How many more times?

[Andy Peters]

riggler quote; Honestly, that Mossberg 12GA shotgun is way more lethal in my mind in a confined area than an AR-15 or and AK-47 / SKS. I mean an order of magnitude more lethal. I think it's that those guns get a military image and then they become the "bad" ones. end quote;

The absurd rational of the above statement shows the mentality that reasonable people are up against???  Yeah, arm the military with the superior "shot gun" :

I read that quote as exactly the opposite. Sure, it sets up different levels of lethality (which is basically ridiculous, I agree), but what's being pointed out by riggler and also in the article I linked to is that the fetishists are actually ridiculous when they think about self defense. They're choosing the wrong weapons because they are so infatuated by whatever they read and hear. None of those people have any experience in a situation where they'd need "deadly force."

The fact is, that the vast majority of us have never witnessed a serious crime Chuck Norris!

That's absolutely true. And I think if one took a close look at crimes that actually ARE committed, one would see that the random home-invasion or mugging is such a rare occurrence that you're better off buying a lottery ticket. A lot less rare: gangs shooting up gangs. Personal grievances between family members or co-workers or the guy in the bar who said something you don't like.

Maybe someone WILL burglarize my house. Only a fucking idiot burglar would do that when someone's home.

When it rains, sometimes there's a leak in the ceiling, so someone will go up on the roof and find the bullethole through which the water pours. We even find the slugs. These fucking numbnuts think that once a bullet goes up, somehow gravity no longer applies. It's really too bad that the bullets don't come down and splat a hole into the head of the shooter. Instead of some kid outside playing.

Our political and social culture of irrational demonizing and vengeance, has created this reality.
Just BE WHAT U WANT TO SEE. Unfortunately our culture sees violence as an answer to almost everything.

Because people are afraid. And they're afraid of straw men and bogeymen. And it's because their education was insufficient and they haven't learned to think for themselves.

-a

 

[living sounds]

Because people are afraid. And they're afraid of straw men and bogeymen. And it's because their education was insufficient and they haven't learned to think for themselves.

-a

Well, and the media they watch every day. Not video games, but Fox News and local TV stations having their reporters driving from one crime scene to the next. In this day and age it's the "well regulated media environment" that's missing. There's too much laissez-fare on too many levels in the US, and this gets confused with freedom.

 

[Andy Peters]

Well, and the media they watch every day. Not video games, but Fox News and local TV stations having their reporters driving from one crime scene to the next. In this day and age it's the "well regulated media environment" that's missing. There's too much laissez-fare on too many levels in the US, and this gets confused with freedom.

I prefer the unregulated and healthy practice of real journalism. The last thing we need is the house organ spouting propaganda. (You probably won't be surprised to hear that I think that what Fox News does is not journalism but rather "entertainment.")

Real Journalism is not stenography and "he said, she said" back and forth. Real Journalism does not assume that anyone who is official is telling the truth and that what the person says should not be challenged.

Real Journalism isn't practiced by the major media outlets in this country. Why? Probably because it's not what the customers want. The customers don't want to be challenged while reading the paper in the morning or watching the evening news. (Isn't this why most of a half-hour newscast is devoted to sports and entertainment?)

Simply put, if there wasn't an audience for Fox News, it wouldn't exist.

Isn't the free market grand?  :

-a

 

[JohnRoberts]

JR,

The big differences in policy in all your states is a bit of a mystery too, it seems ripe for exploitation and the federal government can't really harmonise laws without getting its fingers burned, like they say, politics is the art of the possible.
best
DaveP

Thank you for the opportunity to talk about something other than will a shot gun or an assault rifle kill you deader.... 

Our founders had a theme in crafting our government that decision making should be made as close to the people affected as possible. Decisions about a town, made by the local town government, etc. The ultimate power to govern resides in the people, not some central governing body.

The central federal government sounds like it should be more efficient making decisions for hundreds of millions of people at the same time but instead we get the opposite where what should be simple gets bogged down by competing interests.

The central federal government has a role in matters looking outward from or borders. Dealing with other nations, national defense, trade etc. Local matters are better handled by states and local governments (I suspect opinion varies from people who believe in government planned economies and infallibility of government).

I believe we lost some state power to the federal government with the 17th amendment that called for popular election of senators. Prior to the early 20th century, senators were appointed by state legislatures which gave state legislatures more influence in the federal legislature.

Our founders believed that too much consolidation of power in the federal was dangerous for our liberty. I believe they were some pretty sharp individuals.

The Second amendment was their answer to preventing a central government from disarming the public, like we see in totalitarian nations. While this seems an archaic notion today to most of us who lived our entire lives in peace and freedom, but it wasn't always that way, and certainly wasn't that way here a few hundred years ago.

We are blessed that most of us lived  our entire lifetime without want, need,  or sense of freedom denied. It can be hard for us to put ourselves into other's shoes, or envision even well intentioned government screwing up. We can't forget what we never knew.

[edit] I sometime post in short hand because these are old themes, but in contrast to our relatively sheltered life experiences we only need to look at a nation like Afghanistan where most of the population alive today has NEVER in their lifetime enjoyed effective rule of law, or had public safety provided by a stable central government for more than brief periods. I can't be very optimistic that this won't return to previous disorder shortly after we withdraw). [/edit] 

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

The fact is, that the vast majority of us have never witnessed a serious crime Chuck Norris!

I had a knife pulled on me in a Boston back alley back in the '60s... does that count?

I didn't stick around to see how that exchange was going to end.  8), I ended up backing quickly into the basement of the building next door. That seemed wiser that trying to win a knife fight without a knife, or any desire to fight. 

Actually it was one of my roommates that got beat on by these pukes, and when I heard that he was missing in action, I foolishly rushed out back to rescue him. When I noticed the knife poking me in my stomach, and not seeing my friend anywhere, my buzz quickly dissipated, I decided to beat a strategic retreat.

My roommate turned up later that night with a bloody ear, shaken but not seriously injured. 

======
yes TV news in the US is commercial info-tainment. They selectively present news that their audience wants to see.  It is interesting to see government sponsored news from say a country like Iran, they even have an english language service (go figure).

I learned the concept of propaganda as a young teen listening to Radio Moscow or Radio Havana over short wave radio.

A free press is important to keep the government honest, hopefully the internet will supplant the deterioration in print and TV journalism. it is important to keep an eye on government intrusion over social media and the new press. This unfettered voice capable of speaking truth to power is extremely important to our libery. 

JR

 

[SSLtech]

Well, there's a lot of subject-spread here, but I'll bite:

The civil war... People in the North by comparison seem to have "moved on" and largely 'forgotten' about it, but seem to be are a good number of bitter southerners. -A number really DO conform to stereotype. -About a mile from my home I can point to a house with the 'stars 'n' bars' ("rebel flag") flying in the yard, a "Don't tread on me" ("snake-that-looks-like-it-was-drawn-by-a-five-year-old flag") on the garage door, a silver Dodge Ram with a wannabe-monster-truck lift-kit and mud tyres, with a "the south shall rise again" vinyl graphic blocking what remaining area of the rear window isn't already obscured by the gun rack. I've seen and heard the owner (the road is on a 50-mile cycle route which I do weekly in the summer) and let's just say that "he doesn't come across as the thinking type". -Stereotypes may be a lazy thing to resort to, but they exist for a reason, and people like this help sustain them.

"The Gun thing in America"... Well, really it's "the oversimplification thing in America" which I see as a deeper problem. The US is a massive country, which is tricky to govern, steer, control, lead, "reach". People with ambition/aspiration in government or commerce have long since discovered that apparently simple concepts are taken up the most readily. -This is not a US thing: -It's happened for so long as there's been a newspaper, or even a town crier. The CURRENT term for this seems to be "dumbing down", and while it wasn't invented in the US, it has most certainly been widely adopted and even 'welcomed' here. -I notice that people DO NOT WANT answers which require thought. -My own wife will regularly ask me (for example): "Are carrots *GOOD* for you?" -and it's typical of the "just give me a yes or no answer" question which people seem to expect everything to be reduced to in the US. -If I tell her that carrots contain compounds which can 'help' if you're deficient (therefore presumably "good") but which will stain your skin if eaten in large amounts, and can cause kidney trouble if eaten to excess (therefore presumably "bad") so it really depends on things like the quantity and your current nutritional state... she -like many people- simply doesn't want to know that. -the TV news tells us that milk is "bad". Then a week later: "Coming up in 'news at eleven': how milk can help keep your skin looking younger!" -then a few days later "in the Evening news update: -We reveal the new-found link between dairy products and cancer!" before another enterprising exposé a few days later: "After the break: How drinking more milk can help keep the doctor away... -we show you what you need to know!"

Okay, we've got a long way from flying lead, but it's in this "Coke vs. Pepsi", good-versus evil, 'just-make-it-simple-for-me' environment that the NRA -possibly the most effective advocacy group in the USA- has framed a well-rooted public fear that "the guv'mint is attacking you!" and that "they're trying to make it so you can't defend yourself!" -They beat the drum in this present climate which seems to suggest that the constitution is virtually a magic and infallible set of divine commandments, which enshrines EVERYONE'S right to defend themselves, BEGINNING by ensuring the owning of arms.

The NRA is an extremely active organization, which publicly "rates" politicians. In last month's election for example, they spent over $200,000,000 in disclosed election spending. Yet more was disbursed by 'sympathetic' organizations and individuals. They -reasonably enough for any organization, I suppose- want to grow gun ownership and organization membership. -The fact that this largely equates to putting more guns into the hands of more people might seem a little risky to people who might be inclined to consider issues a little more carefully, but it's okay to the NRA, Apparently.

As for US versus UK 'differences', I can only really say this: The UK is home to a broad spectrum of wisdom, creativity and intelligence. The US too, houses an equally broad spectrum. -However, while in the UK I most certainly found myself associating with a somewhat more informed and considerate set of minds than I do here... Of course, this could be an idiosyncrasy of the particular localities in which I've spent time in both countries... but -sadly- I'm inclined to think that -no, the Brits are on the whole just a little better at that sort of thing. -While the UK certainly has "Sun readers" to match the US's "Fox News viewers", and the majority of newspapers over there still do an appalling job of 'informing' people, concentrating instead on sensation, or whipping up public frenzy over comparative trivialities, I still seemed to find rather more people who are willing to consider nuance, subtleties and acknowledge the complexity of issues.

In this NRA-fueled environment, it won't be long before "people's right to defend themselves" is being invoked in affronted terms. Honestly, listening to the two sides is as depressingly unfulfilling as listening to mid-east Arab and Israeli leaders trading accusations and flinging blame. -It's like listening to two kids in the back seat trading accusations and insults. -Until the terms USED change, and until people admit to having misled people for so long, no change will come, and no progress will be made.

 

[DaveP]

Thanks SSLtech,

What with what you just posted and those of JR, I have a better picture of the US now.

Newspapers are in free-fall in the UK.  The tabloids like the Sun and Star have transformed themselves from the working man's paper into celebrity magazine rags, actual news is marginalised.  All the papers are losing Ad revenue to online publications, hence the desperation in the content and the illegal phone tapping etc.  The younger generation use phones for everything and many people look at online news like the BBC in their break time.
best
DaveP

 

[mouse]

I think Norman Walker came up with the idea that carrots do not stain your skin. They can slowly dissolve gallstones and intrahepatic accretions, and the staining is old bilirubin  being released into the bloodstream.

Thank you for bringing up the subject of oversimplification.

 

[emrr]

Today the news tells me the governor of Virginia is "open to the idea of arming teachers". 

I think anyone who thinks that way hasn't been in an inner city school where teachers have to go to the restroom in groups to avoid being beat up by students.  Imagine the number gun incidents, attempts to get a gun from a teacher, etc. 

Don't you just love the idea of making sure that every child in America grows up used to having an armed presence?  What a sales opportunity! 

In parallel, who can imagine not having a cell phone anymore? 

Who can imagine sharing wi-fi anymore?  "We must secure these networks for liability reasons.  Please buy your own system."  Thank God there are a dozen wireless networks around me, all locked, each person paying a premium to a provider. 

Fear sells. 

 

[SSLtech]

...I'm not sure if mouse's post was a barb aimed in my direction, but the release of bilirubin also colors the whites of the eyes. This differs significantly from the overwhelming majority of skin-staining cases from eating lots of carrots, where the skin can be quite deeply colored, with the eye whites still perfectly white.

Interestingly, the 'misinformation/disinformation' issued during WWII by the British and aimed at 'masking' the deployment of air-to-air "IFF" RADAR supposedly allowed for a couple of cases to be studied, when surviving German pilots were discovered to have consumed enormous quantities of carrots, having first 'swallowed' the British misdirection that the real reason for sudden improvements in nighttime 'kills' was due to the British pilots eating lots of carrots to improve night-vision...

 

[mouse]

No barbs were deployed.

I can't remember if it was Norman Walker (Norwalk juicer) or Bernard Jensen who saw hundreds or more people through carrot juice fasting. At first people's skin turned orange and they assumed it was due to the beta-carotene/carrot pigmentation but then continual adherence to the carrot juice yielded a clearing of discoloration.

I wasn't aware of the  study you referenced.

Here is Piers Morgan deploying barbs...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=n9z1wfgNf9E

 

[SSLtech]

Thanks Mouse, -the internets are a difficult place to judge meaning and nuance.

Oh, and for DaveP and anyone else reading this from a UK/US comparison: I specifically discount and exclude the better thinkers from my broad generalizations: John Roberts is someone who very obviously DOES think things through and consider things deeply. -He and I may differ greatly in our conclusions, but I certainly respect his conclusions; they are not arrived at 'lightly'.

Any my views are precisely that: -'Views'. Your view is always shaped and directed by the lens through which you choose to look outwards. I try to 'look at the world' through several 'lenses' daily, from the BBC world service to American AM radio, from PBS to Fox. I try to be as 'objective' as I can even though I expect I'm still rather biased. I'm afraid however that the majority of people in both countries -and most others- make no such effort.

As to it being 'too soon after an emotional "black swan" like Sandy Hook Elementary'... -if not now, When is a better time? -A time when the NRA will just revert to the same old sensational, fear-rooted absurdity that it has always used to date?

No.

The snowdrop campaign was a shining example of how these things can work, and work well.

Thirty-thousand firearm deaths in the US last year. it's simple absurd to treat those numbers as 'reasonable'.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Good post SSL, we differ by degrees, but you are being thoughtful.

Trying to describe America from first hand anecdotal experience, is like that parable about 10 blind men trying to describe an elephant by feel... the description will vary widely depending on where you stand.

I would remind SSL that he is living in FL, aka god's waiting room, where wealthy enough old people go to wait to die. Unlike that stereotype, rural FL has it's own redder than red rednecks, and several other stereotypes, depending on whether you look northern,southern, central, coastal, inland, glades, inland waterway, etc. 

My experience about the hangover from the civil war in the deep south parallels his. Coincidentally I was joking with two of my (southern born) neighbors about exactly this a few weeks ago, and they were not amused. I changed the subject. I have seen this in other sub-cultures after they lose some former stature.  I suspect that a great deal of the anger in the middle east is remembering the former importance of the great cities of the middle east over the last hundreds of years. These former great cities and nations are now shadows of their former selves, and it makes people with a longer perspective angry.

In the US this regionalism is diluted by people moving freely between states, while this has been notably reduced since the housing crisis made it harder to sell, and weak economy harder to change jobs.

I have lived in a handful of different states but don't claim complete knowledge. A classic book that helps define America "De la démocratie en Amérique" was written by a French man  Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830s after he traveled around here on a mission of discovery about governance.  The book will be easier to read in english "Democracy in America".. while somewhat dated, his insights are instructive for anybody trying to understand America.

=====

We are dealing with a "now" that is decidedly different than the now that existed hundreds of years ago when the 2nd amendment was crafted.  This is not as simple a question as most argue, so we need to be thoughtful, careful and deliberate.

The former assault rifle ban had more holes in it that a 20 yard paper target, and was largely ineffective. We all need to take a time out, and do what we can to protect our children while still protecting our own freedoms.

Distrust simple answers, while that is what the public demands, and people with specific agendas will try to gin up. The NRA would not exist without something to defend against. While we all need to redefine the red lines. 

JR (not an NRA member but an interested citizen sympathetic to both arguments)

PS: Looking at gun stats a significant number of those deaths are suicides, I do not know if guns make that overly easy. This is more evidence for how improved mental health efforts could save lots of lives, not in the current public discussion.

 

[SSLtech]

I completely agree about the blind men describing an elephant. -Also it should be considered that everyone's world view begins at the local level, and my particular locality is VERY low crime. -Of course it's easy to for me to be 'Pollyanna'  when you live in a comparatively wealthy gated community with perfectly manicured lawns, and just about zero petty crime.

To illustrate; I think I can recall only three crimes in my home community of 2,000 homes over the last five years or so: specifically a couple of Rolexes and some jewels being snatched after being left on display within easy reach of a window (with contractors/workmen engaged in construction on an adjacent home) about three years ago, a couple of cars being broken into last year, and a few items left on view being taken, and the third of an over-committed husband with a gambling problem who killed his two children, his wife and finally himself about three years ago, three houses down from my son's best friend's house. That too was a gun crime, but in fact would in all likelihood have been equally deadly with an adequate knife...

I naturally see guns as rather unnecessary from this somewhat privileged position. -However, I don't doubt that perhaps less than twenty miles away there may be a neighborhood where being 'known' to be unarmed might increase the risk of home invasion burglary by a significant margin above the norm for an already high-crime neighborhood. -A resident there may see the world significantly differently, and may take significant issue with me characterizing handgun ownership as "unnecessary".

I agree entirely about the 'Now' being different from the 'then' when the amendment was written; -as I mentioned before, the first world's first metropolitan police force wasn't initiated until several decades later, and the 'civilized' way of maintaining order of course is to turn to this 'well regulated' organization to maintain order, rather than taking matters into one's own hands on an all-too-ready basis.

While 2012 draws to a close with the Newtown killings, another internationally-publicized handgun incident happened very early on in 2012, in another gated community less than 5 miles away from where I live. -In this instance a visiting black youth named Trayvon Martin was shot by a resident named George Zimmerman, who seemed eager to take matters into his own hands rather than trust to the police, and seemed to feel adequately 'protected' by his handgun. -While the details are vague and parties differ in their descriptions of what happened and how, one thing we can say for certain is that things would have ended MUCH more satisfactorily if Mr Zimmerman and his handgun had just stayed out of it.

I wonder how many domestic disputes are 'improved' by easy access to firearms. -My guess would be 'not many', but I've not seen as much as serving police officers do, so I'd be interested to hear more, and will try to keep an open mind in the meantime. But from my own view, it appears that guns could be reined in a LOT, and we wouldn't be any worse off. -We might even be a lot better off.

 

[hodad]

Well, there's a lot of subject-spread here, but I'll bite:

The civil war... People in the North by comparison seem to have "moved on" and largely 'forgotten' about it, but seem to be are a good number of bitter southerners.

You know, a whole lot of Northerners don't even have ancestors who fought in the Civil War, don't even have ancestors that were in the US at the time. So what exactly do they have to move on from? My family, on both sides, has been in the South for 200+ years. I certainly have known people who knew people who lived through the war. So in a way, it isn't all that distant.

And the other side is the way Southerners are viewed from outside the South. To the outside, we're a bunch of bass-ackward, mouth-breathing racists. I appreciate Keith's caveats, but I fear people will remember the stereotypes he mentions more than the caveats.

The South has long had a chip on its shoulder, and a lot of that has to do with the contempt with which so many outsiders still view it. Trust me--we don't all fit the stereotypes, and even the ones who seem to often are far more nuanced in their views than one might initially suspect.

And don't forget--racism & prejudice are everywhere. In other parts of the country it might be Asians or Latinos or Native Americans, or even "people of Appalachian origin" (ie, hillbillies).

Of course, Keith is right that there are those that fit the stereotype to a T. And I personally am often furious with the idiocy of the average Georgia voter (but hey--Minnesota keeps re-electing Michele Bachmann. She's almost as bad as our worst congressman [ie, Paul Broun].) But it'd be nice not to have the South painted with such a broad brush.

Anyhow, just had to put that out there.

 

[JohnRoberts]

As a yankee born with relatives who fought for the south (on mothers side), who moved south decades ago, including 1 year in GA, I am aware of the perception differences. This is a rich vein to mine, but not on (this) topic IMO.

=====

Getting back on topic, it is the nature of political speech to distill everything down to singular themes, preferably short talking points easier to promote. Real life is generally more complex, more like a simultaneous equation with multiple variables.

Looking at this recent high profile crime in that light, it is easy to come up with several variables.

#1- Availability of force multipliers (weapons) with extra differentiation between firing rate, magazine capacity, effective range, stopping power, etc.

#2- Criminal intent (yes this was a crime), while not a property crime but personal injury, this  mentally unbalanced individual, with a tragically distorted view of right/wrong was moved to take multiple lives.

#3- Opportunity. The school where this precious collection of children were assembled, was already locked and supposedly secured from anticipated harm.

In the crystal clarity of hindsight, the school was inadequately hardened against such an attack and barely slowed the perpetrator. We will learn more about the individual, but it appears that he was not very well adjusted, and yes, he had easy access to weapons from his own home. Three failures to systemically prevent this tragedy, where any one could have been successful.

The engineer in us all will tell you that if we drive any one of these variables to near zero the product of them all is near zero. This singular approach appeals to those intent on protecting or attacking one aspect over another. A balanced approach that addresses all three, and perhaps more I haven't listed, can deliver the most benefit to society, with least sacrifice.

I still see this event as a separate issue from all gun violence (which is much larger IMO). There are some common themes (like mental health monitoring and suicide prevention). Additional themes to consider in this broader problem is economic (like inner city poor), failures of police to secure neighborhoods so individuals are not motivated to take matters into their own hands, etc.

I hope we can have a thoughtful national discussion of all these factors and maybe more. However I expect the politicians to continue trying to simplify this down to something they can easily package into talking points to sell to voters as a fix.

JR

 

[mouse]

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/20/sandy-hook-massacre-official-story-spins-out-of-control/#

 

[simonsez]

just happened again....

 

[JohnRoberts]

The snowdrop campaign was a shining example of how these things can work, and work well.

Thirty-thousand firearm deaths in the US last year. it's simple absurd to treat those numbers as 'reasonable'.

I really hate to reopen this still festering wound, so my apologies in advance. I read a recent editorial that challenged the success of the British and Australian legislation in response to their similar tragedies. So I did my own googling.

an old link from 2001
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
From 2007- note John Stossel is a blatant libertarian, but he doesn't make up his data.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1#.UN3L5Y4WdHg

The wiki page has several conflicting links stating that gun crime in GB has either doubled, remained unchanged , or dropped, so pick whatever serves your argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

=====
To repeat I do not discount that turning all guns into plowshares would not eliminate "gun" crime per se, but still support a 3 or 4 pronged approach, with increased attention to closing gaps in mental health services, and hardening schools if they become a popular target.

Inner city gun crime (the lions share of gun related killing in US) is a product of poverty and lack of public order. Both need to be addressed.

No simple single solution for any of this IMO, but sure we need a calm and thoughtful discussion, along with our many other problems.

JR

 

[hodad]

[ but still support a 3 or 4 pronged approach, with increased attention to closing gaps in mental health services,
JR

It's amusing to me, in a very nonamusing way, to read conservative columnists taking about the mentally ill homeless population increasing in "the 80s" due to changes in the mental health care system, and yet they fail to mention that this is directly attributable to conservative hero Reagan's policies and governance. 

The hypocrisy of the modern right is both boundless and shameless. 

Having said that, my thoughts on addressing the issue are not that far away from JR's--we're not in lock step, but not oceans apart.  Unfortunately, JR will not be negotiating for the Republicans in this matter.  Instead we will be dealing with the hardliners of the NRA, who will brook no changes to gun law, and will do whatever is necessary to keep gun sales high.