« Ruminations - 14dec12 (updated) | Main | Only terrorists resist fiat money »

17 December 2012

Comments

TheMikeyMcD

Paul, I understand. However, I believe that the amount of high caliber guns in circulation make such a goal unattainable.

If one believes, as I do, that the goal of the 2nd Amendment was to empower us citizens with a force that was capable of protecting themselves from their government we should all have tanks (at least).

Protecting every us citizen from the delusional and deranges is futile.

I am more worried about protecting myself against 'my' government than I am about protecting myself against solo lunatics.

Paul Emery

Ryan, Mikey, George

Somehow I have n problem having a respectful conversation with you no matter how different our views may be. Let's keep up the dialogue. You know what? We actually agree sometimes.

Paul Emery

that's "no problem"

Ryan Mount

> However, I believe that the amount of high caliber guns in circulation make such a goal unattainable.

That's pretty much my position.

> I am more worried about protecting myself against 'my' government than I am about protecting myself against solo lunatics.

And that as well. Except I'll use a baseball bat and sarcasm. Government workers hate sarcasm. Try my theory out next time you're at the DMV. Good Times, Noodle Salad.

I do want to recognize Paul's Emery's genuine true aim. He's one of the good guys.

TheMikeyMcD

#grouphug

Paul Emery

George

I can agree with you that there should be some kind of armed security at schools. Probably should be a staff position and someone who would be trained and available. Most likely it should be part of the County or City police jurisdiction and funded through their budget. Yes, it would cost money but may be justified.

Account Deleted

OK folks - I know everyone is having a lot of fun here, but it would do you a world of good to hie on over to Daily Kos, Ed Shultz, various ties to news articles on the actual plans by the powers-that-be and so forth. In other words, while we go on and on as to whether tis nobler to die by 9mm, nitrate fulminations, petrol bombs, black powder pistol or the town drunk (and the difference in joy by the surviving parents) - pay attention now: Washington Has Plans! Yessiree. Foremost on the list - ASSAULT WEAPONS BANS! That's right - we don't know what they are, but they apparently are the main problem and we are going to "ban" them. Details will follow much later. Then there is the dreaded "GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE". It doesn't seem to have any bearing on the issue at hand, but by golly, as long as we think we can roll the House, let's go for it! The closet fascists are coming out now and hey are they informative. That Bill Of Rights seems to be another problem child that we might be able to do away with while we're at it.
Part of the "package" will involve mental health issues. Look for a new cabinet position and and multi-ten thousand strong new bureaucracy. There is hardly an issue of importance you can name that Washington hasn't solved by throwing trillions at. Oh - what fun! And if any R doesn't kow tow in a heart beat.... well, that means he or she WANTS children to die! I mean by gun shot as opposed to starving or disease which we've already pointed out they want. Life in America. Devoid of reason and proud of it!

George Rebane

** No doubt fewer lives would have been lost had the firearm been less capable, that's not a theory but an existential fact - start with a muzzle loading 22, then a single shot bolt action 22, then a ..., and work your way up on the number killed scale.

** The notion that just because government has combat fighting vehicles to assault its citizens is NOT a reason to either cave on keeping as much legal firepower as possible in civilian hands, or give up any potential fight against tyranny. Uprisings are spontaneous and take their own direction where many types of armaments can and do change hands. Take Syria as just one example.

However, a totally disarmed public will have the examples of the USSR, Cambodia, Red China, ... to uninspire them.

Gregory

"Let's have a discussion if the shooting last week would have had far less fatalities if the types of guns available to the shooter would not have been semi automatic."

Paul, a pump 12 gauge shotgun would have been even more devastating. Very nasty.

When the targets are little kids, it really doesn't matter what the gun is. The carnage will continue until ethical citizens with guns show up.

By now, you may have seen the latest reports... the shooter knew his mom was proceeding with legal machinations to get him committed. He had attended that school as a child, and his mom had worked in the school the year before with kindergarteners. He was apparently upset that Mom loved the school and those kids more than she loved him. He also knew the principal and the school shrink, among the dead, along with last year's kindergartners,

The moral of the story would seem to be that, if you have a family member who needs to be committed, take care.

Paul Emery

Gregory

I disagree about the 12 gauge pump. It would have had to be reloaded after just a few shots which would have taken time. This is what we know about the number of shots fired. It was well over 100 for sure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/nyregion/sandy-hook-school-shooting-in-newtown.html?_r=0

"While Lieutenant Vance said he did not yet know how many bullets had been fired, he did say investigators recovered “numerous” empty 30-round magazines for the Bushmaster rifle. The .223-caliber bullet is a small, high-velocity round that has been used by Western military forces for decades, in part because it inflicts devastating wounds."

Paul Emery

Gregory

I had a long relationship with a woman with a schizophrenic son and it's very difficult situation. After several attempts to live at home (my home) institutionalization was the only option and she accepted that. The fact is that until a crime actually occurs there is nothing that can be done without parental consent and that's probably as it should be, otherwise we have cops with white coats and straight jackets nabbing whoever they think is weird. This is very difficult stuff. Many times (but not in this instance) the family member is the last to accept it. I don't know all the details but in my view the mother was an unintentional accomplice if she, knowing her son was mentally unstable, allowed him easy access to guns and ammunition and assisted in teaching him how to use them.

Michael Anderson

I think there is a huge middle ground here. Something we can all agree upon. We have indeed reached a tipping point.

1. Registration is key, which then requires responsibility. Today we are learning that mom Lanza was getting ready to commit her favorite son, but for some odd reason she did not secure her copious weapons. Why was that? It seems odd to me.

2. You get to own big magazines, based upon your big magazine worthiness, just like people who operate big digging machines and have to test for multiple licenses. Why is this different? Ten bullets per magazine for the simple folk; anything above that, prove your worthiness.

3. Work really really hard at defining these disaffected young men, many of them suffering from some sort of mental affliction. Isolate them, or inculcate them, or toss them aside...but at least do something!

4. Anyone in proximity to these young men must be hyper-aware regarding guns and other means of destruction that they have in their homes and businesses.


This is not rocket science. We can solve this problem. And we must...

Michael A.

Todd Juvinall

There is evil in the world an it really has no middle ground with "good".

Jesus Betterman

And Todd, with his heels dug in, begins to do the NRA cha-cha, to which I say:

We can consider the pile we have already by adding in forfeiture of any property on which an unregistered gun is found to the victims fund. How do you like that? That would include cars, boats, and parcels. If it is the tenant's fault, then a simple $1,000 fine will do. simple simple, well thought out, and certainly going somewhere. The guns found are forfeit in any case, and will be either melted down or put up for sale, under the new rules.

or maybe you'd prefer I just stick to new gun sales?

George Rebane

Good comments and ground to work on from PaulE's 905pm and MichaelA's 949pm. I believe that more useful facts and data will be discovered as the investigation continues, but we already know that there were several lapses of prudence in the Lanza family. Useful (and incriminatory) would be a simple listing of existing and Newtown related gun laws along with how they are/aren't being currently enforced. That would be an eye opener.

In the meanwhile, as you listen to the Beltway blather, recall the topic and title here, 'Fire!, Ready, Aim - Panic Driven Public Policy'. During my lifetime, the more I have witnessed and studied Congress, the more confirmation rolls in that they make up their minds in back rooms based ONLY on political considerations, and then (if we're lucky) hold some hearings that are designed as best as can to support their made up minds. Today's hyper-ventilations may set a high water mark here.

Brad Croul

Remember Drew Reynolds?
You don't need a gun to create mayhem and ruin lives.

Ryan Mount

Most illegal firearms, when I last looked at this a while ago, are purchased like illegal liquor is purchase. They're typically purchased by someone who can legally purchase the weapon, who then gives it to a minor/criminal/etc. I believe these are called "straw purchases" by police. Stealing a weapon is a very difficult way to get them because the vast majority of owners are very careful with them. And frankly, most criminals aren't willing to break into a house if the the owner is armed. Duh.

Stolen weapons used in the conduct of a crime, if I recall, account for a relatively small portion of them. I think it's like 10%. Maybe more. I'll look that up a little later. Like I said, it's been a while since I looked into it. But feel free to google any of it.

Makes complete sense when you think about it. And it should sound familiar.

I think the next source of illegal gun ownership actually comes from legal gun sellers who sell to, say felons. Money talks as they say. Although it has become harder due to required background checks. Anyone can become a FFL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License

But again, criminals don't care. That would include criminal gun selling activity.

Ryan Mount

> Remember Drew Reynolds?

And Timothy McVeigh?

Brad Croul

Steal a truck, or rent a Ryder truck.
Buy some diesel and some fertilizer.
No 5 day waiting period.

Douglas Keachie

Thanks, Ryan, for illustrating the logic of my system of having guns shown once a year for the first five years of ownership. If you stand to lose a grand, because you choose to sell one illegally, you'll just have to add that onto the price to the illegal purchaser, thus making the circulation of Black Market guns way more sluggish. Sluggery results in less thuggery and muggery.

And thinking about it, on the notion that those who can, will find a way:

Yup they will, and that why our armed forces are armed with thing that are not fully automatic rifles. We prefer knives and pitchforks, big rocks, shards of glass, etc.

And the funny thing is, fully auto makes sense on the battle field, because, unless you are being flanked, you are shooting most likely at a target directly in front of you. Sending maxium firepower nearly instantly in that direction is a good idea. This contrasts with the field of fire that a mass murderer face. His targets are typically all over the place in front of him, and unarmed. Having a weapon that can easily empty itself with an accidental long pull is not desirable. Having a semi-auto is actually a better choice. Saves having to swap magazines as often, which means you can carry fewer of them. Neither is a particularly good choice for hunting deer. After all, you might spook your fellow hunters, and wind up "accidently" dead. How many of you who hunt have actually seen someone in the field with an assault rifle? No, not "I heard about," but rather you yourself, personally,how many have seen one of these in use to hunt anything in our forests. That should tell you something.

George Rebane

DougK 902am - I still believe that when you try to think about responses to the Newtown massacre, you're not having very good luck.

There is nothing RyanM has written to "illustrate the logic of (your) system" which itself you have proposed in more forms than one can follw. And your analysis of the utility of full auto vs semi-auto is beyond moot. All modern military assault rifles can fire semi-auto and full auto. (Some can even select to fire 3-round bursts.)

In any event, none of this has a bearing on preventing Newtown type tragedies which can even be carried out as 'effectively' with a knife as has been shown in China several times. As Torrey and Fuller show (see 19dec12 update), the seminal factor is mental illness, its detection, and containment.

Ryan Mount

Doug-

How are criminals and criminal gun dealers ever going to pay the bonds given that the vast majority of illegal weapons come from there, and not people who keep their guns in safes?

BTW, the vast majority of gun violence is committed with hand guns. Like almost all of it. Massacres involving schools and movie theaters are extraordinarily rare, but make for sensational spikes in media advertising revenue. And serve to scare us into irrational and impulsive policy. We won't be safer, but we'll feel safer. The reasoning would be laughable, if it wasn't taken so seriously by some parts of our culture. So in that regard, it's just sad which brings this CT tragedy full circle into absurdity.

Paul Emery

Rebane 09:45

"which can even be carried out as 'effectively' with a knife"

You've got to be kidding. Are you saying the shooter could have killed 26 people alone with a knife? Do you really believe that or are you wordsmithing "effectivley" here. Can you give me some documentation of this.

George Rebane

PaulE 1038am - I try to keep RR updated as a topic develops. It's clear you did not read the 19dec12 update and the referenced link. And the reports on the incident are easy to find if you don't limit yourself to the lamestream outlets.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248054/China-stabbing-22-children-elderly-woman-stabbed-outside-primary-school-Chinese-knifeman.html

(And where did you get the quoted "effectivley" (sic) from?)

Douglas Keachie

Well Ryan, if you want the more robust evrsion of the system , you know I've already outlined it on Facebook. Here you go:

Part 1: "How the NRA buries the dead. In response to my very non restrictive suggestions for bonding and once a year inspections to see if a "legal" buyer hasn't illegally dumped his guns into the Black Market, I was told that what I had written wasn't well thought out and that it wouldn't affect the existing stockpile, which actual is false on both counts. It was well thought out, and it would reduce the exististing stockpile by drying upthe source and driving prices higher. So here's my slappity slap slap slap answer, part one:

"What part is poorly thought out. It is very well thought out, it would work, and once again we see the NRA mind in action. No restrictions whatsoever, damn the dead kids, full speed ahead." "

and Part Two: ""We can consider the pile we have already by adding in forfeiture of any property on which an unregistered gun is found to the victims fund. How do you like that? That would include cars, boats, and parcels. If it is the tenant's fault, then a simple $1,000 fine on the landlord will do. He can add that in when figuring out a security deposit. simple simple, well thought out, and certainly going somewhere. The guns found are forfeit in any case, and will be either melted down or put up for sale, under the new rules.""

Paul, some whack job cut but did not kill some 20 or so kids in China this last week. Really folks, I do have a life, so you're on your own for a while. if this had happened locally, I'm sure you'd be coming up with solutions, specific solutions, and instantly.

Paul Emery

19 December 2012 at 09:36 AM

In any event, none of this has a bearing on preventing Newtown type tragedies which can even be carried out as 'effectively' with a knife as has been shown in China several times.

Ryan Mount

> killed 26 people alone with a knife?

Is it really productive to discuss this in such gruesome terms. And isn't it a cynical question when we ponder, "well, how many more people would have been saved if the Colorado maniac had attacked people with a knife?"

I think we're fetishizing* the weapon. Pro and anti-gun supporters both do it, when we should be concentrating on the cause and not the tools of mayhem. Because ultimately massacres are rare. Terrifying, but rare.

Perhaps removing weapons or access to them might (I truly doubt it, but we'll feel better about it) reduce the number of impulsive massacres via guns. But someone like Timothy McVeigh spent months planning. And didn't use a gun at all.

What then?

* http://www.google.com/search?q=fetishizing&ie=UTF-8

D. King

Can anyone guess how this relates?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EGranwN_uk

I'm gunna get me some man guns, my boys, and do me some shooting....pew...pew...pew. Nobody can tell me nuten!

Douglas Keachie

Oh now here's a kid with good old American initiative and creative thinking!

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/18/15997124-sixth-grader-in-utah-brings-gun-to-school-to-avoid-connecticut-style-attack-district-spokesman-says?lite

Paul Emery

Also George, how do you reconcile the dumping of thousands of mentally ill patients on the streets by Ronald Reagan when he was governor with the call for more scrutiny of the mentally ill as a remedy for gun violence?

earlcrabb

Doug's solution is typical of those who enjoy punishing otherwise law-abiding citizens if they are doing something he doesn't wish to participate in.

Howzabout we turn the tables: Since Keachie is admittedly half blind and half deaf, and passed the age of diminishing returns (older than me), I think his auto insurance should be tripled. It's just a matter of public safety. He could accidently kill someone.

Russ Steele

Paul@11:06

I heard Tom Sullivan on KFBK explain Reagan's action yesterday. It was in response to legislation that was passed, forcing the release of people placed in the facilities without their consent by relatives rather than doctors and the courts. The commitment procedures were changed, resulting in the necessity to release those that did not meet the new criterial. You need to look beyond Reagan.

Douglas Keachie

Crabb, I will be participating, I own three registered guns. And a nice big well concealed safe, and the dogs , sensors, lights and video cams. a kamikazi pilot might be a problem, but so far time travel isn't proven.

We'll let the insurance companies decide that, according to the free market. My mom drove up into her nineties, I've got 25 years left to reach that point, if she is any guide.

notpaul

"Also George, how do you reconcile the dumping of thousands of mentally ill patients on the streets by Ronald Reagan when he was governor with the call for more scrutiny of the mentally ill as a remedy for gun violence?"

This?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanterman-Petris-Short_Act

Just how much of this did Reagan actually write? It does make a great story, though.

Gregory

"Registration is key, which then requires responsibility."

Sorry, MA, [cue gong]. Wrong. Better luck next time. Everyone who is forbidden access to firearms is automatically exempt from any penalties under registration laws, thanks to the 5th amendment. Plus, the fresh SCOTUS precedent is, amazingly, that yes, "the people" means the same thing in the 2nd amendment as it does everywhere else in the Constitution, and that it is a right of an individual to own and carry guns.

A one in a million individual who is mentally ill and capable of a mass slaughter is not stopped by making Joe Schmoe into a criminal for keeping a 13 round clip after anything more than 10 is banned unless registered. Besides, magazines aren't serialized.

Teaching by example is powerful, and everyone who has guns or knives and shares a home with someone who might be better off institutionalized can be expected to be securing their homes better than they have been.

Mass murder is easy; I've no doubt I could figure out how to slaughter ten times as many as Friday's body count and dominate the 24 hour news cycle for a few cycles. But you'll just have to trust that I won't, as we trust most people not to do such things. The answer is to restrain the people who have shown we really can't trust them.

It does appear the Connecticut mental health bill that was voted down last March would have given the professionals who had seen the shooter the ability to get him (and everyone else) the help that was so badly needed, but the usual suspects here would rather side with the ACLU who still think the individual rights of the severely mentally ill trump the rights of society, and against the NRA which holds the rights of all law abiding gun owners to own and carry guns are more important than the rights of the severely mentally ill to reject treatment.

Ryan Mount

I believe Reagan was forced by the Legislature to release the mentally ill.

There was a very strong "patient rights" movement in the 1970s. Probably due to things like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. At the time mental health and developmental professionals wanted the State of California out of the caring for "crazy people" business. So acting on their recommendations that's what the government did.

Of course Reagan signed it, but it's not unlike the glorious Clinton budget years that were enabled by a GOP Congress. It takes two to tango.

RL-

Cars don't kill people, people kill people. I recently learned in these very threads that cars are not as dangerous as a hand gun. My bad. Therefore, I've decided to go out, purchase a gun and strap some wheels on it for my transportation needs.

TheMikeyMcD

Anyone have an estimate for how many children Obama has killed via various wars, drone strikes, etc?

Ryan Mount

Mikey-

Or Malaria that probably could have been prevented with [gasp] DDT or a stupid net or antibiotics. Note, malaria might be preferable to the antibiotics, from personal experience.

No one cares about children unless they're white and suburban. Or unless Sally Struthers is crying.

D. King

The war on guns.

He's not done yet Mikey!

"Mexican shootout that killed beauty queen linked to Fast and Furious"

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/18/mexican-shootout-that-killed-beauty-queen-linked-to-fast-and-furious/#ixzz2FWsfvfpX

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/18/mexican-shootout-that-killed-beauty-queen-linked-to-fast-and-furious/

earlcrabb

Back in 1965, I was in a band that played at DeWitt hospital in Auburn. We went there with a church group who wanted to offer the patients some live entertainment. Being teenagers who had heard horror stories about our local looney bin since we were lttle kids, we were rather nervous. After we set up our equipment, the orderlies opened the doors and a mob of squealing crazy people rushed the stage. They thought we were the Beatles. One of the church kids (who grew up to be a CHP officer) took a sucker punch from a large male inmate. The Cuckoo's nest comparison was no exaggeration.
And Doug, your new insurance fees won't have anything to do with your ability to drive. It's just a ploy to get you off the road.

Gregory

Earl, sounds a lot like that gig in The Blues Brothers, at the bar that plays both kinds of music... Country AND Western.

"Rollin', rollin', rollin', keep them Dougies rollin'..."

Guns don't kill people like ducks don't quack. But it's the one pulling the trigger who has free will and takes the responsibility for the result. I am reminded of an apocryphal story of a frontier judge, asked, "Why did you sentence the horse thief to be hanged, and let the killer go free?" responded with "I've seen men who needed to be shot but I ain't ever seen a horse that needed to be stolen".

I think the gun nuts call this "Being judged by 12 rather than carried by 6". Sorry, but in a free and open society that already has about one gun per person (sorry, I know some of us don't have their share) we are stuck with reacting to crimes after the fact, and there is no Gun Control button to push that hasn't been tried, and failed.

Don't forget, the old DiFi Assault Weapons Ban lapsed because virtually no one besides DiFi and a small circle of her friends thought it did one damn bit of good.

TheMikeyMcD

They don't call him Joe 'the mouth' Biden for nothing:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/biden-2008-if-obama-tries-to-fool-with-my-beretta-hes-got-a-problem/article/2516400#.UNI2r4njnHN


“I guarantee you Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey, They’re going to start peddling that to you. If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem"

Gregory

"I think Ben is correct: we have to go right at the second amendment. The right to ‘bear arms’ is not a unrestricted right, and we need to re-write it to reflect that fact, taking the ability to interpret it as such because of a misplaced comma and the power of a lobbying group off the table." - Steven Frisch

Sorry, Steve Frisch (at the FUE's), but the comma isn't a problem; the minor variations in the hand copied early versions have no effect on the meaning of its 18th century gramnar or it would have been fixed a couple centuries ago. It was exactly what they wanted, an individual right to own and carry arms (including rifles and pistols) because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. If you think it's just so there can be an army, "well regulated" and "free" could be deleted without affecting its meaning.

Russ Steele
Douglas Keachie

George didn't like me pointing out that a monkey with a gun can kill people too, and deleted the pretty graphic. Yo can see it at http://www.flickr.com/photos/keachie .

Douglas Keachie

"It was exactly what they wanted, an individual right to own and carry arms (including rifles and pistols) because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State."

~Gregory~

"well regulated" DOES NOT INCLUDE Sandy Hook like events, so we must be doing it wrong.

Look up coach Pat Kelsy, Coach at Winthrop, and give him a view.

Steve Frisch

Exactly the point I was making Doug, "well regulated". What we have now is not well regulated if 100,000 people a year are injured and 30,000 people a year are killed by gun violence. And Greg, if you are going to quote me I would appreciate it if you would at least point to the full comment.

http://sierrafoothillsreport.com/2012/12/19/welcome-to-the-nra/#comments

But the reality is I have come to expect no less than excuses from the posters here so why should yesterday have been any different?

By the way, the very title of this post is snark--"Fire, Ready, Aim--Passion Driven Public Policy". The positions taken here by most are pretty well thought out and rational positions that most posters would have made regardless of Sandy Hook. My thoughts on the regulation of guns proceed the events, as any well research search of these an other blog posts would evidence. There is no emotional response here...no passion driven public policy...this is just another example in a long string of examples of why we need a new approach to gun regulation and public health.

I am comforted by the knowledge that those pontificating on "protecting their gun rights" are pissing in the wind here, and the voice of the reasonable will likely prevail in this debate on the national stage.

Russ Steele

Steven,

Did you read the poll results? The American people have not put more gun restrictions at the top of the list. Mental health is the issue that needs to be addressed, not more gun regulations.

Ryan Mount

>What we have now is not well regulated

OK. I'm gonna leave out the other things George mentioned in his original post that can happily kill us probably more indiscriminately and stick to arms, as per the 2nd Amendment.

You're right. It is not well regulated. However it is already well legislated, in that we have more laws than we no what to do with already. For example, if the CT *State* laws (not even talking about Federal ones) were followed, we wouldn't be having this absurd dialog about whether more children would be alive if the attacker used a Bowie knife.

The core arguments against more "well regulated" weapons are that we're not "well regulating" them now due to a variety of reasons: a lack of enforcement funding, their massive prevalence which is overwhelming to say the least, and the fact that criminals don't care how well regulated their illegal firearms are. And of course, there is a sizable chunk of the electorate who likes their semi-automatics. What reformers are going to have to do is amend the Constitution. And I'm willing to bet a sizable chunk donation to the Hospitality House that advocates won't even get close to the 2/3 majority for such a Amendment. Maybe not even 50%. But I'm all for twiddling with the Constitution often, which is why there's such a high standard for amending it.

Steve Frisch

Ryan, I agree with you, the answer may very well lay in enforcing many of our existing laws better than we have been. But I still contend that the assault weapons ban, large magazine ban, 30 day waiting period requirement and mandatory annual re-registration makes sense. The argument that guns would till be available to criminals would gradually diminish as illegal guns are destroyed and the cost of controlled guns goes up.

Russ, I have advocated addressing both at the same time--but I just have to say you guys have been arguing here for 3 years that there should be no "Obamacare", are you now in support of increasing state funded mental health care?

Ryan Mount

I'm for the bans Steve. I'm for more regulation and enforcement. We can even get rid of the semis and the extended magazines. Fine.

I just don't think it's gonna stop the horrors like the ones we witnessed last Friday. The most massive school bombing that ever took place in the USA was executed with dynamite. The most destructive day care center bombing was carried out with fertilizer and diesel.

> The argument that guns would till be available to criminals would gradually diminish as illegal guns are destroyed and the cost of controlled guns goes up.

In about 70 years (just picking a random inconsequential date) due to the sheer magnitude of illegal weapons on the street. Progress, I guess. We'd do better to amend the Constitution and do it the right way. Mickey-mousing the legislation just makes more people criminals. More incarceration, like the war on drugs.

Why not do it the right way? Further define militias, for example Make them into gun clubs or something. That is, you need to belong to a gun club to own a gun, or something like that.

Steve Frisch

Ryan, I am all for clarifying the second amendment--as I stated in the truncated quote Greg posted above--land yes, let's do it through the Constitution. In the mean time, since a Constitutional amendment will take about 3-5 years let's do what we can. If it takes 70 (or 30) years to get a majority of the un-necessary or illegal guns off the streets, well we have to start somewhere. If our rational for not beginning is that it will take time we will never get anywhere. Although I am very sensitive to the emotions and pain of the Sandy Hook shootings, the real goal should be to reduce the overall number of gun related deaths and injuries...the 30,000 are the big issue. And you are correct, horrors committed with weapons other than guns will continue, but the facts show that since 1982 there have been 61 mass shooting incidents; people need to dig into our history to find the few occasions that weapons other than guns were used to perpetrate these horrors. You have to admit that the 1927 Michigan school bombing and Oklahoma City bombing are pretty rare, harder to plan, harder to hide and harder to successfully execute than opening up with a Bushmaster. The point is to reduce the number and lethality of incidents. I find the whole "crazy people will find ways to kill" argument completely illogical. Of course they will, lets just not make it easier for them. By the way I am in full agreement with Russ that we need a multidisciplinary approach to reducing incidents like Sandy Hook (with the caveat that that only addresses one small part of the problem) --I simply reject the tactic of focusing on the other disciplines in order to minimize impacts on gun ownership--which is clearly what those who are proponents of gun rights want the public to do. You better believe that Wayne La Pierre is going to prefer mental health funding to restrictions on gun ownership. And I have ZERO confidence that our host, or his minions here, will ever agree to any reasonable restrictions--so we have to beat them at the polls, in the Congress and in the minds of the people if we want to see progress.

Ryan Mount

Steve-

Mass shooting in general are very rare. Here's an manipulated Y Axis graph from Mother Jones.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/annual-mass-shootings_0.png

2002 and 2010 were "good" years. What happened then? Luck? Jesus? Lower humidity? Not enough Cheers re-runs? Assault weapons bans?

But all this makes for sensational media copy. My only dog in this fight is making sure what we do really works and is congruent with the Constitution.

I don't particularly like guns. My ex wife used to keep a .38 under our bed before we had kids. When I was traveling to the UK on business, one of my Welsh friends proclaimed, "Ryan, if she needs to keep gun under the bed, you probably need to back off a bit."

Ryan Mount

I'm assuming everyone has who has a dog in the fight has read this. You probably should. If you're too busy making money to pay taxes, the Abstract should suffice.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=272929

Abstract:

Few events obtain the same instant worldwide news coverage as multiple victim public shootings. These crimes allow us to study the alternative methods used to kill a large number of people (e.g., shootings versus bombings), marginal deterrence and the severity of the crime, substitutability of penalties, private versus public methods of deterrence and incapacitation, and whether attacks produce "copycats." The criminals who commit these crimes are also fairly unusual, recent evidence suggests that about half of these criminals have received a "formal diagnosis of mental illness, often schizophrenia." Yet, economists have not studied multiple victim shootings. Using data that extends until 1999 and includes the recent public school shootings, our results are surprising and dramatic. While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce "normal" murder rates and these attacks lead to new calls from more gun control, our results find that the only policy factor to have a consistently significant influence on multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws. We explain why public shootings are more sensitive than other violent crimes to concealed handguns, why the laws reduce the number of shootings and have an even greater effect on their severity.

TheMikeyMcD

If laws worked....Why don't we make it illegal to kill other people?

Gregory

I heard economist John Lott make an interesting comment; these shootings in "gun free zones" only date from the 90's because there were no "gun free zones" in the USA then. Permit holders could carry wherever they happened to go, and college students with guns weren't forbidden by law from having them at school.

It hasn't been working well, has it?

Passing a law criminalizing carrying a weapon at a school, or a mall, doesn't mean homicidal sociopaths and other criminals won't. At the moment, there are two kinds of gun free zones; pretend gun free zones and locked down gun free zones. If you want a real gun free zone, you'll have to curb free access, and channel people through metal detectors, explosive sniffers or other detection equipment.

Pretend gun free zones can be erected anywhere and any time at no cost besides a sign at the entrance. Feel better?

What do we know now (or at least seem to know, it's all still very up in the air) about the Connecticut massacre:
1) the very troubled young man had problems for years;

2) he spent almost all of his time isolated in his room playing video games and refused to get out and do things, or to think about a life outside of Mom's house;

3) his mom was frightened by more recent changes, and had been working to gain conservatorship in order to have him committed against his will;

4) he had attended Sandy Hook as a child, and his mom had volunteered at the school last year with the kindergarden class, the 1st graders who were slaughtered last week;

5) he was very upset about the prospect of being committed, shattered that his mom loved the school and those kids more than she loved him.

6) the school was a virtual matriarchy, with all of the administration and virtually all teachers and professional staff being women. Only one man in 51, a fourth grade teacher, two men if you include the head custodian. Did he see it as a soft target, or just an object of hate?

7) Had that Connecticut law making it easier to force psychiatric help on adults who didn't want it been passed and signed into law last March, the now dead mom may have had a chance of getting help for her son who was in desperate need of it.

Frisch, I didn't give a link because you were being an ass, as guilty of dipping your hands into warm blood for political gain as your buddy Jeff. And I had no desire to drive more traffic to Jeff than I did; anyone who wanted to find it could have.

I find it amazing how the rights of a few of the mentally ill that need help to refuse it seem to trump the rights of tens of millions of sane gun owners in the minds of the progressives.

Gregory

"Let's have a discussion if the shooting last week would have had far less fatalities if the types of guns available to the shooter would not have been semi automatic."

Set the Wayback Machine to the 1800's, Paul. That's when pistols and rifles started being sold to civilians, said by some to be as many as 80% as the guns being sold.

OK, so let's say the shooter had to use revolvers and shotguns. Estimate the carnage over the time the kid was shooting. Hint: just one shotgun blast with a hunting load would have torn multiple kids apart, and I think pumps tent to hold 10. Very effective, if what you want to to is shred little kids. Personally shotguns give me the willies, as accidents tend to be very nasty with body parts flying.

I sometimes find Coulter to have an interesting take, and she does this time:
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/19/ann-coulter-we-know-how-to-stop-school-shootings/

Gregory

4:19 should have read, "That's when semi-automatic pistols and rifles started being sold to civilians, said by some to be as many as 80% as the guns now being sold."

You see, Paul, demonizing semi-automatics is tantamount to demonizing most gun owners. And at least when I was an active target shooter, I found it much easier to be accurate with, say, a National Match Colt M1911 .45 pistol (yes, it's been around for 101 years) than any revolver due to the basic physics of how the gun moves during recoil.

Account Deleted

As tragic and sad as the killings of the children at Sandy Hook are, the reactions and opinions of a lot of American citizens worries me even more. First of all, the total scrutiny on fire arms is typical of the non-logical train of thought employed by people who will never learn from reality. Would it have been any less of a tragedy if they had been blown to bits or burned to death? If I wanted to kill a lot of children, there are dozens of ways to achieve that sick outcome. That "assault weapons" are the only way is ludicrous. Then I see that parents are worried sick about their little ones being the next victim of a mass shooting. But the most likely way of their little ones dying doesn't even seem to register. If you wish safety for your child, then you should concern yourself with the most likely way of them being injured or killed. The best thing for the federal govt to do in the wake of the Conn shootings is nothing. I can't count the number of times that I've heard politicians and citizens alike refer to "hunters' rights". There's nothing in the Constitution about hunters' rights. The right to keep and bear arms was explained in detail by supporting essays and letters by the folks that wrote the original words. The average citizen was to have the right to possess the same weaponry that a person in the military might have. This was so the govt would be kept in check by the citizens. The founding fathers were well aware of the technological advances in weapons over the centuries and certainly knew that far more advanced fire arms were sure to be produced. They wanted the citizens to have "killing machines". The idea that they wouldn't have wanted a private citizen to have a machine gun is nonsense. If Obama's children are protected by machine guns, then everyone's children should have the right to be protected by the same. Once again, we find the great divide in those that would surrender rights to the govt in exchange for less obligations vs those that accept and are willing to shoulder responsibilities to keep their rights. When the dust settles, we will have less liberty and not one ounce more of security.

Douglas Keachie

" guilty of dipping your hands into warm blood for political gain" ~Greg~ 20 December 2012 at 04:09 PM

NRA has been gaming politicians and causing blood to run for quite some time now. The USA has had enough of this kind of scheming:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/atf-charged-with-regulating-guns-lacks-resources-and-leadership/2012/12/17/ef280abc-4877-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html

Douglas Keachie

". Would it have been any less of a tragedy if they had been blown to bits or burned to death? If I wanted to kill a lot of children, there are dozens of ways to achieve that sick outcome. That "assault weapons" are the only way is ludicrous."

~ Scott Obermuller | 20 December 2012 at 06:33 PM~

As I said before a monkey with a gun can kill humans too. Now let's do the experiment all together. There are three rooms, and you have to pick to go through one of them to survive. Each room contains a monkey. Monkey number one has a can of gas and a bunch of matches. Monkey #2 has a box of dynamite, and a pile of blasting caps. Monkey #3 has an AK47 thoroughly attached to his arm, and his finger is on the trigger. Which room will you choose to escape the NRA Dungeon? I'm sure Scott will pick #3, because it is so likely that #1 will immediately set the place on fire, and #2 will blow that room up, right?

Other than your two examples McVeigh and the 1929 gun powder plot, how many other such cases can you come up with? Back in 1929, dynamite was much more available and common than it is today, with far fewer hoops to jump through.

Steve Frisch

Keachie nails it again. I would put Greg in Room #3. After all he chose it. If dynamite plots were killing 30,000 people a year and wounding 70,000 more we would demand stricter controls on dynamite. Just makes sense.

Account Deleted

Excellent, gentlemen. You have both missed the point completely. Your "experiment" does not in any way invalidate the facts. When have monkeys ever become terrorists? The issue is the safety of children in classrooms. And if some one wants to harm them, all of the new laws being proposed will do nothing to make them any more safe. Can any of you contest this with facts and logic, or will you come up with another farcical hypothetical? As I recall, some Mohammedans used box cutters to kill more than 3K humans and last time I paid attention, box cutters were still on sale in stores. When was the last time some one waltzed into a legislative chamber and started spraying gunfire? What has prevented this? Are these offices of power "gun free zones"? Damn straight they are not. Pounding on the NRA might be an amusement for you, but it will do nothing to solve the problem. There have been several mass shootings in Europe in the last few years and these countries already have the same sort of laws and restrictions that are either already in place (Conn for one) or are being proposed. These laws clearly did nothing to stop the shootings in Europe, why will they do anything for the cause of safety here?

George Rebane

Administrivia - Dear people, when you use HTML tags to italicize or make bold, please be sure that you delimit the end properly with forward slash / in front of the 'i' or 'b' that terminate your format changes. Typepad's comment file handler has a habit of remembering these little tags, and will continue unterminated bolds and italics in all the following comments until they are terminated. (Then I have to go in, dig out the offending, comment, and correct it. Bah humbug!)

Steve Frisch

Jesus Scott, are you just dense? (rhetorical question) If someone wants to speed no law is going to stop them, so lets eliminate speeding laws. If someone wants to rob a bank no law is going to stop them, so lets eliminate the law. What the hell is the point of law anyway? It is to set a common community standard. The whole point is that it is easier for monkeys to kill people with an AK than a crate of dynamite. It is about making it harder to kill. And no one here ever wants to address the rest of the issue...this is not just about schools. There have been 1000 deaths in mass shootings in the last 20 years, but 600,000 dead from gun violence.

There is no reasoning with aNyone here, that is why what I said the other day is still the best solution....WE MUST CRUSH YOU IN CONGRESS AND TAKE WHAT YOU THINK ARE YOUR 'RIGHTS' AWAY FROM YOU.

George Rebane

Re SteveF's 847am - Yes, speeding, bank robbing, and other laws do maintain standards to the extent that the state decides to enforce at some uniform level. And so do existing gun laws, to the extent that the states enforce them. However, in the case of gun (and mental health) laws, the states continue to be lax to spotty in enforcing existing laws (Connecticut is a poster child here). The irrational and emotional response has always been to change nothing in enforcement, but with great ballyhoo add another layer of laws to mollify the stupid and mentally debilitated. It was ever thus.

Steve Frisch

Nothing irrational about my response. Did you not note that I said above that enforcing existing laws may very well be a large part of the solution?

I'm sure you and your friends will be the first to stand up and say "hurray, local, state and federal government are enforcing the gun laws". Instead you will paint it as an intrusion into personal liberties and another example of the government grabbing too much power from the people. Not a few short months ago on these pages you were objecting to agencies taking the actions necessary to be able to enforce laws and implying we are becoming a fascist (socialist, communist) police state. So now you are going to stand up and say "enforce the law"?

Yet above you are bemoaning enforcing currency laws...don't you see the inherent inconsistency in your positions....

themikeymcd

George, I feel another 'liberal mind piece' developing.

Emotion is not reason.

What liberals WANT to be true doesn't make something true.

Ignore history and the laws of economics at your own peril.

The joys of bankrupt morally- Liberal bliss.

Double Standards and Hypocrisy OH JOY!

Todd Juvinall

The Frisch said

"There is no reasoning with aNyone here, that is why what I said the other day is still the best solution....WE MUST CRUSH YOU IN CONGRESS AND TAKE WHAT YOU THINK ARE YOUR 'RIGHTS' AWAY FROM YOU."

I just love it when the mindless, childless, Godless liberals tell us the truth about themselves. What a hoot!

themikeymcd

Liberal Vision- Looking for facts with your eyes closed

Supply and Demand are no match for central planning

"Governments used guns to kill" is so past tense

Full List of successful government programs

How taxing others helps the economy

Government policies are only failing because they are not given enough time and money to succeed

Governments stopped being tyrannical years ago

Ryan Mount

George-

Please accept my HTML goof. It was my fault. But then again, I kinda liked the BOLD. It was like more Cowbell, but the blog version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjsUf_oIgp0

Steve[n]-

> you and your friends will be the first to stand up and say "hurray, local, state and federal government are enforcing the gun laws".

Not sure George considers me a friend, especially after that last comment. And there's the fact that he's a beer drinker. So there's that. Michael I believe considers me a friend, but then again I have a tendency to buy rounds for everyone after I've had a few Hendricks G&T.

Anyhow, I would be thrilled if the government started enforcing the laws it's currently not enforcing. I would buy a round or two in celebration. I would even by a round for Michael.

Todd Juvinall

Here is an Ann Coulter piece on guns and mass killings. Apparently Mother Jones did a crap lying piece and she gives us the true skinny.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-12-19.html#read_more

George Rebane

SteveF 905am - I'm afraid your claims of what I said need extensive citations from the record since you have demonstrated little understanding of my positions over the years, and have instead substituted your own versions and then vilified them. But with some that may serve to make your points.

RyanM 1000am - no problem on the HTML goof, my friend. BTW, you have one of the more intriguing belief systems I have come across in the way you don't hew to lockstep conservative or libertarian tenets. I am accused of suffering from the same syndrome (although not by progressives), even though our individual outlooks have some distinct differences. Keep them great comments and perspectives coming.

Account Deleted

re: Steve's last spittle spewing at 8:47. I did not advocate getting rid of any laws. I merely pointed out that the "solution" that the govt has planned in the form of new gun laws are in many cases already on the books in the states and countries in which there have been mass shootings. They have been proven worthless. Other new proposed laws such as taxes on guns and ammo will not stop a murderer. What do monkeys have to do with humans that wish to harm children? Your tirades about making it harder to kill are ridiculous. How much harder? Will they make it so difficult as to eliminate the reasonable ability of a human to commit mass murder? Armed guards have been proven as being the most effective tool to prevent mayhem. Instead, we brazenly brag about the fact that we have groups of small, defenceless children in rooms and buildings that have no security whatever. And we act shocked that a deranged maniac hits upon the brilliant idea that this would make a good target? I notice that the good folks that make our laws don't have that sort of security arrangement. I have quietly posited that when the new gun related laws have been passed and the dust settles, the children in schools will be no safer than they are now. The chances of children in this country being visited by mayhem are so low as to not even be worth thinking about. On the other hand young children die every day from preventable causes. We would do well to address them as far far more lives would be saved as a result. Your last sentence speaks volumes as to what is really going on here. "WE MUST CRUSH YOU IN CONGRESS AND TAKE WHAT YOU THINK ARE YOUR 'RIGHTS' AWAY FROM YOU." Please stop your pretence about childrens' safety and come out of the fascist closet that you are hiding in.

Todd Juvinall

Wayne LaPierre of the NRA had a news conference to condemn the killings and the laced was jammed with hundreds of press goons. One liberal nut with a banner stood up and blocked the podium. His banner said Stop the NRA killing children or some such crap. Anyway, the press decided this one goof ball (was it Frich? maybe Pelline?) was the reason the press conference was held apparently. They all chased this nut for a pic and a story. LaPierre represents millions and his organization teaches kids gun responsibility but the "moron" press goons could care less. They just had to interview the nut. The state of the press is on display. Same with the local liberals. They are totally nuts.

Gregory

Please note which folk have to invent a new reality to explain what they think the real one is doing.

Monkey see, monkey do.

Ryan Mount

The (more} pro regulation/outlawing crowd thinks of it like this:

NRA --> Promotes Gun Liberalization --> Increases Gun stocks and availability --> doesn't care if children get killed

(this is quite similar to the irrational "the GOP likes rape" argument we heard in the past election cycle.

What the NRA does is this:

NRA --> Promotes Gun Liberalization, training and awareness as per the 2nd Amendment and the occasional inappropriate convention following a mass shooting.

themikeymcd

Possible solution: Use Firefighters as 'gatekeepers' at schools.

There are paid public assets literally just sitting in firehouse's that could be trained in 2 days to deter psycho's via sitting at schools.


Too rational?

Gregory

How about... an announced public school policy to have no fewer than 35% of the professional staff be men. Sandy Hook was 2%. And allow staff who have permits to carry to do so in accordance with a policy that spells out carry and storage requirements.

Mikey, let firemen be firemen. They aren't necessarily proficient in firearms handling, the law, or the needs of a school.

Paul Emery

Sounds like government regulation to me. Do you propose this be federal, state or local jurisdiction to set and enforce these regs?

Gregory

Paul, tell me something about public schools, run by government and paid for by taxes, that isn't regulated by the government.

Private schools don't seem to have the same problems and so can and should figure it out for themselves. Also, the pretend gun free zones didn't start until the Clinton administration; getting rid of that Federal law would allow the states the latitude they need to decide how to handle it.

themikeymcd

This am I dropped my girls off at a school that was on lock down due to a threat. The school is within 3 miles of 2 firehouses fully 'stocked' with firemen who are literally just sitting waiting for a fire.

Seems like their radios and eyes could be leveraged to protect the kiddos. No law, just fire chief's with some common sense and a good hearts.

Ken Jones

Gregory wrote: "Mikey, let firemen be firemen. They aren't necessarily proficient in firearms handling, the law, or the needs of a school."

Yet you offer that teachers be armed? Because they are so proficient with firearms? Or least male teachers. The teacher would be more proficient in the needs of a school, but without a doubt would be less proficient in law or use of a firearm. Gregory let teachers be teachers.

Gregory

Ken, teachers are still people, and no one I know of wants to assign any particular teacher carry a gun. Just allow the teachers and staff who want to accept all of the responsibility it entails, and have jumped through all the hoops to carry, to carry. Is that so hard a concept?

Having yet another non instructional person to sit and and do nothing somehow just doesn't seem to be a good use of anyone's time or money. Nor does trying to disarm the American public, most of whom seem to think they have some sort of a constitutional right to have what they got, with the SCOTUS agreeing.

Gregory

Mikey, a fireman waiting for a fire isn't doing nothing. Maintenance and training comes to mind. Rest, too.

Todd Juvinall

I like Mikey's idea. Many firemen are menor women mustered from the military. They already know how to use a weapon. They could rotate in to the schools in their areas. Excellent!

themikeymcd

Gregory, I agree to disagree. Mr. Jones already pointed at the holes in your logic.

99% of a firefighter's day/night is sitting or making themselves look busy (just ask an honest fireman). There's a reason why volunteer firehouses were all we ever needed (before lobbyists/unions/special interests).

Gregory

And this is for Ken Jones, the only mental health professional that seems to be hanging out here...

Sandy Hook School's staff, outside of the janitors, was 98% female. Do you think that a disarmed group of women, and the little children they had in their charge, would be a factor in the thinking of a deranged young man who had just pumped four rounds into the head of his sleeping mother as he decided where to go next?

Russ Steele

Toughest Gun Laws Did NOT Help 446 Chicago Children in 2012.


"The cesspool known as Chicago probably has the toughest gun laws in the country, yet despite all the shootings, murders, and bloodshed, you never hear a peep about this from the corrupt state run media. In Chicago, there have been 446 school age children shot in leftist utopia run by Rahm Emanuel and that produced Obama, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. 62 school aged children have actually been killed by crazed nuts in Chicago so far this year with almost two weeks to go. So why isn’t this news worthy? Is it because it would embarrass those anti second amendment nuts who brag about Chicago’s tough gun laws? Is it because most of the kids who were shot and killed were minorities? Or is it because the corrupt media doesn’t want to show Chicago in a bad light? Amazingly, no Obama crocodile tears either."

"For those of you too dense to get the point of this post, it’s to make the point about gun laws. No matter how tough the gun laws are, the crazed, nut jobs will find a way to get them and if they so chose, use them. No draconian law can stop this, no matter how well intentioned the law is, or if it’s just about leftists grabbing power from citizens and taking away their constitutional rights."

Details HERE.

George Rebane

Re armed response in schools. My own preference is to appeal to the millions of citizens with CCW permits – the legal guns in the land. Sufficient numbers of these people - all of them are trained in the use of their firearms and many of them are retired - would volunteer for school security duty in a heartbeat. To qualify, they would receive appropriate additional training to serve their function as a known and interdicting armed presence in school facilities. After all, their main job is to confront the gunman and either delay or kill him (or die trying) while the police are on their way. It is already the moral obligation of every legal CCW carrier to attempt to halt ongoing (not anticipative) murder and/or mayhem in his presence – the states’ laws already provide for such intervention. Finally, I can envision the local constabulary setting up and maintaining such school security ‘duty rosters’ that allow members of a community to guard their own children. I believe that such a program would work and be very cost effective.

(Also see latest update to post on Chicago killings.)

Gregory

The more you have firemen do that isn't fire related, the longer the response to any fire alarm.

The middle school principal I worked for in the 70's flew combat missions as the captain of a B-25, carrying a pistol. Think he'd have been trustworthy enough?

Jesus Betterman

"As I recall, some Mohammedans used box cutters to kill more than 3K humans and last time I paid attention, box cutters were still on sale in stores."

~Scott~

And of course, Scott, it is still legal to carry them on airliners, and the doors to the pilots' compartment is just as it was in the 1960's.

What's with all the sexism about men and guns in the classroom?

And finally, you gonna go to an inner city high school packing heat? This is so funny. You'd be dead in an alley in nothing flat, as soon as the students became aware that you might even have the right to do so, as "such easy pickings" for gang members.

"And, another one bites the dust"

Or in the nice suburban school, when an angry parent shows up and decides you are fair game for something you supposedly did to his kid. Those of you who don't teach, it's a good thing, because you are totally clueless as to the realities of teaching today.

Gated schools with controlled entry points would be the safest and least expensive in the long run. Good shovel ready program, too.

Jesus Betterman

Gibven the amount of planning, George, that goes into these attacks, don't you think the perps would scope out a lone defender and take him out first?

BTW just how many folks have CCW's anyway? Millions? news to me, and I thought most had high profile jobs, and thus would not be available?

Gregory

There's a million CCW permits in Florida alone, if you believe NPR, reporting that this morning.

Everyone in Vermont, Alaska and Arizona who is an adult who can legally possess handguns can carry concealed without a permit.

There are a number of states who have "shall issue" laws: if you take the course, pass the test and background check, you will be issued the permit. Then there are states like Illinois or California where it's at the whim of bureaucrats in your state or locale based on what you say your reason is and whether you've donated to the right campaigns. It helps to be living in the right place or have friends in high places.

It's unclear to me, with the Gun Free Zone around schools as defined in criminal law, whether anyone can even drive up to my house with a gun in the car because they have to pass within about 40 feet of a school to do so. Wow, I'm living in a gun free zone! I'm SAFE!

Russ Steele

Where is the outrage about the brown and black childen killed in Chicago? Where are the church bells for these kids? Where are the press with tears while reporting on the funerals? The left is the largest group of hypocrites, white kids get tears and and demands for action the black and brown kids get the . . . .

Account Deleted

re: Doug at 1:30 - are you lefties trying to miss the point on purpose, or is the Christmas Cheer starting to flow already? I'll break it down so the light thinkers can follow. The components are: the crime, the perpetrator, the weapon, the location, the motive, etc. In the case of our friends from the 'religion of peace', the crime was the murder of over 3K Americans. The weapon was box cutters. After that tragedy, did anyone think we should ban the weapon? Why is this the case now? The solution to the airliners being hijacked was a change in procedures, including allowing the arming of the pilots and having armed marshals on random flights. Now that the NRA has suggested having armed guards at the schools, the left has gone nuts. Typical was the reaction by Bob B on 'The Five'. He thought it was insane to suggest that having more guns present would help. Notwithstanding the fact that police arriving with guns was what stopped the carnage. Having the guns there (in the hands of the good guys) before hand would have prevented the slaughter, but no, we have to have another tragedy to take advantage of in order to advance the cause of the fascist left. There doesn't seem to be much point in discussing this any further, since we clearly see that the left really isn't concerned with childrens' safety. The answer to everything from the left is less Constitutional freedom and more govt power over the citizens.

George Rebane

ScottO 641pm - don't see how you could have made it more clear. And the saving of kids' lives does not seem to be the main concern here, as we witness in other states/cities where gun laws already disarm the law abiding population.

Douglas Keachie

Scott, more junk in the air, and the 9/11 terrorists did not do the deed with an Oddjob tophat with a razor edge, they did the job with a pair of airliners. I don't think you realize how large the school population is, and how spread out most campuses are:

" Demographic Characteristics

Among full-time and part-time public school teachers in 2007–08, some 76 percent of public school teachers were female, 44 percent were under age 40, and 52 percent had a master’s or higher degree. Compared with public school teachers, a lower percentage of private school teachers were female (74 percent), were under age 40 (39 percent), and had a master’s or higher degree (38 percent).

In addition, among both males and females, 83 percent of public school teachers were White, 7 percent each were Black or Hispanic, 1 percent each were Asian or of two or more races, and less than one percent each were Pacific Islander or American Indian/Alaska Native in 2007–08.

Source: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28

In addition you have c. 98,000 public schools, c. 33,000 private schools, and 6700 institutions of higher ed.

Source: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84

So, one cop per school would be roughly 137,000 additional cops, if one cop per school was enough. Assuming worst case scenario, how long does it take a very healthy cop to run from the main office to the library at NU? Do you suppose the med student who did the Aurora cinemas, wouldn't have had the brains to set up a diversion at the oppposite end of a campus, if that was his target?

If I'm not mistaken, that number 137,000 would be about one quarter the total number of folks in all our armed forces, no? How much is that going to cost? Will you pay those taxes?

BTW, Steele yammers on about the Chicago school age kids, but does not admit how many of those killings take place, OFF CAMPUS? How about digging up the on campus killing stats, before you continue your streak of erroneous comparisons. And how many of those are not stranger killings, like our mass murderers? So much for the NRA's Pierre LaPheweu's plan for our schools. It stinks, and you'd never pay for it.

Douglas Keachie

I think Greg is counting home schools.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad