self-defence or some such excuse (stand your ground? gun down Scary Darky Bad Guy morelike) mandatory 2X or 3X sentencing? What if we have google drive around with thier street cams and the gov adds another ‘camera’ that images each house and if you have fire arms that aren’t registered the SWAT team shows up and the local sheriff asks very nicely for you to fill out the form he has here on his clipboard, please. Why, I am *sure* a patriot such as yourself wouldn’t need to be asked more than once.

    I’m not even sure trying to voluntarily declare (much less – gasp! – give up) your sacred boomsticks would even work, but in Australia the conservative gov had a very successful buyback program. Giving up large capacity ammo clips would work for me. That’s it. Psychos would have to reload way more. Honest folk wouldn’t mind. Of course you do, because socialism or freedum or some nonsense.

    I’m no expert, so I’m just broad brushing this whole thing.

    You said you “aint” givin up yer guns. No one has asked for them. Could you please point out where Obama and his thugs (so quant, so racist) have tried to take them away? Thus far the only legislation of note is O signing a law that allowed guns in national parks? Other than paranoid right wing fantasies, please point out where anyone in the last four years has restricted your rights wrt the 2nd Amendment.

    Some common sense restrictions on guns are in order. You lack common sense, thus you are vehemently, some might say violently, opposed to any change.

  25. enkidu Says:

    They are coming for you! The black helicopters! Invisible feds! Tooth radios! Woodja boodja! Jimjam the flopper rejuicenik! Ouija board!

    So if ‘the dictator’ gets a law passed that restricts this psycho’s hyper-extended ammo clip, even one inch!, he’s going to start shooting people. Slow down on the meth there ace, maybe take a breather from chain smoking and watching fox or listening to hate radio. Listen to this for just a minute and change. Who wants to ‘debate’ this sort of lunacy?

    But I’m sure in wwnj’s Wingnutoverse this guy is a rock-ribbed patriot and presents interesting points for discussion. Hollow points or fmj? Let the politeness fairies bring happy resolutions to everyone!

  26. shcb Says:

    But Obama wouldn’t be a dictator if a law were passed because that would be going through congress. so which is it? is Obama going to use proper channels?

    “Obama and his thugs (so quant, so racist)” how is that racist?

  27. enkidu Says:

    So if one our three branches of government changes our gun policy even one inch at least one of you wwnjs is going to start shooting people. He’s ‘building an army’ (of morans) and shrieks about dictatorship (where were these people 4 to 12 years ago? when the Decider was King). Once you start threatening to shoot people if you don’t get your way, we normal folk can ask for you to be institutionalized and your precious precious 2nd Amendment rights should be curtailed. Making murderous threats seems to be your thing.

    Does your 2nd Amendment right include owning ICBMs? Tanks? SAMs? (you know, for hunting and self-defense) Howitzers? Will you start shooting if you aren’t allowed to have full-auto machine guns? Anti-tank weapons? Cruise missiles? Nukes? Have you illegally modified your semi-auto boomstick?

    How many executive orders did dumbya use? If congress can’t do the right thing, would improving our gun policy (closing the gun show loophole, regulate private sales, mb stop extended ammo clips entirely) induce you to just start shootin folks?

    You used the phrase Obama and his thugs. So what did you mean exactly by ‘his thugs’? Sounds pretty darn racist. Just sayin.

    I bet he takes it to congress, the nutters will go ballistic (yes, I went there) the proposals will be voted down along mostly party lines and you morans will block anything sensible. Illustrating once again just how extreme the nutters really are. Then he’ll do some watered down, middle of the road, meet ya in the middle executive order that accomplishes very little. But again send wwnjs into paroxysms of rage. Sadly, murderous rage seems to be your go-to response. I’d hate to be your mailman.

  28. shcb Says:

    If this guy decides to shoot people because all three branches properly make a new law, he should go to jail for a very long time, so forget about him, he won’t do anything he says anyway, these guys never do.

    The 2nd Amendment, like all laws and all portions of the Constitution, have limits. The question is what is reasonable. What are your objectives? If your objective is to stop crazy people from killing tens of people for no reason, none of your ideas are going to do much good. The problem is these people are crazy, they don’t care about your laws, they will buy large capacity magazines from someone or make them. They will use a larger caliber weapon that requires fewer rounds for the same effect, or they will simply reload or bring more weapons. There are just too many options available. All these laws you are proposing are for you, to make you feel good “we did something!”

    Now the problem with liberals that want to do something, anything, is their ideas rarely work, as these won’t work. Then they decide that those ideas didn’t work because the next crazy guy used a 5 shot 12 gauge or 3 so we have to limit shot guns to single shot, then the next crazy guy uses a single shot really efficiently and still kills 20 in the 20 minutes the cops take to organize themselves so what is next. Well, obviously we need to confiscate all guns, where are they? We have the list! This is where the 2nd amendment is violated, we just don’t want to let you go down that road with regulations that won’t help the problem anyway. So, who would a ban on assault weapons stop? Well, it will stop the ever before law abiding guy that decides to kill his wife with his 30 round AR-15. Instead he will use his single shot 12 ga or a kitchen knife or a baseball bat, she will still be dead and the next crazy person will still kill 20 with an illegal 30 round AR-15, nothing gained but your conscience feels better.

  29. enkidu Says:

    You sir are a bear of very little brain.

    You argue against a series of well, maybe this happens, then that, then the other thing: sociamalism! If Bad Guys buy their guns at the gun show from private sellers, maybe we can tighten that up a bit. You don’t need a 30 or 40 round clip or drum to hunt (unless you’re a wwnj, then it’s all about freedum). It’s been my observation that crazy angry people aren’t really good at reloading (see, Gabby Gifford incident where that skinhead wwnj tried to murder her and a bunch of other… what is your wwnj word, libtards). That skinhead looks like the guy I linked to above who is just gonna start shooting people.

    Making civ use of body armor illegal or more illegal sounds like a good start. Gives the good guys an advantage. Last week there was another school shooting in CA, the perp was a student, wounded another kid, and a teacher with a shotgun. The wounded teacher talked the kid into putting down the gun. Total number of deaths: zero.

    You do not have the freedum to own and operate a ICBM, tank or SAM. If the majority thinks an assault weapon ban is needful you have two choices: break the law or abide by it. You seem like just the sort of ‘patriot’ who would ignore any law. You also use murderous language and have a hair trigger temper. You sound just like the wwnj skin head I linked to above (who just had his concealed carry permit revoked for talking crazy, we’ll see if he’s locked up before long, crazy is crazy and this guy sound just like you)

    Chuckle, head pat, homey anecdote, simple minded joke, racist comment, chuckle, homey garbled anecdote. There, now you can rest assured we’ve heard your wwnj message. hurf durp

    Just move to the libertarian paradise of Somalia already. Go Galt! just go

  30. shcb Says:

    So let me ask you this, if we limit the sale of magazine size to 8 (we won World War 2 with an 8 round magazine) and we ask every law abiding citizen to register their gun purchase at gun stores and gun shows (private sales are too impractical to even consider) would you be happy? Hell, I’ll toss in asking (under penalty of law) all law abiding citizens to register their unregistered guns (good luck). If the next time a deranged kid not old enough to even purchase a gun kills a dozen or more people at a soft target location would you say we did everything we could or would you then want to confiscate all the law abiding weapons that fit the above criteria and more.

  31. enkidu Says:

    Private sales are difficult to police, but a few years of running sting operations would clean out most of the meth heads and Very Bad Guys. I notice you avoid the entire assault rifle discussion. It’s a somewhat difficult definition to pin down, but mil spec weapons aren’t needed by non-mil civs. Same with body armor. You shouldn’t have a need for an ICBM, tank, SAM or machine gun, if you feel that infringes on your rights, tough. We will determine what the rights and privileges are as US citizens. We’ll vote on it (or our reps will, then we’ll vote em in or out).

    No one wants your boomstick. If it is illegally modified or becomes banned, your civic duty is not to ‘just start shooting people’ like Mr Skinhead McRightwingnutjob advocates. Your civic duty is to abide by the law. If we decide you are too crazy to own a spork, you won’t be allowed a spork.

    There will be other ‘incidents’. Some deadly, some less so. The same week as Newtown some Chinese guy with a knife went on a rampage. In a school. No one was killed. Would it be ok if we just tried to do some sensible things to make extreme killing tools a little harder to get at? It’ll be more than an inch worth of change, so expect Nutters McSkinhead to end badly.

  32. shcb Says:

    “No one wants your boomstick. If it is illegally modified or becomes banned, your civic duty is not to ‘just start shooting people’ like Mr Skinhead McRightwingnutjob advocates. Your civic duty is to abide by the law.”

    So you don’t want my gun… unless it becomes illegal. What does that mean? I think in your round about way you just answered my question, as your policies fail to produce the desired results, which they will since they are targeting the wrong people, you will eventually start gleefully tossing law abiding citizens in jail or give up their constitutional rights.

    Assault weapons, I’m not avoiding the discussion, I just know enough about firearms to know it is a buzzword with little technical value. An M1 is certainly an assault weapon but would be looked on as a relic unless someone painted it black and mounted a rail system on it, but at it’s heart it would still be an M1. All fluff.

    Body armor, so you would make illegal for say a battered woman who fears her husband is going to shoot her to buy a vest so you can feel good that someone who is going to kill 20 children next week is worried about the misdemeanor he just committed by buying a vest.

  33. enkidu Says:

    Current law says you can have certain kinds of fire-arms. Some are proscribed. If the law changes you are expected to comply or face the consequences. If you have an illegal RPG why is that any different than if certain classes of rifle become more restricted. It’s the Law, right? I doubt this congress will pass any restrictions on ‘assault weapons’. But we might be able to push thru some basic improvements (gun show loophole, clip size, bkg √s, stiffer penalties etc.) Sounds like a decent first step. Ooooo, here come the black helicopters full of Obama’s thugs and the Agenda 21 tooth radio troopers!

    So if your hypothetical battered wife is afraid for her life and the restraining order isn’t enough, would it be OK if the cops issue her a vest? (with GPS tracker, etc) Sounds reasonable. I’m against letting you or Mr Skinhead own any body armor or anything sharper than a spork. I just think removing body armor from crazy people allows spork armed vigilantes a real chance at improving outcomes. You can patrol your HOA with your fearsome sporks (this time we suggest you wear pants).

  34. shcb Says:

    I’ll go along with you on the court/police ordered vest for those that need it, sounds reasonable.

    Sure certain fireams are illegal or restricted, that’s fine, my point is outlawing assault weapons is silly because the name is just that, a name. limit magazine size, fine, it will help the police in a tiny number of cases, but if it makes you feel better do it. Gun show loophole, I’m not sure why there is one, if we are going to have dealers and background checks why should gun shows be any different.

    But understand none of this is going to stop or even slow down crazy or professional killers, it just ain’t. if there is a legitimate reason in another area for these laws let’s talk, but stopping these mass killings is only going to stop by making these targets less soft whether that is with uniformed guards or private concealed carry. then the crazies will move to the next soft target, but at least kids won’t be killed.

  35. ethan-p Says:

    I’ve felt like weighing in on this for a while, and seems like a nice place to drop my mental dookie upon. (Hi again, everyone)

    I love the article posted by JBC. I’m actually relieved to see a few different faces of this well represented in the original post. The comparison to the post 9/11 Iraq war was (IMHO) quite accurate.

    My preface to this will clarify my position on the gun thing. I don’t own a gun and never have. I’m actually pretty goddamn afraid of guns. On the other hand, I do go to the range to shoot once or twice a year (my fear of gun is part of the thrill), and have often considered purchasing a handgun – because range guns suck. What holds me back is my fear/opinion that introducing a gun into a situation (e.g. home invasion) greatly increases the chance of being involved in gun violence, whether I’m the shooter or the unwanted recipient of a bullet…no object in my house is worth a single human life. I’m totally on the fence.

    My opinion on guns notwithstanding – I don’t get what we will get out of a ban on scary looking guns (assault weapons) or limiting the size of magazines will do. This seems like an attempt to cure a symptom by making us feel a little better, without even considering the cause or considering alternatives. It’s kind of like the TSA – it’s just there to make us feel better, but doesn’t really do anything other than be a giant pain in the ass for those of us who regularly travel via airline.

    The magazine argument, I get too; maybe having a smaller clip and making a person stop to reload will give someone a chance to stop a crazy person and save a few lives. However, it doesn’t even come close to solving the problem. I can sit here and poke holes in the idea that this will save lives…but that isn’t really the point. If another person goes into a school and uses a small magazine to kill children, it will be the same atrocity – regardless of the number killed. The number is irrelevant, and will not help solve this problem.

    Why aren’t we looking at the sensationalist media and how they show things like the face and name of the killer? Why aren’t we looking at how they highlight the death count, and how they play this up. How they play into an “I’ll-show-them” mentality, and encouraging the next horrific massacre? Lately, I’ve found myself thinking about what the press does when a person jumps onto the field during a Major League baseball game. They turn off the cameras and go to commercial. As a result, less people jump onto the field during a game. Why not exercise similar discipline when something like the Sandy Hook shootings occur? Instead, there is 24-hour coverage of this incident, with pointless analysis and reporting on every unimportant detail. I’ve even found myself disgusted with NPR (which I love) for its relentless coverage. At least my local affiliate had some decent original programming with smart people representing all sides of the debate (including a person somewhere in the middle who had some honest suggestions for examining aspects of school security without introducing more guns).

    The solution has little or nothing to do with guns. The worst school massacre in American history did not involve a single killing by gunfire. As much as I’m sickened by the gun lobby and the NRA’s response (and their refusal to compromise even a little), this whole thing has become a giant boondoggle, and I’m equally irritated by some of the folks here jumping on the bandwagon that sees gun control as any kind of solution to this problem. Gun control is completely irrelevant to preventing the next massacre. The gun control argument is a misdirection and an opportunistic power grab while our emotions compromise our judgment. With thanks to JBC’s original story, how is this different than the misdirection of the Iraq invasion after 9/11?

  36. knarlyknight Says:

    I wish I wrote that. My silence of late was because it had become clear to me that neither “side” in this so called “debate” had the right answers and have resorted to yelling and more stringent rhetoric in order to “win”.

    The media doesn’t agree to treat the murderers as they would a trespasser interrupting a baseball game simply due to lack of leadership on the issue. Or more to the point, it’s not in the media BOD’s interests. With baseball, the result is desired because interrupted baseball is even more boring than the game itself, that decreases viewers and revenues. With school massacres, the opposite dynamic is at play. Not that any or all BOD want kids murdered to increase their audience, but a convincing argument can be made that they are morally grossly negligent for not doing what they clearly could do to counteract mass murders committed in a sick attempt for media attention.

  37. shcb Says:

    The second ammendment doesn’t affect their rice bowl, the first does.

  38. knarlyknight Says:

    That’s crap. Coverage of sensational mass killings increase their audience and hence revenues. The second amendments is doing a good job of filling their rice bowls these days.

  39. enkidu Says:

    I would have asked for the same basic, reasonable changes to our gun policy before Sandy Hook.

    So… asking for modest changes to the gun laws in our country is somehow equivalent to the Iraq invasion after 9/11? I don’t see how talking about the prevalence of guns in our society, improving gun policy, the hows and whys these things happen and how to reduce their occurrence and severity is equivalent. Even a little. Sandy Hook happened, just doing nothing makes it seem the status quo is… acceptable. It isn’t. So what should we do?

    Look at my first post on this thread. Moderate tightening of gun laws, clip size, body armor, mental health and so on aren’t radical ideas to grab yer guns. I don’t think an assault weapon ban will pass Congress and smarter people than I think it can’t be done by Executive order. An outright ban on all guns even for self-defense like in DC seems wrong and perhaps counter-productive. I was surprised how close shcb and I were in terms of practical things to do (other than nothing).

    What should be done? Nothing (or add more guns!) seems to be the right wing response. If clip size is reduced by even an inch Mr Yeager is going to start shooting people… that’s one side of the ‘debate’. Perhaps my ideas seem radical to such a person.

    Cars also kill many Americans, but we have way more regulation and oversight on automobile ownership and use, and we regulate exactly what kind of spec cars are allowed (safety, mileage, lots of other standards) on our roads and how they are operated.

    I look forward to the Rs bringing articles of Impeachment if Obama does anything.

  40. ethan-p Says:

    Enkidu, with my position well stated – I’m actually OK with some of the things that you’ve suggested in your original post. The parallel with this being equivalent to the Iraq invasion post 9/11 is that they are both misdirection. Each of these has little to do with the reason why we are doing them. In the case of Iraq, it had little or nothing to do with 9/11. In the case of gun control, it would do little or nothing to prevent another school massacre – especially with the changes that you have proposed. Not a single one would have prevented Sandy Hook, and I’ve already highlighted the reasons why it wouldn’t. However, the similarities between the gun control argument and the Iraq war post 9/11 are huge; both are opportunistic power grabs while the collective emotions among our people compromise our objectivity.

    That being said; I’ll go back to your first post and address my opinion of each point. I don’t represent any side of the debate:
    -Let’s close the gun show loophole (I think that it’s more of a Democrat talking point than anything else). I’ve been to a gun show (only one) with a friend who bought a gun. In the state he was in, they had to run a background check…and he passed. We went home with a shiny pink .22 rifle for his daughter. I guess it’s irrelevant – I don’t have a problem with background checks for everyone, if it will make people feel safer.

    -Strengthen background checks. OK. Let’s make the system better and faster. Nothing wrong with that. I agree completely. I’m not entirely sure what it means. I have multiple background checks run every week and they show the same thing; I’ve never been arrested. Does it mean that they go deeper – 10 vs 5 years? Tell me, because I don’t *really* know what this means.

    -Limit the size of magazines: This, I don’t entirely agree with – and I stated most of my rationale above with this (If you don’t mind – try to address this in the context of my previous post, so I don’t have to rephrase my feelings on this). Why would this help anyone? Beyond that, when I’m at a range, I actually kind of like having more than ten rounds to put into a target. My thumbs get red and sore from putting bullets into magazines, and I’d rather spend less time doing that and more time shooting. I don’t have much of an argument from a self-defense perspective. Many experts suggest a revolver for protection; a bigass clip won’t help…unless a person is in a crazy-ass fire fight. Maybe the gun nuts out there see this happening, I dunno. However, see above for my perspective. I don’t want to kill anyone to protect the stuff in my house.

    -With regard to tightening gun laws just to have something else to stick it to meth-lab Ricki, I tend to disagree. I work in correctional health care. I go to prisons every week – in fact, I was just in a prison in the deep south today. I have quite a few disclaimers on this, and the biggest disclaimer is that it’s in my financial best interests to put more people in prison and keep them in there for longer. However, my integrity greatly outweighs any financial interests. If you think that law enforcement needs yet another law to put more people in prison for longer, I have a bridge to sell you. The deck is stacked in the government’s favor (with the exception of the very, very wealthy – and while they get their due process…if the government [state or federal] legitimately wants to put a person away, they most likely will). Meth-lab Ricki is going to break laws for the rest of his/her life. When s/he finally runs into law enforcement, I promise you that the government will have all the tools that they need to put him/her away for a long, long time (and in a place that is very, very terrible). Once convicted, s/he will be among the elite in America – the only Americans with a constitutional right to mental and dental health care (and in Massachusetts, if s/he began gender reassignment surgery prior to being incarcerated, s/he will have their gender reassignment covered by the state…I’m not making this up).

    -I don’t have a problem with a buy-back program for assault rifles. I don’t have a problem with assault rifles, at the moment anyway. They’re a category of rifles with characteristics that make them look scarier than other rifles. *shrug* I don’t see why they should be more illegal than any other gun that we can legally buy today. If the government wants to offer to buy them back, I don’t see why this is a problem. If they are illegal, they will be far more valuable on the open market than our government is willing to pay. If they remain legal, I still don’t see the incentive to sell them to the government, given that buying price will still be less than market value. In any case, I do not believe that the legality of assault rifles is actually germane to the discussion of school massacres.

    -I’m not prepared to answer your question without some context; I’m unable to read your mind tonight and understand the provenance of your politics. What damage did Reagan do that needs to be undone? Are we talking about a federal mental healthcare system?

    -Better treatment for what? Mental health? Most of my work is in mental healthcare – and I’m all ears for what you think that we should be doing better (there is a lot, but I honestly don’t know where to start, but I know that just throwing money at it wouldn’t help). In the context of the discussion about firearms; how do you suggest that we balance a free society where medical information and decisions are implicitly to be kept private with the needs of the mentally ill? I’ll also propose this: how many people were ever civilly committed who were involved in mass murders? (Hint: I’m pretty sure that the number is pretty close to zero). I’m not 100% sure on this, but I don’t believe that any of the people who were involved in mass murders who actually had a documented history of serious mental illness (and it was not as high a percentage as would be convenient for this discussion). The vast majority (if not all) people who were involved in mass murders who requested mental health treatment had done so on their own. So – does every person who has ever pursued mental health treatment goes into a federal database? Further, if any person who requests mental health treatment is automatically entered a database that will reduce their rights, do you think this might deter people from seeking out this treatment? Put yourself into the shoes of a person who has mental health problems (remembering that it’s not their fault that they have mental health problems, they did nothing wrong, and they’re probably not more likely to commit a mass murder than you are just because they may have a mental illness).

    -Awareness: IMO, autism probably shouldn’t enter the the scope of a gun discussion, when it comes to mental health. People who suffer from autism, while they will suffer an uphill battle, are likely to integrate with society, hold a job, etc – and are not much more likely than the rest of us to do terrible things with guns. People who suffer from certain types of schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses are a different story, and I agree that we should do everything that we can to help them. Our worst nightmares (which we are lucky enough to awaken from) are their reality every moment. These are people who may never integrate with society; and that modern psychotrophic medications will help just enough to make the voices and conscious nightmares stop. I’m actually OK with keeping these people away with guns…but my suggestion would be to do this only in extreme cases.

    Anyway, that’s just to respond to you in the context of your original post. I hope that it doesn’t seem like I’m attacking you. I just see some of these as partisan talking points that don’t address the problem…and again, to better refine my point about this being (what is in my opinion) an opportunistic misdirection that has little to do with the problem of mass murders.

  41. ethan-p Says:

    A correction, I inadvertently left something out of my comments about autism. I said that people with autism “…are likely to integrate with society”. What I meant to say was that they are far more likely to integrate with society than a person with a serious mental illness. My intention was not to discount the difficulties people with autism encounter.

  42. shcb Says:

    My two cents worth.

    Magazine size. It is usually illegal to have a large magazine for hunting, takes the sport out of it, so no reason to have it in hunting, already illegal. Home protection, a shotgun with a shortened stock and barrel is the best weapon for home protection. In most cases you are aren’t going to have more than two intruders, 5 to 7 shots plenty. Small magazine size will limit the effectiveness of small caliber, low power guns like 9mm so people will go to larger guns, bullets will go through more walls killing more innocent people, larger magazine has a negative effect.

    I have no military training but from what I have read the reason for higher capacity weapons is primarily to provide covering fire. Secondary is to avoid running the gun dry in high stress situations. You always want to drop a magazine with a few rounds in it before the gun goes dry so you don’t have to cycle the weapon. Having more rounds lets you drop the mag at a more opportune time. None of this is important for civilian use. Bottom line is it makes people think they are still in the army. It is important to guard against a tyrannical government, that would be the one situation where civilians would be called on to act like soldiers.

    Bottom line it isn’t going to help in school shootings, rifles or carbines are rarely used in crimes, too hard to conceal, not enough positives, too many negatives, leave the magazines alone.

    Mental health, you touched on this, how do you keep confidentiality and use mental illness as a disqualifier? I guess the gun dealer just gets a denied with no explanation? Who determines the disqualification? This sounds like something worth looking into for other reasons but it won’t help mass shootings since there are so many other ways of getting a gun, stealing it for instance.

    More care, I suppose it might help.

  43. enkidu Says:

    Asking to discuss gun policy, laws and our gun culture in America isn’t appropriate after a string of mass murders committed by young white males. Got it.

    I don’t recall saying these measures under discussion will *prevent* people from going postal. You’ve stated this was my position more than once. Not the case. They *may* reduce the likelihood of such an incident in the future, but who can say with absolute certainty? I think any time you make it harder for disturbed people to obtain weapons of mass destr… ooops, see what I did there? weapons of mass murder, this may ‘prevent’ someone from being able to carry out such a heinous crime. How many lives saved, injured prevented, tragedy averted? If it is >0 I think we should consider measured discussion of gun culture in America in the 21st century.

    If gun control is equal to the Iraq War II, where is the Office of Special Plans that ‘cooked the books’ and ‘fixed the evidence around the policy’? Where are the trillions spent? On the one hand you have thousands dead and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, vs the possibility that the next psycho might be prevented from obtaining a gun when he shouldn’t be allowed sharp objects. The right wing solution seems to be either do nothing or add more guns. Hands please, anyone see a problem with that logic?

    So, should gun owners be required to purchase trigger locks?

    Why does Joe Sixpack needs body armor? (that certainly isn’t in the 2nd!)

    Why is asking for certain limits on gun ownership anathema?

  44. shcb Says:

    “If it is >0 I think we…” that is where balance comes in, if a new law stops the killing of 20 people in a mass murder but results in 100 killed one at a time in normal crimes because people couldn’t protect themselves was it worth it? It isn’t to me.

    “…either do nothing or add more guns. Hands please, anyone see a problem with that logic?” if adding more guns to certain areas stops or reduces these crimes I’m in favor of it. When these mass killings stop, what stops them? Answer, police, and what do the police have? Guns. If the police sent a bunch of meter maids on Cushmans would these killers stop? No, the police in the Cushmans have taken the same oath, they have the same uniform, what is it they are lacking the swat teem has? Guns. If the gun is the problem why can’t it be the solution?

    Triggers locks – nock yourself out, sure, leave magazine size alone and we’ll buy a $10 lock and toss it in a drawer for our kids to throw away when we die. Sounds like a fair trade to me

    Body armor is a defensive weapon, if you want to out law it go ahead, it is in the same category as the trigger lock, if it makes you feel better and you will leave law abiding citizens alone in exchange for making it illegal, wonderful. A kid with his dad’s table saw and McMaster Carr # 8574K86 3/8″ Lexan (just to show how easy it is to obtain), a canvas tarp from Home Depot, his mom’s sewing machine, and an afternoon alone in the basement can make a pretty useable vest, especially if you plan on killing yourself when the first person with a gun shows up anyway. Knock yourself out, it won’t help, it might make things worse in other areas but hey! It’s all about making liberals think they are doing something, anything, except what will actually help because, well they don’t want to do that, makes them uncomfortable. They don’t want to let other people protect themselves and those they are charged with protecting because liberal don’t have the stomach to protect themselves. It is about freedom and personal choice and responsibility, if you don’t want to take on those responsibilities and don’t want to have to make those hard decisions fine, just don’t drag us down with you.

    You keep wondering why we can’t use reasonable solutions, what is unreasonable about letting law abiding citizens in schools protect themselves and the kids by carrying a legal weapon in a legal manner. Why is that off the table?

  45. shcb Says:

    Why is asking for certain limits on gun ownership anathema?

    answer: we already have enough limits.

  46. knarlyknight Says:

    Apparently not enough limits on guns. Consider the never ending war on terror and how far America still has to go to eradicate the use of guns to terrorize each other. Some authorities take the challenge very seriously, intercepting terrorist acts wherever they occur and quickly branding the evil-doers at an early age so they can be re-educated and re-integrated into society.


  47. shcb Says:

    Why aren’t school officials at liberty to discuss? Fire the person that said they weren’t at liberty, ask the next if they are at liberty, fire that one if they say they aren’t, repeat until they get the idea. Idiots indeed.

  48. ethan-p Says:

    Enkidu, I’m not on board with the partisan false dichotomy that you presented. Either more stringent gun controls or armed guards. McArdle’s article suggests that all of these measures won’t really change anything (she suggests that limiting magazine size may be marginally helpful, though).

    I didn’t suggest that discussing gun control measures weren’t appropriate. I simply suggested that it’s a big fat red herring that will not save lives, and ultimately have no effect on school massacres. I more or less agree with McArdle’s article, with the exception of her suggestion that we just teach kids to bum rush anyone who goes on a rampage. The sad thing is that the articles criticizing her only focused on this point. Everything else that she said was quite valid and refreshing for me.

    Your comments about the Iraq II analogy completely miss the point, but I’m sure that you already know this.

  49. shcb Says:

    Bum rushing is a tactic that will get a few killed to save the many, in an airplane for instance, if there are no weapons it is an effective tactic, unless you are the few up front. History is full of this tactic, from Napolean war tactics to storming the beach in Higgins boats, you flood the area with more targets than the technology of the time or situation can accept, and expect losses. But, equalizing the weaponry has always been more effective, a knife to a gun fight is better than the bums rush, a revolver even better, a 15 shot Glock even better (I would rather it be a 1911, but that’s just me). If you want to protect the kids you have to have better weaponry to the scene faster, it is just as simple as that.

    now that doesn’t mean you don’t actually solve the problem with mental health advancements, less violence in entertainment, a strong father figure in the family with a caring mother etc. But in the short term we have to get the situation under control so the long term plans have time to mature.

  50. enkidu Says:

    e-p, you said the Iraq War and discussing gun policy were ‘equivalent’ (you later hedged that a bit, fine fine, nbd) They aren’t. How many more mass murders need to take place before we can at least discuss guns in America? How many more need to die before we at least stiffen the laws already on the books? Have we wasted thousands of lives discussing gun policy? Have we spent trillions?

    Misdirection? Please elaborate?

    I didn’t suggest the dichotomy was more stringent gun control or armed guards (those, again, are your words, not mine). Gun safety, not gun control.

    I brought up autism because the Newtown massacre guy was reported to be on the autistic spectrum (or similar phrase). I have experience with these folks in our community every day. Just sayin. Better treatment for mental problems of all kinds would be preferable (and less expensive) than these massacres. What is the moral calculus to prevent a single massacre or even a single loss life? That you can’t fire off a thirty round clip but must be content with 3 10 round clips? Gosh, sorry to interfere with your sacred liberty/rights (to armor piercing ammo – did you catch Santorum saying AP rounds were an American right?)

    I don’t just want to do something, anything. I think we should discuss what to do.

    Of course wwnj has no idea what the term bum’s rush means.

  51. shcb Says:

    Ha ha, you’re right about the bum’s rush! I don’t know what I was thinking, guess I wasn’t.

  52. ethan-p Says:

    Enkidu, I’m going to try to avoid a point-by-point argument with you on this. It’s not really productive, and can quickly become pedantic discussion of semantics rather than communicating our feelings about the subject. I would rather keep this on the level of clarifying and sharing ideas, so I’ll try to keep this to clarifying my ideas; and I will try to keep my tone more respectful.

    I understand that you’re pro gun control/gun safety, and you were before the Sandy Point massacre.

    That being said, I do respect that you do not just want to do something; anything, and want to discuss what to do. I have no problem with gun laws being part of that discussion. My feeling (and concern) is that many of changes proposed by lawmakers are not relevant to preventing additional massacres. My concerns tangental to the proposed changes are:
    1. The proposed changes to gun laws were changes that these legislators wanted to make for a long time, and for reasons separate from shooting sprees.
    2. The Sandy Point massacre is being used as leverage to gain political support to get things done that they wanted…whether or not it will have any effect on the next massacre.
    3. The proposed changes are an attempt to do something…anything just to make people feel better; that their government is responding to the tragic shooting at Sandy Point elementary school, but will not actually help prevent the next massacre.

    This is the parallel that I’m trying to draw to Iraq II is this (and it’s hardly relevant anymore):
    1. My feeling was that President Bush had wanted to invade Iraq prior to 9/11, but had insufficient support or political leverage.
    2. His desire to invade Iraq did not really have much to do with 9/11, but 9/11 gave him the political support to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein.

    I am not trying to do anything to equate a body count, the means by how things are done, or anything on that level. The parallels that I draw begins and ends with using a horrible event as leverage to enact policy that isn’t entirely related to the event.

    With regard to doing something unrelated to fixing a particular problem (as I alluded to earlier and like to refer to as “do-somethingism”). Another parallel of the do-somethingism that results in poor policy is everything that the TSA has ever done in regulating security in commercial air travel (aside from reinforced cockpit doors). Most security experts tend to agree that TSA is playing “Security Theater”; doing something in attempt to make people feel safe, but in reality just inconveniencing everyone and costing lots of money, but with little effect on actual security. Not exactly the same as my concerns with the proposed changes to gun law, but there are parallels (do-somethism).

    I am not accusing you of this. It is just my feeling and concern with regard to the proposed policies at large.

    My point with dichotomy is that the loudest voices are represented by strong positions that don’t make much sense to me. One who is suggesting gun control, but little of the proposed legislation makes sense to me as effective within the scope of the problem being addressed (shooting sprees). The other extreme suggests armed guards. There is little discussion in the middle. Even more obnoxious is that one of the only people who (in my opinion) is making a rational and reasonable argument (Megan McArdle) is lambasted for two (perhaps poorly chosen) sentences in a long article; most of which was well a rationed counterpoint to the rhetoric.

    Citing a need for better mental health treatment is a very good idea. However, it does not seem particularly germain to a discussion of stopping the next Sandy Point massacre. This person had access to and was receiving good mental health treatment. I do not believe that there were any indicators that he would commit such atrocities. Discussing mental health treatment from a practical perspective becomes even more difficult, for reasons that McArdle lays out in her article.

    Anyway, that’s all I have time for, and I haven’t had a chance to read/edit this – so I hope that it’s at least reasonably coherent.

  53. knarlyknight Says:

    Yes that was fully coherent. And nice to read a respectful post without any barbs thrown in for a change. Now cut it out. jk

    I’d like to see more new ideas brought into the discussion. More guns or outawing guns/clips can’t be the only options. Victims launching potentially suicidal unarmed counteracts may be a valid tactic in some situations, and kudos for it being mentioned, but it is hardly a complete solution: expecting 7 year olds to assess the odds during a rapidly deteriorating crisis is ridiculous. So what other alternatives are there?

    That’s not rhetorical. Let’s hear some original ideas. Even if ridiculous 99% of the time, they might get refined by others or might spark other better ideas. What are some possible strategies, technologies or techniques for preventing mass shootings or reducing the casualties?

    Example 1, non-lethal defensive weapons behind glass lock boxes at schools and other public places such as a stun grenades for the prey to acess and lob at attackers.

    Eg.2, more interesting and varied design of public spaces, including “cover” locations and shielded escape routes.

    Eg. 3 stiff laws against media saturation of massacres and their granting killers instant infamy, and against presenting the killings as some sort of sombre sporting event complete with minute by minute body count scores.

    What else? Anyone?

  54. shcb Says:

    1 isn’t bad, except not ina box. 2… I don’t know. Might work in a few situations I don’t think it is viable in many for a variety of reasons. Can’t do 3, too ambiguous. Sometimes there just aren’t many options.

  55. knarlyknight Says:

    Thanks for the criticism, but that wasn’t the request. Anyone could list a zillion problems with those three examples, but the point is to put examples out there that can be refined into something more practical or that will prompt different ideas that are better.

    I’m frustrated that the overall mindset appears to be an either restrict guns so crazy/bad guys can’t always get them nor get them easily, or allow citicens to have ample personal firepower to wipe out a medium sized village.

    It’s not either/or. Saying there aren’t many options or refusing to explore the middle ground is intellectually lazy or an attempt to limit the debate to the sad either/or choice presented by the NRA and gun abolishionists in their quest for an “all or nothing” victory.

    So lets hear another option. Anyone?

    Well then let me put a bit more out there…

    Example 1, revised – add stun guns, tazers and tranquilizer dart rifles to small accessible armories in public places.

    eg. 4 – harden targets with anti-assault training and publically accessible protective gear.

    eg. 5 – enlist and develop DARPA micro drone technology to identify and neutralize rifle shots in public spaces.

  56. knarlyknight Says:

    Re: eg. 5 I’d like to see a swarm of autonomous flying golf balls in irregular orbits around an attacker’s head seconds after the first shot is fired, complete with bright on-board LEDs and/or small explosive charges to disorientate the shooter.

  57. ethan-p Says:

    One of the more intelligent ideas that I heard (it was part of a discussion on NPR) was to evaluate physical security in schools. Ensure that classroom doors are lockable from the inside, for example.

    This is something that doesn’t require an army of armed guards in schools (an idea that I’m not particularly fond of), or passing gun control measures that (I feel) do not really address the problem.

  58. shcb Says:

    ok here goes,

    put locks on doors, and give teachers guns

    stop drugging kids, and give teachers guns

    make all killers sign in at the front desk before they start shooting (under penalty of law), and give teachers guns

    have marbles drop from the ceiling so the killer falls down, and give teachers guns

    have a police officer in the school at least one day a week and post that day in the local newspaper, and give teachers guns

    when there is such a clear solution why look further? “Why is it you always find your keys in the last place you looked”

  59. knarlyknight Says:

    FYI – I can think of at least one of my high school teachers who would have shot one or more of my friends in frustration if he had easy access to a gun, and several other teachers likely would have used the gun to terrorize one or more students.

  60. knarlyknight Says:

    Probably shcb would agree that secure doors in schools would be a better initiative to take than gun control measures, and enkidu would agree that secure doors are a better solution than giving teachers guns.

  61. shcb Says:

    But that isn’t a choice we have to make, we can have both. Easily and quickly.

  62. knarlyknight Says:

    Exactly! Everyone seems to be searching for a magic pill to stop gun atrocities, but a blend of inititatives over a longer term is going to be the solution, imho.

    Societies reap what they sow. Eat Big Macs, twinkies, drink coke and sit on the couch all day and eventually you become grossly obese and unhealthy. There is no magic pill to change that. Invest heavily in war and killing machines and eventually…

    Easy quick fixes like better doors in schools and arming teachers might be necessary now, but those are just the bandaids. While armed teachers may have an appeal to many in a society that has broken down, armed teachers have no place in a peaceful, civilized society. I wouldn’t want my kids growing up in a society where they are bambarded with violent images like an armed teacher would portray.

  63. ethan-p Says:

    ^^ This! I like the way you think, Mr. Knight.

  64. enkidu Says:

    alas, too big a message for a bumper sticker:

    We reduced drunk driving accidents without a total ban on alcohol.
    Then again, we didn’t think more alcohol was the solution to drunk driving.

  65. shcb Says:

    That’s just totally idiotic, wash those brain cells out with this…

  66. shcb Says:

    This is why federalism is so important, let freedom reign! Leave the Chicago to their devices, just don’t tell the rest of us what is right and wrong, we already know.

  67. enkidu Says:

    Yes, yes, now I see! Iraq War II is equivalent to even talking about gun safety because freedom. But a pithy bumper sticker message that we don’t reduce a problem by adding more problem is totally idiotic. Got it. thx

    So… did you actually read the description of the whacko in your link? He was a gun luvin government conspiracy nutcase who “often talked about government conspiracy theories, Strom said. He believed the government used electro-magnetic waves to make his dog bark. He only used disposable cell phones because he believed the government was listening in on his conversations”. Giant ‘Merkin flag at the front of his house. This particular nutter was gunned down by the police who arrived on-scene. The School Resource Officer was not a civilian blazing away at the bad guy. She tried to talk this mentally disturbed individual into laying down his weapon, moved him to a less populated part of the school and got the professional law enforcement on scene pronto. At problem schools, where most of the violence is student on student, sure bring in the metal detectors, armor up the doors and have the local police assign someone to be there more often. I agree w knarly that armed teachers have no place in a peaceful, civilized society. Sounds like Mr Cowen could have used some mental health care.

    Many little actions are indeed small bandaids on a set of larger problems. Better to strike at the roots of those problems.

    “Let freedom ring”
    Of course you don’t know the words to “My Country ’tis of Thee”
    sigh – this is why we can’t have nice things in this country

  68. shcb Says:

    Boy, you will twist things around any and every which way to avoid admitting the other guy has a good point.

    Yes the guy was crazy, they all are, sane people in a polite society don’t do these things, even criminals don’t do these things, there is no money in it and criminals are sane and rational. So half your rant is irrelevant. If the security guard had not been armed would she had been able to slow him down enough for cops to get there in time? If the principal had been armed and the security guard not been there would could not the principal have done the same thing as the security guard?

    Mr Cowen was offered, and ordered to get mental care, he chose not to.

  69. shcb Says:

    Here’s some footage of that standoff, it looks like there are some states that are thinking sensably, unfortunately Colorado doesn’t seem to be one of them. Maybe after a few dozen more kids die.

  70. shcb Says:

    Also, if you will notice, he had two guns, neither of which would have been banned with any “assault weapon” ban being proposed, so even if he were law abiding, which he wasn’t, he could have legally owned those guns.

  71. knarlyknight Says:

    That neither of his two guns would be banned under current proposals supports the notion that it’s not critical now to ban the kinds of guns he had. After all, if he had asault rifles surely the raw power of that weapon would have amped his bravado enough to tip his “crazy” mindset into one where he just starts shooting his way into the building.

    It’s never a big media event when a violent situation is de-escalated successfully or the gunman “taken out” with no or few other casualties: too many sensational crimes competing for the headlines. So, sorry, there’s no conspiracy there about that TN story sitting idle on the national news scene for over two years. Good try to make people think there is some sort of conspiracy with that headline “school shooting in tennessee that the national media didn’t report.”

    (BTW, a quick look into the “TNsmartgirl” e.g. her FB page, tells me that she is not a girl but rather and to be generous, is established in middle age; and, more important, she is not smart but, again to be generous, she is just another follow-the-dogma-linear-thinker.)

    Considering that the overwhelming majority of American schools do not have armed guards or teachers, and the ease at which weapons of all types are available, I wonder how many incidents like the one in TN occur with little or no media attention?

    There must be zillions of incidents where unarmed but level headed school administrators or teachers talk down an irate student, parent or crazy outsider who has a lethal weapon in his (her?) sweaty hands. Those incidents would suggest additional strategies an dmeans to success, but they might not even make the local news, and certainly not the national news. Guessing that the TN”smart””girl” and shcb do not want to hear about those just now.

    So there is at least one TN example where a school resource officer used a gun in addition to talking down the threat. People who suggest that this means that all SRO’s and/or teachers should have guns, without even considering how many other incidents were dealt with in a similar manner by unarmed people, don’t have any credibility with me. However, they do make me laugh.

  72. shcb Says:

    “…if he had assault rifles surely the raw power of that weapon..” why would you assume he would be “amped up”? In the mall shooting a couple days after or before the Connecticut shooting the bad guy had an “assault weapon” and the man that held him at bay until police arrived had a hand gun. Doesn’t matter, you missed the point (maybe on purpose) making a cosmetic difference gun law would not have stopped this man from getting the guns he had legally, no law would have stopped him from getting any gun illegally. But even if the laws would have been changed and a 10 round clip or a cosmetic type of gun would have been illegal it wouldn’t have changed the armament he owned… legally!!!

    How do you know Tnsmartgirl isn’t smart? She is a social worker, I would think that would appeal to you. Is it because she is religious? Seems pretty bigoted to me if you think she isn’t smart simply because she is religious. I know a lot of folks that are pretty darn smart and believe in God. Just sayin’.

    The rest of it, I don’t know how many people are talked out of massive school shootings by unarmed people, probably not many, from what I’ve seen there isn’t a lot of talking going on with these crazies, the pretty much walk in the room and start picking out targets. I also don’t know how many people are talked out of smaller shootings by unarmed people, obviously more than massive shootings and less than a zillion. But, and this is key, you don’t have to brandish a concealed weapon to diffuse a situation even if you have one. To your first point it probably will make the good guy negotiator more confident in his negotiating skills if he feels he is armed if the situation deteriorates, so having a gun and not showing it may be an advantage.

    But if the situation deteriorates you have another option. This guy in TN would have killed someone before the police with guns got there if this woman with guns wouldn’t have been there before the police with guns. The woman without guns didn’t have much luck slowing him down with her negotiating skills, she only managed to open the locked door for him. Maybe he only would have killed his brother or the woman without guns that opened the locked door, maybe it would have been a dozen or more kids, but there is a really, really good chance someone else would have died before the police with guns got there, about 5 minutes worth. Three rounds per death, he had 13 or 14 rounds, so 4 people without reloading, maybe 8 or 10 with a reload.

    And the be clear, I am not criticizing the police with guns, it sounds like they were there as soon as possible and went into action exactly as they should, but physics are involved here, it takes time to get from one place to another.

    We can talk what ifs all day long but this is reality.

    Just because I have a spare tire in my car doesn’t mean I go out and change the tire every morning before I go to work. It doesn’t even mean I change it when I have a flat, I might limp to the tire shop or call AAA. But I certainly don’t leave home without it.

  73. enkidu Says:

    Just to take one of your statements and look at it with more detail:

    This guy in TN would have killed someone before the police with guns got there if this woman with guns wouldn’t have been there before the police with guns.

    So if this guy was actually interested in killing people, why didn’t he just start shooting? He drew first on the guard, could have killed her, then the principal, any other human being, because, you know, he’s a Bad Guy (blam blam!) He had ample opportunity to do so, but did not… why? If I may, I think it is might be that this guy wanted to ‘die by cop’. He had a clear opportunity to shoot the guard (watch that tape, he’s disturbed and ill, mb drunk, not a murder machine). So the cops show up, they are pumped after diving 90 mph to get there, The Bad Guy does something crazy and gets his death wish. I gave you an example previously where a teacher, wounded by a teenage gunman, talked the kid into laying down his weapon. No one died. But your solution is adding more guns. Yes, that should help reduce the prevalence of guns in our society.

    The second amendment isn’t about your God given right to anti-tank weapons, RPGs and tactical nukes. There are already some limits on gun ownership. These may change slightly to try to reduce the likelihood of disturbed persons obtaining weapons. Background checks, limit mag capacity, maybe ban weapons/ammo that can penetrate body armor. Increased database communication and better mental healthcare. These aren’t radical ideas. Prudent, sensible action is called for.

    Personally I’m tired of the tyranny of the stupid, angry and afraid. Obama isn’t a tyrannical despot, you have a vote, you used it and you lost. Get over it.

  74. shcb Says:

    I had many votes, I have votes for many senators and congressmen now and in the past, they all have to pass a law that has to stand up to the supreme court, that I voted on indirectly. yes I lost to Obama, but he is just one small cog, he can ask somone to propose to take my guns away but that is it, I am certainly not going to obey any direction he gives and no one else should either.

    You might be right about suicide by cop, but the cops confronted him at his house previously, and he had his gun then, why didn’t he just draw on the cop then?

  75. shcb Says:

    there is no tyranny of the stupid, we’re just following the highest law of the land, the constitution, repeal the 2nd amendment, all you need is a whole bunch of red states to go along with your ideas.

  76. shcb Says:

    I’m not afraid either, i have the gun, remember?

  77. enkidu Says:

    repeal the 2nd amendment, all you need is a whole bunch of red states to go along with your ideas.

    Could you please show me where I or anyone else here has advocated repealing the Second Amendment? That’d be great, thanks.

  78. shcb Says:

    Here you go, I didn’t limit myself to the folks here. It is simply the only way to meet your ends whether you admit it or not. Even then it won’t meet them but you have no choice but to go the full route before you find that out, and then it is too late for law abiding gun owners.

    “Enough. We talk now. And my position is going to be direct: America needs to repeal the Second Amendment.”

  79. enkidu Says:

    Your exact words were “your ideas”. In the context of this ‘debate’, clearly you seem to think these were ‘my ideas’. Not Mr Eichenwald’s ideas. Not someone else someplace sometime thinks the 2nd Amendment (clearly about forming militias for defense and police actions – in the mid 1700s) should be repealed.

    In the context of our posting here (the ‘debate’) you stated that repealing the 2nd was my idea. Clearly this is not true. No basis in reality. As usual. The word repeal does not appear in this thread – until *you* use it. You live in a scary fantasy world ginned up by wwnj nonsense.

    Simple, common sense changes to our laws, more fundamental changes to the national psyche and improvements to our healthcare, database communication and other prudent measured changes would reduce the prevalence of guns, gun violence and gun nuts in our society.

    I pity you that you are so afraid of boojums, grumpkins and snarks that you carry some sort of firearm with you every time you leave the house.

    Personally I think you should have your firearms taken away as you are clearly nuts, you’ve threatened others with death of various kinds and are clearly living in a delusional psychotic state that seems just this side of snapping with terrible consequences. I wouldn’t trust you with a spork.

    Did you actually read the article by Mr Eichenwald? Did you understand it? He would like to amend the 2nd to read “The people retain the right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable restrictions deemed necessary by the Congress and the President to secure the lives and well being of others.” The comments seem to bear out that wwnjs can’t read past the headline. Obviously you didn’t. hurp durp

    So… what part of “The people retain the right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable restrictions” do you not understand?

  80. shcb Says:

    You can’t amend an amendment, you have to repeal it and re write it. In this case the rewrite would be largely meaningless. Just as your trick of “I never said that” you utilize it quite often, oh well. Did you say you want the 2nd repealed? No, but you said if laws were passed outlawing guns and I chose to keep mine you would relish my incarceration. So yes you didn’t use the words, you don’t want the amendment repealed, but you don’t mind if a simple law made it irrelevant, in essence repealing the amendment, the one you never said you want repealed. Nasty little game you play, rather tiresome.

  81. enkidu Says:

    Repeating your exact words, verbatim, usually with a link back to the actual language is somehow a trick? When you hear voices, you are mentally ill, possibly psychotic. When you read things and attribute them to people who didn’t write them…

    Let’s list some weapons shall we? First there are weapons that have some simple common sense “reasonable restrictions”

    biological weapons
    thermonuclear weapons
    nuclear weapons
    nuclear subs
    aircraft carriers
    stealth bombers
    MOAB or air fuel devices
    bunker busters
    daisy cutters
    capital ships
    diesel subs
    air superiority jet fighters
    stealth attack aircraft
    other naval assets
    air to air missiles
    surface to air missiles
    radar jamming/attack missiles
    siege mortars
    largest howitzers
    AV mines/IEDs
    attack helicopters
    ground strike aircraft
    anti-tank guns
    smaller howitzers
    AP mines/IEDs
    largest machine guns (full-auto)
    .50 sniper rifles (legal in some states)
    smaller machine guns (full-auto)
    SAW (see above)
    military assault rifles (full-auto)
    large axes

    Now we have the weapons that aren’t “reasonably restricted”
    military assault rifles (semi-auto)
    all other manner of rifles
    pump shotguns
    double barrel shotguns
    single bore shotguns
    target rifles
    any size drum, mag (what about belt fed?)
    pepper spray

    Can you see where I’m going with this? The 2nd isn’t about your right to own thermonuclear weapons. It isn’t about your right to own attack helicopters or AFVs. It was written in a time when the militia *was* the army to a large extent. If you would like to have a discussion about how the 2nd’s militias were primarily used to capture runaway slaves and enforce slavery, well I’d be glad to. Yet somehow owning a semi-auto AR-15 is going to protect you from tyranny? Your vote protects you from tyranny, keeping informed and engaged in your family, community and the world at large protects you from tyranny. President Blackenstein isn’t coming for your grandpa’s over under shotgun. But it would be nice if you weren’t so damn paranoid that you carry a loaded pistol when you leave the house. The year is 2013, not 1813.

    Universal background checks, mental health checks, gun safety training (lock em up), magazine size limits, mb no civilian body armor. Reasonable people might want to improve these aspects of our gun policy. As I said before, I’d be happy with even just clip size reduction (5 seems plenty) as crazy people seem to be really lousy at loading and changing clips. Reduce Mr Jeager’s clip size by one inch and he has pledged to just start shootin people. Sounds reasonable (if you are insane).

    So… what part of “The people retain the right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable restrictions” do you not understand?

  82. shcb Says:

    “So… what part of “The people retain the right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable restrictions” do you not understand?”

    I understand it all, it isn’t the second ammendment and it will allow people like you to disarm this nation, the second was put there for a very good reason, and yes it will protect against tyranny, it has protected against tyranny. Who determines resonable?

    Sorry we just disagree, get 3/4 of the states to ratify a new ammendment, thankfully this is one area owning geography and not just a few liberal cities provides this country some protection against socialists.

  83. knarlyknight Says:

    LOL, that was a more incoherent shcb than usual.

    As to who determines “resonable”, I’d recommend excluding everyone who can not pass a grade twelve skills assessment. Those remaining can vote on what’s reasonable. You might also consider excluding religious fanatics and cults like the moonies, scientologists, Quakers, Jehovah’s, Mormons, and the NRA.

  84. shcb Says:


  85. knarlyknight Says:

    If someone asks “why?” to a joke it is counterproductive to explain.

  86. shcb Says:

    So no one that disagrees with your position is reasonable. So much for there being a chance for a discussion. Joke or no joke

  87. ethan-p Says:

    OK, Enkidu – I have to be completely honest…aside from a few at the top of the list, I kind of want every single banned weapon on the list (including capital ships, and an aircraft carrier with a fleet of air superiority fighters).

    Two things:
    1. Your list doesn’t include flamethrowers. Where do those sit?
    2. I actually think that the second amendment needs to be repealed and rewritten. I don’t have a problem with the right to bear arms. I do, however believe that the militia clause is no longer appropriate. In fact, most militias are the kind of things that I depend on the government protecting me from. I think of guys like Timothy McVeigh and the like. Is there anyone here who supports the idea of militias in their current form? Can this be fixed?

  88. enkidu Says:

    e-p (which always sounds like the old Mac “eep” sound to me)

    Perhaps you are confusing “wants” (even needs) with “rights”. “Reasonable restrictions” means Donald Trump has no damn business owning an aircraft carrier. That is what we as citizens demand from our government: a set of reasonable rules by which civilized societies get along (ie stumble along into the future).

    1) flame throwers, hmmm, nasty business that, covered in burning petroleum jelly, an awful death… lessee, mb between small howitzers and mortars? ymmv

    also, don’t forget about drones!
    Brings up a bit of a grey area: civilian uses of drones (as well as law enforcement) are on the upswing, you can build a pretty dang inexpensive quad or hex or octo rotor heli drone, cameras, etc (but very short flight duration typically).

    2) It all boils down to “reasonable restrictions” If we deem big clips not reasonable as a society, well then big clips are off limits. If we decide full auto machine guns for everyone, well, that would be the law. That seems to be what the wwnjs want, more guns guns guns.

    wwnj – “it will allow people like you to disarm this nation” please point out where I have asked for this nation to be disarmed (extra points for looking up my support for Global Zero – no nukes sound like the best nukes). Do you realize that typing this makes you sound like an utter lunatic?

    “yes it will protect against tyranny, it has protected against tyranny” please point out even *once* just *once* that your AR-15 has protected us all from tyranny. Any civ’s semi-auto AR-15? Please be specific. I’d ask for rational and reasonable, but after reading your shit for years, I know better. This sounds even nuttier. Just sayin.

  89. shcb Says:

    Battle of Athens, 1946. Of course this won’t be enough even though Enky said *once*

  90. shcb Says:

    Ethan, don’t be fooled by this middle of the road “rewrite the 2nd”. The Bill of Rights exists to limit congress, if you add verbiage the says you have the right to (fill in the blank) unless congress says otherwise, you have no Bill of Rights. So if you want to repeal it, repeal it.

    Every law and every amendment in the Bill of Rights has limits, free press unless a judge issues a gag order, can’t yell fire in a crowded building, can’t own a tank or machine gun without special permission. The anti gun lobby already has what they say they want, but they want nothing less than to disarm the populace, ask yourself, why?

    Think of a militia more in the terms of the National Guard and not Timothy McVeigh. These right wing militia are in name only and nothing more legitimate than Bill Ayres’ terrorist group in the ’60s

    One of the common excuses to disarm us by eliminating the 2nd Amendment is, it is outdated because a band of men with AR-15 can’t take on a modern military, tell that to the Afghan rebels, they have done a pretty good job against every superpower on the earth with the best armies for what, 3 decades? And anyway, if we don’t stand a chance why not let us live our fantasies? The reason why is because an armed populace is a deterrent to a tyrannical government. Look at every tyrannical government through time, the first thing they do is disarm the people, either by telling them it is for their own good or by force. In every case the people have never had the level of armament the government disarming had.

  91. enkidu Says:

    I’ll use my dastardly ‘trick’ of using the exact words once again (haha *reality* it’s like kryptonite to stupid)

    please point out even *once* just *once* that your AR-15 has protected us all from tyranny. Any civ’s semi-auto AR-15?

    I had no idea the AR-15 was in use almost 70 years ago! So you have one example of a riot against a corrupt local election. Almost 70 years ago. (slow hand claps) bravo.

    Again, please point out where I (or anyone else here) has advocated disarming the nation? Perhaps you would fail a mental health background check? Must be that time you defended yourself against the tyranny of someone else taking your parking spot.

    And the whole ‘tyrants disarm the nation before they can take over’ hogwash… Please look it up (no using Conservapedia). Hitler *loosened* (no, not losened) gun laws for the average German. Oh but why let reality intrude on your bs, just rant on.

    Sandy Hook happened – it isn’t some hoax so Obummer can take yer guns. Trying to limit the size of your ammo clip isn’t disarming the nation. Reasonable gun owners would agree to reasonable changes. You aren’t reasonable so I can see why this makes you sh!t your pants yet again. I’m not invested in we-must-ban-scary-guns (again) because it will prevent another Sandy Hook from happening (again). But statistically anything America can do to reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who really shouldn’t have them is a good thing and probably does save lives. Sorry, there I go again, being all reasonable. But feel free to ‘argue’ with a evil librul strawman of your fevered and spittle flecked imagination. You always do.

  92. shcb Says:

    Ha ha, you are so predictable Enky, I knew you would dig your pointy stick in the AR15 wound. Yes, yes, yes, we can safely assume that if and when we need to use the 2nd amendment for one of it’s intended purposes, the protection against a tyrannical government, it will not be with weapons not yet invented.

    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms 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 prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.” – Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago.

    “The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United 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

    The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson

    “The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” -Thomas Jefferson

    He wasn’t talking about weapons of the past, rocks and stones, he was talking about weapons of the present, muskets and long rifles. We should not be restricted to weapons of the past either.

  93. enkidu Says:

    yeah, you wouldn’t want to take away a guy’s right to shoot skeet now wouldya


    removing even one inch of your extra high capacity magazine = tyranny

    gun laws to require background checks for all sales = disarming the nation

    renewed assault weapon ban = flibbertigibbet (also, unlikely to pass Congress)

    Moving one type of weapon to the slightly more reasonably restricted pile isn’t going to be the death of America. But there may be fewer dead Americans. And it allows us to have a conversation, nay a debate! about gun culture in America.

  94. enkidu Says:

    That picture reminds me of a great story in “Team of Rivals” (which also made it into the movie “Lincoln”) This is one of those great apocryphal anecdotes that Lincoln was so known for (wish there was a book recounting them all, he had a wonderful wit)

    Seems the Ambassador to England from the newly formed US was attending a party and after drinking and eating asked to use the facilities. The hosts directed him to the (outhouse?) WC and there tacked on the wall was a picture of George Washington. When he returned to the soiree, the Ambassador said nothing and eventually someone, perhaps the host inquired what he thought of the placement of Washington’s portrait. The Ambassador thought a moment and reflected that it was a right and proper place for the portrait. For nothing would make an Englishman shit like the sight of George Washington.

    something like that anyway

  95. shcb Says:

    limiting magazine size is the only thing in your list(s) that I can see is constitutional, won’t help, but it is the only thing that seems to me congress could pass a law on. Hanguns will probably still be whatever a Glock is, I think they are around 15, you could have a 10 round max for rifles and 5 for shotguns.

    Put a plastic stock and rails on an M1 and it is an assault weapon, put a heavy wood stock on an AR-15 and most people would think it was a hunting gun, not workable. leave em stock and most people would think the AR is more dangerious, the M1 is “so old” till they get hit with a 30-06.

    Then people like you can praise the lord we are all safer, until the next shooting. The shooter will have a few more magazines, he will use a larger slug, wound and then kill with a single shot to the head, using less amo, whatever, outcome will be the same unless someone is shooting back.

  96. enkidu Says:

    Looks like the missus just got back from the Piggly Wiggly with the 36 pack of Charmin Ultra Soft.

    So are you a Skeeter like you’re a Birther? That pic musta made you go like a dozen bran muffins and a gallon of espresso. I bet he’s a better shot than you too.

    Regulating what types of guns are “reasonably responsible” isn’t tyranny. There is a big list up above (now with Flamethrowers) of civ proscribed weapons, adding a few more of the deadliest types is unlikely, but a useful discussion to have. It highlights just how nucking futs wrong wing nut jobs really are.

    So where are your examples of *your* AR-15 protecting us all from tyranny? Not just some righteous riot from 70 years ago. Come on! Show us dum libs!

  97. ethan-p Says:

    SHCB, it didn’t occur to me that the national guard was our militia. In this case, my objection to the 2nd amendment is without basis. I completely withdraw it.

  98. shcb Says:

    I’m wandering Enky, how is telling the government what guns I own going to prevent or minimize the next mass shooting?

  99. shcb Says:

    That is why it is so important for the governors of the various states to maintain control of the National Guard Ethan. The first line of defense against a government gone bad is the militia (National Guard), the last line are farmers with pitchforks (AR15s).

    This is why it was so hard to see George Bush be so brutalized during Katrina for not sending in the US military sooner, he couldn’t. There is a very real divide between the governors controlling the National Guard and the President controlling the federal forces. Just as the governor couldn’t call on US Army forces to help, Bush couldn’t send in federal forces without permission, that would have been an act of war (a little exaggerated). The same goes for the second amendment, there is a very real reason it was put there and why it needs to stay.

    People like Enky don’t think we need the 2nd because we have never needed it on a large scale, but could it be that the reason we have never needed it is because we still have it?

  100. knarlyknight Says:

    We’ve never needed the 2nd and we’ve never had the 2nd. – A Canadian perspective.

  101. knarlyknight Says:

    And an assertion – a well educated, peaceful and policitically active citizenry is more affective at preventing tyranny than simple folk with guns (simply folk with guns usually support tyranny.) I suppose if a nation’s media becomes co-opted at the same time as education results continuously fall, guns might seem like all that’s left to fight aggression. One need only look to Ghandi to realize the error of that assumption.

  102. enkidu Says:

    GOP pols are convinced it is all the fault of video games and Hollywood.

    People like Enky don’t think we need the 2nd

    Modifying (repeal and replace?) the 2nd amendment isn’t nullifying it. Nullification is more the game of y’all Secessionistas.

    “The people retain the right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable restrictions” Sounds like what we have right now minus the ‘militias’ part, plus the reasonable restrictions part. If you reject the authority of anyone to reasonably regulate and restrict access and ownership of weaponry, by golly it’s a slippery slope until everyone will be required to own tanks and APCs, you know, for safety. And politeness.

    “The people retain the right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable restrictions deemed necessary by the Congress and the President (I’d add the Judicial branch, just for fun) to secure the lives and well being of others.” Sounds so reasonable. Is it that we are talking about disbanding your ‘militia’ unit?

    If we so desperately need your AR-15 on the ramparts, can you please furnish a single example where your AR-15 was instrumental in saving anyone from Tyranny?

    A better discussion is what are productive steps to reduce the prevalence of guns and violence in our society. But when one side is clearly delusional, angry, armed and fighting a imaginary Other the ‘debate’ is somewhat… unproductive. If often hilariously nutty.

  103. enkidu Says:

    I’m wandering (sic) Enky, how is telling the government what guns I own going to prevent or minimize the next mass shooting?

    Talking in the general case: ie a new law is passed asking everyone (not just you) to register their firearms, even ancestral muskets or M1s. If it fires such and such a size slug over such and such a velocity, well, we’d like to know. It stands to reason that if you have a comprehensive database of who owns what, and let’s say someone is suffering from dementia, it might be a good idea to take away their firearms. Like taking away the keys to the car (another killer) when you are too old or crazy to drive. If they have a spouse, maybe they could lock up the weapons (gun safe and trigger locks? mb ammo elsewhere? I’m no expert). If Ms Lanza had been required to have her boomsticks locked up, would that have increased or decreased the likelihood of Sandy Hook happening? Most reasonable folk would say locking up the guns might have reduced the likelihood of Sandy Hook. He already tried to buy a gun and was denied iirc.

    No one wants your granddad’s shotgun. But if grandpa wanted to bequeath it to lil ricky, well lil ricki needs to pass a background check of his criminal record and mental health. If your mental health declines, society may have a right to disarm you. Doesn’t mean grandpa isn’t just gonna keep driving. But there are consequences to doing so.

    Still waiting for your examples of how your AR-15 saved us all from capital T Tyranny.

  104. shcb Says:

    Miss. Lanza’s weapons were registered, according to friends they were in a locked cabinet. But of course the kid found a way around such air tight preventive measures, he stole the guns by killing the owner.

  105. shcb Says:

    Part of the problem here is the word reasonable. I believe gun restrictions are already too severe, but not by much. In my mind for any further restrictions to be deemed “reasonable” the first bar they must pass it they have to have a very good chance of accomplishing their goals. “If it would only save one life” doesn’t hold much sway here.

  106. enkidu Says:

    So let’s keep going with my hypothetical ‘register all guns, match that up with (esp mental) healthcare databases’. So future Adam Lanza is in therapy and about to be committed (iirc this was ‘why’ he snapped). Future mrs Lanza would be required to take reasonable measures to secure her firearms as her son spiraled down. Perhaps past Lanza knew where the key was, maybe the cabinet wasn’t locked at all or wasn’t a gun safe, trigger lock or separate place for ammo. We just don’t know. But if future Lanza-like crazy people are reasonably restricted from access to guns, it is reasonable to assume they will have a harder time committing these sorts of atrocities. As well as other crimes. I am not saying the gov is going to break down your door, snatch all your guns and quarter a brace of imperial marines in your living room. But the doc should be able to put two and two together (newsflash for wwnjs 2+2=4, you’re welcome) and at least strongly caution future mrs Lanza to lock the killing machines up. It wouldn’t ‘prevent’ all future massacres, but reducing their number, taking prudent, reasonable steps to secure and control (gasp! gun control!) access to bullet spraying machines would reduce the potential by some unknown degree. But it would go down, not up. Just adding more bullet sprayers everywhere isn’t a solution, it’d be more of the problem.

    I think reasonable folk are fine with reasonable limits on the types of killing machines that are reasonable for civilian use. Why body armor is legal for civilian use is beyond me. You don’t need a 100 round drum (like the Aurora shooter iirc) for hunting or home defense.

    Still waiting for examples of how your AR-15 saved us all from Tyranny.

  107. knarlyknight Says:

    Enk, that’s just logical conjecture. I prefer the hilarity of shcb’s magical conjecture:

    Miss. Lanza’s weapons were registered, according to friends they were in a locked cabinet. But of course the kid found a way around such air tight preventive measures, he stole the guns by killing the owner.

    Adam Lanza shot Ms. Lanza with her own gun that was locked in a cabinet? Obviously the guns were not locked away properly and he did not steal the guns by killing the owner; he stole the guns then killed the owner.

  108. knarlyknight Says:

    Oops, the second paragraph was mine, shouldn’t have been in a block quote.

  109. knarlyknight Says:

    Adam Lanza shot Ms. Lanza with her own gun that was locked in a cabinet? Obviously the guns were not locked away properly and he did not steal the guns by killing the owner; he stole the guns then killed the owner.

  110. shcb Says:

    Enky, I hope you understand I ignored and continue to ignore your AR-15 stipulation because it is irrelevant to the discussion, it is just you being an ass.

    Knarly, I don’t if she had all, none or some subset of guns locked, a friend of hers was quoted as saying she was very carful with her guns and thought she was the type of person that would lock the guns when not in use. So let’s assume she did lock her guns for kicks, the kid shot her with her own gun, so he either found the key, got one gun out when she wasn’t home, she maybe didn’t lock all her guns, maybe kept one by her bed, who knows. The point is registration didn’t stop this, gun locks, lockers, whatever didn’t stop this kid. If she had them secured he easily could have killed her with a knife to take the key, use her hand for a palm print lock box or whatever, nothing would have stopped this from happening except someone shooting back, and even that would have just lessened the loss in all probability.

    Enky, couldn’t a judge order someone like Miss Lanza to remove all guns from her house if there was a danger? Say a doctor petitions the court, why do they have to be registered? So a bureaucrat looks at his computer screen and says, she owns 4 guns, turn em over bitch! She gives him her guns, but of course there are still 3 left in the house that are unregistered or registered to someone else, problem still exists. The docs didn’t think he was dangerous to others so why would that process even be initiated?

    I have one gun registered in my name, a Ruger .357 single action. My cousin’s wife wanted to buy it for him for his birthday but didn’t want her name on a gun registration, so I signed the papers. In this case I never owned the gun, I only shot it couple times. The gun was stolen a few years later, my cousin is now dead, helicopter crash, the wife has remarried and last I heard is living in San Diego. I have no idea where the gun is, how many times it has been sold, lost, stolen or bought. But! It is gun registered to me. Fat lot of good that registration did.

  111. enkidu Says:

    In my example, the doctor tells future Mrs Lanza “you should seriously think about securing your firearms”. In your example some bureaucrat says “turn em over bitch!”

    Which scenario seems more reasonable?

    And admitting to a ‘straw sale’… gun stolen… but you just want to add more guns. Maybe if your relatives had a mandatory trigger lock in that thing (or in a gun safe) it wouldn’t have been stolen at all.

    Again if your 2nd rights have kept us all safe from Tyranny, golly I’d sure like to hear about it.

  112. knarlyknight Says:

    I find the part of your reply that is directed to me, in which you assume that since Ms. Lanza’s supposed efforts failed to stop the rampage then every similar effort will also fail, to be a particularly amusing example of wwnj logic lacking.

  113. enkidu Says:

    I know we’re all glued to ‘tLBD’ (squee!) but today in CA, just as an example, there is an alleged cop who is a cop killer on the loose (not lose shcb). The police are literally opening fire on cars that even look similar to the cop-killer vehicle. Thus far, two women delivering newspapers have been shot in the back and the hand. Their vehicle took almost 40 rounds. And these are the professionals… They shot up another vehicle if reports are true, but no one was injured in that incident.

    Guns aren’t magic panacea dispensing devices.

    shcb – still waiting for examples of how your AR-15 saved us all from Tyranny.
    Would it make it easier if it was just tyranny? Or would the flood of examples be too much?


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.