« War of Words | Main | Fire!, Ready, Aim – Panic-driven Public Policy (updated 21dec12) »

14 December 2012


Ryan Mount

(cross posting over here, my apologies)

Oh well, I guess we bring it up.

> are becoming so commonplace

Are they? I'm not being snarky here. Just asking an obvious question. Anymore than gun violence in other parts of the world? Or is it the scope of the violence and its quasi-terrorist like methods? Could it be that we are more aware of such things given the instant, in-your-face reporting we have now? Could it be that we're "closer" to the violent acts?

> What happened?

But let's assume yes. Some possible answers:

- Higher populations which means more mentally ill and criminals.

- Less services for the mentally ill

- More mainstreaming of mentally ill (this, I understand is a very controversial thing to say) as opposed to locking them up

- I want to say greater rates of poverty, but poverty is not a causal factor necessarily in gun violence. The vast majority of poor people wouldn't harm a fly. And frankly the poor, if one believe recent studies, are living relatively high on the hog relative to just a few generations ago.

Russ Steele

These shooters are looking for their 15 minutes of fame. If the press would just list them as shooter X, or shooter Y, and never give their names, then the shooters would be denied their 15 minutes of fame. They will have to seek fame some other way.

Yes, I know that is impractical but so is banning all guns, which is the is cry going out from the left already. The problem is that banning guns, like in Chicago you end up with one of the highest gun death rates in the nation. In states with ability to carry, there are fewer gun deaths, as the criminals never know who is carrying. According to Drudge Florida CCWs are approaching 1 million. Florida crime rate should be dropping real soon now!

George Rebane

RyanM 251pm - (cross posting most appropriate)

Agree with you that as population grows, so grows the unhinged side of the distribution of mental stability and the number of such people loose on the streets. Cross posting from 'War of Words', I said that "I see much merit in the proposal to permit legal guns in schools so that such mad shooters don't have a safe environment in which to go on a serial killing spree. It is today's world, after all.

Rumination - how did we become a world where such mass killings are becoming so commonplace? And the simple answer that guns are easy to get today won't wash - today it is harder to get hands on a gun than at any time in our history. 50 years ago, anyone could have an M-1 semi-automatic carbine or other equivalent weapon(s), and commit similar atrocities in crowded places like malls, theaters, and schools. (Even though this one was committed with a couple of semi-auto pistols.) But to us then it was unthinkable, today it no longer is. What happened?"

My own take for some years has now been that our culture has markedly changed during the last 40 years. Today the solution through massive violence is taught in our news programs, video games, TV, movies, ... . Even though the overall gun death rate has been going down, the unhinged are most affected and do come out as today.

RussS 344pm - Agreed. The deep thinkers of the progressive stripe are already blaring their gun control trumpets which are always at the ready. Their ability to digest facts, and do a smidgeon of critical thinking about such events is essentially absent. But then, saving lives has never been their prime objective in promoting these abridgements of liberties, of which the 2nd Amendment is only one.

Dave Cranfield

Re: Your Obamacare blurb.

A friend of mine has a small business in Goodyear, AZ where he is contracted by Buell motorcycles (Harley Davidson) as well as Victory motorcycles to assemble the bikes for western states distribution.

All of his employees were recently advised they will be terminated on December 31 and re-hired on a one year contractual basis on January 2. All of the employees will be independent contractors, paid on a 1099 basis and be responsible for their own withholding and FICA.

Their contracted salary will be 22% above what they currently earn. Part of that 22% is an annual raise, the rest is to cover the increase in FICA they must pay as individual contractors.

This will require each contractor to purchase Obamacare, although about half are covered under their spouse's medical coverage.

All 28 employees accepted their contractual status since Buell and Victory contract with this shop on a January to December basis, along with production needs for the year.

Russ Steele


We are going to see more of this independent contractor solution. I will be willing to bet that some bright business types will form independent contractor exchanges where a business can shop online for the talent they need for short term contracts of a year of less. Candidates will register with the exchange and the potential contractor is not going to be interested what Ivy League U the candidates graduated from, but if they have the need skill sets. Skill set can now be developed on the plethora of free university courses that are coming on line. More on this later.

Russ Steele


The more that I promised: http://youvotedforitblog.wordpress.com/job-economy/

George Rebane

Just finished watching coverage of the shooting on TV (it pre-empted our usual recorded programming). The broadcasted information rate about what really happened is vanishingly low. But the interviews with various 'experts', local residents, countrywide reactions, loads of government officials, and the random man on the street are lurid beyond the already high norm. Showing armed and armored SWAT members running hither and yon while other civilians calmly look on and scratch their crotches is a particularly significant part of television journalism. This is what the borderline psychos are fastened on - 'Look at the national attention that I can garner and create if I do something like this. They'll be talking about me for years.'

Krauthammer had the most reasonable reaction (being a psychiatrist), he advised starting the examination with the psychology of this lone shooter, and not diving immediately into the emotional generalizations about new public policy that every media outlet is now trying to hype. Upon reflection, I do think that we have become a nation of childish idiots, and tragedies like this underline the assertion and reinforce the syndrome. Had we been like this during WW2, we'd be speaking German and/or Japanese today.

A reasonable populace would acknowledge the tragedy from the early reports, and wait for the investigation to produce factual progress. Instead, we demand to be part of the 'come along and be there' faction of distant sufferers (in real time over HDMI and stereo). It's as if we all want to be part of something important at least once in our otherwise dreary lives.

Russ Steele

In July 24, 2011 Norwegian, Anders Behring Breivik was one of the bloodiest murderers in history leaving 93 people dead, shooting them with an assault rifle. He shot dead 93 of young Labour Party members on the island of Utoeya, near Oslo.
In Sweden, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms. The private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted only with special authorization. Anders Behring Breivik, as an avid gun user had that authorization, as a member of a gun club.

So, under the tightest gun control, a mentally disturbed person obtained an assault rifle. A determined person will find and way to obtain the need weapon, regardless of the level of gun control. In Mexico, with very tight gun control, they got the guns they wanted from the US Department of Justice.

Paul Emery

Yes George. If it bleeds it leads. realistically George do you have any ideas how to keep guns out of the hands of psychos?

Russ Steele

Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds, writing at USA Today: Killers aren't stopped by these policies.

"After a shooting spree," author William Burroughs once said, "they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it." Burroughs continued: "I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military."

Plenty of people — especially among America's political and journalistic classes — feel differently. They'd be much more comfortable seeing ordinary Americans disarmed. And whenever there is a mass shooting, or other gun incident that snags the headlines, they do their best to exploit the tragedy and push for laws that would, well, take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.

There are a lot of problems with this approach, but one of the most significant is this one: It doesn't work. One of the interesting characteristics of mass shootings is that they generally occur in places where firearms are banned: malls, schools, etc. That was the finding of a famous 1999 study by John Lott of the University of Maryland and William Landes of the University of Chicago, and it appears to have been borne out by experience since then as well.

In a way, this is no surprise. If there's someone present with a gun when a mass shooting begins, the shooter is likely to be shot himself. And, in fact, many mass shootings — from the high school shooting by Luke Woodham in Pearl, Miss., to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., where an armed volunteer shot the attacker — have been terminated when someone retrieved a gun from a car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

You can read the rest of this reality check HERE: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/14/connecticut-school-shooting-gun-control/1770345/

George Rebane

PaulE 642pm - that is indeed the big question after one of these events. My short answer is NO, their ability to get their hands on guns (or any other means of killing many before being stopped) is a trade-off in a liberal society. Even places with strong gun bans have these events, and places where there is a fully automatic assault gun in every other household have very few or none of these massacres. Fundamentally, I believe culture is a big determinant.

What freedoms and defense against tyranny do we give up for the siren song of security. Tyrannical governments kill more of their own by the millions than these little (no matter how tragic) massacres we have been having. But for some (many?) it's OK if the state does the killing wholesale, but a no-no for the occasional private deranged citizen to do it retail.

As I've stated before, I believe that the data amply demonstrate that crime rates (especially violent ones) go down when law abiding citizens are encouraged to carry weapons. Most certainly a mass murderer would have less likelihood of going through a mall/school/theater shooting one after another if there were a couple of legal guns in attendance.


Legislation born of panic and emotion always works out well, doesn't it?

Russ Steele

Switzerland, where almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, Switzerland has virtually no gun crime. Why? Every gun owner is trained in how to use the weapon responsibly.

Point. The guns used in the Sandy Hook shooting were stolen. It is not clear that the shooter would have met the criteria for the ability to purchase a gun. He was known to have mental problems and would most likely have failed the background check. Speculation.

Douglas Keachie

You can teach, or you can watch for ambush. You sure as hell can't do both at the same time! If teachers are known to be armed, who will the killer take out first? When a plane crashes and we can't explain it. we ground the rest of that type, until the situation is at least ameliorated. Ban the sale of all Glocks and SIIGs until new restrictions are in place to at least reduce the l;likelihood of the event recurring. Ban the ammo too to get all of the NRA's attention focused properly. Buy a gun, leave the government with a $1000 bond. If, a year later you cannot produce the gun for your local sheriff, you forfeit the $1000 into the victims' fund. Make you think twice about locking it up. Laws can be constructed to make such tragic events less likely. Use your imagination. You can think of any? Use your imagination to imagine YOUR kid or grand-kid killed this way, maybe it will kick in after all. Those who feel as I do outnumber the NRA.

Been posting this elsewhere all day, where broader audiences see it.

Douglas Keachie

" fully automatic assault gun in every other household have very few or none of these massacres. "


I guess Fort Hood doesn't count?

Douglas Keachie

Stolen from his mom? Ha!

in RE Russ above.

Douglas Keachie

"These shooters are looking for their 15 minutes of fame. "

He's dead, Russ... (Dr. Keach de Bones)

He shot himself, how the heck can you claim he's looking for fame? Tea Bagger Crystal Balls? You credentials as a shrink?


" When a plane crashes and we can't explain it. we ground the rest of that type, until the situation is at least ameliorated."



"Switzerland, where almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, Switzerland has virtually no gun crime. Why? Every gun owner is trained in how to use the weapon responsibly."

I also understand virtually every Swiss household has a real assault rifle, or two or three. Fully automatic. Machine guns. And often an arsenal of older bolt or semiautomatic rifles and handguns from earlier ages. Yes, they have to account for their issued ammunition but not to account for its use, but to show they have it in case they're called into active duty.

The Swiss don't screw around.

Paul Emery

So Russ are you proposing we have mandatory gun training for all gun owners like Switzerland?
Do you think that violent entertainment aggravates the situation? What screening should gun owners be required to have?

Russ Steele


Yes, but the shooter made the record books and that may have been his goal, but he fell short of becoming number one. However, it will most likely be much more complicated. Mother loved the students and failed to love the shooter up to his standards, took anger out on his mother and the students she loved. Speculation!

Russ Steele


I would require as a minimum a gun safety course and certification that owner knows how to use the weapon. Growing up my grandfather taught his three grand children gun safety. All four of my daughters were taught gun safety and how to shoot a gun. Every gun owner should have to complete a safety course. The Range does and excellent job.

All people requesting a CCW permit are required to go through multiple hours of training and certification. Why not people who have guns in their homes? The dangerous thing in the home is a gun in the hands of a person who does not how to use it responsibly.

"Does violent entertainment aggravates the situation?" I think that shooter games can reduce sensitivity to what it means to kill another human being. I have no data to support that view. It is just a gut feeling.

Russ Steele

Tweet of the day: "So Eric Holder isn't to blame for Fast and Furious, but the NRA is to blame for school shootings? Got it."

Douglas Keachie

You can teach, or you can watch for ambush. You sure as hell can't do both at the same time! If teachers are known to be armed, who will the killer take out first? When a plane crashes and we can't explain it. we ground the rest of that type, until the situation is at least ameliorated. Ban the sale of all Glocks and SIIGs until new restrictions are in place to at least reduce the l;likelihood of the event recurring. Ban the ammo too to get all of the NRA's attention focused properly.

Buy a gun, leave the government with a $1000 bond. If, a year later you cannot produce the gun for your local sheriff, you forfeit the $1000 into the victims' fund. Make you think twice about locking it up. Laws can be constructed to make such tragic events less likely. Use your imagination. You can think of any? Use your imagination to imagine YOUR kid or grand-kid killed this way, maybe it will kick in after all. Those who feel as I do outnumber the NRA. If a home grown tyrant takes over the government, and controls the USA armed forces, just what chance do you have against them?

Douglas Keachie

Here's another helping for our anal expert: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/962985/posts

Ryan Mount

Every solution here is just shit. So we suddenly criminalize law-abiding gun owners. Or we can't keep on top of nutsacks who who shoot up schools.

You know, if the current gun laws were enforced properly, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion. So what does that say about our government? And our current laws?

Shall we pass more laws that can't/won't be enforced?

And are we sure there is some kind of spike in this kind of violence? Are more people dying from gun violence? Why aren't there massacres like this in inner cities? Probably because no one gives a shit. Just like no one gives a shit when Obama fires hellfires into Yemeni or Pakistani villages. But when it's a white, middle classers in a quiet suburban community, our sanctimony comes pouring out.

Douglas Keachie

How about if you own a gun, you spend one day a year guarding your local school, for each gun you own?

Ryan Mount

I like that. Or something like that Doug. Some kind of civil service. It's a little wacky, but us Americans like wacky ideas.

I bet you'd actually get volunteers for it. If we can do that minuteman thing on the border, surely we can rustle up a few citizens like that for the schools.


We have screening for buying guns. In short, you can't be a felon or be an adjudicated nutcase.

There's a constitutional right to own and carry guns. Just as there wasn't magazine fed firearms in 1776, there also wasn't fax machines, laser printers or web servers, and those are also covered by an early Amendment.

Maybe we should just have more gun free zones? A problem with that is that just about all the mass shootings have been in declared gun free zones. Ever wonder why?

Douglas Keachie

" In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.

The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.

According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid `time to crime' of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity."

The report goes on to state that "over-the-counter purchases are not the only means by which guns reach the illegal market from FFLs" and reveals that 23,775 guns have been reported lost, missing or stolen from FFLs since September 13, 1994, when a new law took effect requiring dealers to report gun thefts within 48 hours. This makes the theft of 6,000 guns reported in the CIR/Frontline show "Hot Guns" only 25% of all cases reported to ATF in the past two and one-half years.

Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts. These illegal dealers turn around and sell these illegally on the street. An additional way criminals gain access to guns is family and friends, either through sales, theft or as gifts."


How about one day of year for each gun you own, you wind up as a guard for your local school, along with four other similar folks. You each get a watch tower, and the gun is in a case that you can't open, only the principal can. You control a video cam, and a central security dude watches all four screen and listens to the four of you. Yu can be released with the gun upon a principal pushing a wireless button.


Keach wrote the following "When a plane crashes and we can't explain it. we ground the rest of that type, until the situation is at least ameliorated."

I called BS.

His proof is the following: "The Federal Aviation Administration ordered the immediate grounding of all 222 Learjet Model 45 business jets after discovering that a part in the tail section can fail abruptly"

Keach, that Learjet grounding was after the opposite of "can't explain it". That was a grounding after a fault was FOUND.

Douglas Keachie

So Greg says there is no fault found at the Sandy Hook school, or in the laws supposedly in place to prevent it? Bad case of SPS.


No, it's simpler than that, Keach. Greg says the reality of Keach's aviation metaphor is exactly the opposite than he was claiming.

Can Keach name a location of a recent mass shooting that wasn't in a gun free zone? Virginia Tech, Colorado, now Sandy Hook?


"I like that. Or something like that Doug. Some kind of civil service. It's a little wacky, but us Americans like wacky ideas."

Wow, what a concept. Constitutional rights as something you have to earn first. What prior civil service should we require for the granting of a parade permit, or to be able to petition the government for redress? Or owning something really dangerous like a web or ftp server? Laser printer?

What was the phrase in that schlock treatment of Heinlein's Starship Troopers... "Service guarantees Citizenship".

Just another way to say "ARBEIT MACHT FREI"

Douglas Keachie

Own a gun, spend one day each year in a watch tower at a local school, with a gun locked, only releasable by the principal (wireless panic button), along with at least four others like you in other towers. You each get a video cam that feeds to a coordinator and the other towers, and you can chat via intercom. Supposedly gun owners have them to "protect our country" If our elementary kids are not part of our country, then who or what is?

Douglas Keachie

Gun Free Zone, did I ever advocate that concept? That's like Berkeley is a Nuke Free Zone.


Ain't legal, Keach. Most schools are gun free zones and principals can't have them, either. In fact, some of the principals I've met shouldn't even have them at home.


"watch tower at a local school, with a gun locked, only releasable by the principal (wireless panic button), along with at least four others like you in other towers."

Behold the 'educators' view of the school of the future. A prison.

Douglas Keachie

Nope, merely a compromise, since you take the NRA stance that all is well in the world of laws and guns, and that there is no way to make this country safe for elementary school children.


"Nope, merely a compromise, since you take the NRA stance that all is well in the world of laws and guns"

I don't take that stance, and neither does the NRA as far as I can tell. But none of your hallucinations improve things, or are constitutional.


Let's, first, get clear on the difference between semi-automatic weapons and automatic weapons, can we? Semis fire every time you pull the trigger; automatics are machine guns- as long as you hold the trigger, they will fire until the ammo runs out(or they jam). Not to make too big a point of this, but it's actually important to understand the difference. I don't want to be fending off attackers with a bolt action- do you? Just a sore point with the media idiots, ya'know? Semis are legal,autos are not, and so it should remain. L


L, full autos are legal in many states. Nevada is one. There are a number of lfiring ranges in the state that will be happy to rent you one to be Rambo for 30 minutes. For an extra $25, they'll even sell you a commemorative T shirt you can blast yourself.

Since the 1930's, in order for a civilian to own a fully automatic rifle or pistol, you had to be in a state that allowed it, and buy a "tax stamp" from the feds that included the equivalent of a Secret security clearance.

During the Clinton administration, the number of legally available machine guns, in essence, the number of issued stamps, was frozen. So now, you both need to live in a state where it's legal and you have to buy the right from an existing holder.

Such guns have not been legal in California since '34.

Michael Anderson

If you try to classify employees as independent contractors, good luck with that. It's all about who is directing their work. Sounds like in the motorcycle factory cited by Dave's friend, the owner is still directing the work. Which means he will lose a costly court case and his business will fail. Another business will take his place, a grownup business, and all will be right with the world. Next case.

Paul Emery

George, most mass shooters are essentially on suicidal adventures so I don't know how armed school yards would deter them. Who do you propose would be the armed ones and what training would they require?

George Rebane

PaulE 919am - "armed school yards"? Not sure what straw man you've erected this time for your counter. But having legal guns (CCW) in public places will most certainly force any attacker, suicidal or not, to rethink their chances for success since he will then know that there is a high likelihood that he will be opposed and not entering shooting gallery (aka 'gun-free zone').

For gun handling the training would be similar to that required for a CCW in most California counties. For in-facility response tactics, the school would call in the local constabulary and its SWAT arm to develop a plan particular to the facility. What we are trying to overcome here is the situation 'when seconds count, the police are minutes away'.

But any such answer in this forum would necessarily be less than comprehensive and incomplete, and subject to touchy-feely pot shots. Fire away.

Joe Koyote

Can anyone imagine what would have happened in the Batman theater shootings if armed civilians in a darkened room just started shooting? Arming the populace and turning back the clock to the wild west doesn't seem that viable. If the austerity freaks get their way, it won't matter because the only people with guns will be the bad guys and lunatics because there won't be any police or teachers in the public arena. The wealthy will tuck themselves behind the gated communities with their private police and fire services and publicly financed private voucher schools in bunkers while the rest of us fight it out in the streets.

Russ Steele


"Cinemark doesn’t allow anyone other than law enforcement officers to carry legal firearms in their theaters. "

Do you think maybe that was one of the decision points that the Batman Shooter took into account. Theater was a gun free zone. Well accept for the guns the Batman shooter brought to the theater.

Every issue of the NRA Magazine has multiple report of how armed citizens have thwarted gun totting criminals with their CCW weapon. Stories that are never printed in the lame stream press. We only hear about the shooting of unarmed citizens in gun free zones. Why is that?

George Rebane

JoeK 1107am - Ah yes, the wild west response to the shooter where bullets are flying all over the place in every direction - a favorite repartee from the left. A moment's thought would tell you that it wouldn't happen, and if an innocent did get hit by a legal gun it would be no more frequent than similar incidents arising from police and military rescues in such situations.

Police used to huddle behind police cars waiting for the National Guard when there was shooter in a building. The Israelis demonstrated that this was a dumb tactic if you wanted to minimize the loss of life. The proper response is to charge in there rapidly and disorient/engage the shooter and kill him quickly. Our police have been retrained to do exactly that today - you don't wait, you go in like Marshall Dillon with guns blazing.

In your case, theaters are not dark rooms but semi-lit with everyone's eyes adapted to the ambient light level. Once the shooting started, everyone would get down except the shooter (recall the last theater incident), who has to stand up to move and do his killings. What a target for a legal gun or two.

What few people realize is that the "wild west", and for that matter, the more sedate east were free of such mass shootings. No community would put up with gunmen who attempted to terrorize a community like in the movies. There was one recorded case in Minnesota where that was attempted, the local citizens immediately dispatched them, and their stripped to the waist bodies, full of bullet holes, were ensconced in coffins and on display in front of the local undertaker within the hour. In those days most proper gentlemen, and many ladies, carried a small concealed firearm. Anybody in a public place who wantonly pulled a gun and started shooting would and were brought down very quickly.

Paul Emery


"What few people realize is that the "wild west", and for that matter, the more sedate east were free of such mass shootings."
Of course you don't include the mass killings of men women and children conducted against Native American communities. You seem to have a double standard here. Mass killing is mass killing.

"Jesus don't like killing no matter what the reason for"

John Prine from his song "Your Flag Decal Wont Get You Into Heaven Anymore"

Todd Juvinall

PaulE, why do you discount the mass killings of pioneers and settlers in the East (before and during the French and Indian War). There wwere many massacres by tribes and they killed and scalped men, women and children. Do you have justifications for them PaulE?

I do believe if a couple of people had a weapon in the Batman theater murders, the man may have killed fewer people. But the press would turn that victory of less dead into a "golly", how many would have survived reversal of logic.

The school murdering scumbag apparently gained possession of his guns illegally. If a teacher had a pistol maybe those precious babies would be alive. I am praying for those little tikes. GOD BLESS the children.

George Rebane

PaulE 1211pm - In typical liberal fashion, you take a conversation about criminal civilian shootings, and switch over to examples of government policy of using its military to clear western land areas of its indigenous people - essentially mopping up operations of one civilization ruthlessly invading and colonizing another one. This is such a well-worn tactic in the national debate, and here on the micro scale also explains why the national dialogue is irrational and essentially pointless.

If you want to discuss the white man's conquest of the Americas, then do so under its separate heading (I'll accept a piece on it from you for posting). But please don't try to confuse the important and very distinct issue we are discussing here (unless, of course, you really are confused about it, at which point we'll just have to accept you as you are).

Paul Emery


I only included it to set the record straight on your view that the "wild west" was free of mass killings. In California there were bounties for Indian scalps. This had nothing to do with military action but was the expression of a violent citizenry that had little regard for human life. Part of the history of the peaceful west.

This is part of our violent heritage that contributes to the consciousness of mass killers today.


"And at one point it was something in the neighborhood of $25 for a male body part, whether it was a scalp, a hand, or the whole body; and then $5 for a child or a woman. In many cases, they only had to bring in the scalp. And in other cases, the whole body was brought in to prove that they had this individual, they'd killed this person, and receive their reward.

And it was well after 1900 when the law was repealed, that bounty hunting, or whatever you may want to call it, on the California Indians was repealed."

George Rebane

PaulE 142pm - I think you have further confused 'the record', especially in the context of continuity of consciousness. The purposeful bounties, no matter how heinous we see them today, were public policies and are not of the class of killings we are discussing here.

And your claim of contributions from the historical past are beyond hysterical. The killers of today know no history, they would be hard pressed to tell you when the Vietnam War occurred, and don't have a clue of who was president before Bush2. But they are well versed with the wanton killings they see on the media every day, and in which they vicariously participate in their addictive and very realistic video games.

We must remember that all these killers are people from the 'no shame' and 'self-esteem über alles' generations. We are reaping what we have very recently sown. It is only the progressives who are in terminal denial about this because it is their ideology that has displaced culture in our public institutions and public forums. Parenting and adult supervision/intervention in the traditional sense - i.e. before mass killings - has long been criminalized and ceased to exist.

Todd Juvinall

King Leonidas butchered 20,000 Persians at Thermopylae PaulE. Since you are of Greek background, should we hold you responsible for that?

Todd Juvinall

Just watched a History Channel program on the Black Plague. The Mongols were laying seige to Cappa on te Black Sea in 1347 and their troops contracted the plague. Before they withdrew this European city, they catapulted the plague filled bodies into the city. This spread to the rest f Europe over the next twenty years and killed a whole bunch of white European type folks. PaulE, based on your remarks are you now going to hold those Mongols responsible for the first "germ warfare" attacks? And if so, what will you do about it?

Paul Emery

George, Todd

This whole sub thread began as a reaction to Georges sanitized vision of the wild west. Now it seems that mass murder as public policy is somehow different than mass murder from a deranged gunman. Dead is dead. Could you explain the difference to women and children massacred Sand Creek in the Colorado Territory in 1864. Around 175 peaceful Indians were slaughtered with two thirds being women and children.

George Rebane

PaulE 412pm - "Now it seems that mass murder as public policy is somehow different than mass murder from a deranged gunman." There is nothing new nor seeming about such mass murders, they differ in every dimension save the state of the victims. One is wholesale, legitimate, and with acknowledged widespread approval; the other is limited/random, illegitimate, and with no approval from any quarter.

Attempting to equate such disparate killings in a discussion that, perhaps, seeks to explore remedial public policies, ends that discussion from the side that could discern the difference - kind of like this discussion that has now become just another example of why a Great Divide solution would be beneficial to both sides.

Todd Juvinall

Come on PaulE answer the questions. You started it and now I just want to see how your logic works but as usual, you dodge and change the subject and deny.

Joe Koyote

Since Todd brought in history. I have been watching a documentary series about the English monarchy. Obviously, much of our culture comes from England. Most of the Kings and Queens were completely self absorbed power hungry horrific human beings with no regard for other human life. They had their siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, parents murdered so they could ascend to the throne and invade the nearest neighbor to prove their mettle, all by the age of sixteen, some of them. Their disregard for human life was only surpassed by their greed. The only explanation for such evil behavior is that they were all crazy beyond belief. Kind of sounds like the corporate culture of the robber barons in America past and present. I read a book called "Bush on the Couch" by the head of psychiatry at Harvard. It was about mental problems incurred by the nanny raised, boarding school educated, coddled children of the wealthy and why they should never be in positions of power. Should Todd, and all conservatives be responsible for the acts of a crazy few spoiled brat rich kids whose daddies handed them a fortune and little else, especially human compassion? Sort of like George W. Bush who sent how many patriotic and courageous men and women off to war with lies just so he could huff and puff and strut around the barnyard like an adolescent rooster and maybe get his daddy's approval.

Paul Emery

Sure Todd, hold me responsible for butchering 20,000 Persians at Thermopylae. You really got me on that one. I don't have any Mongol heritage. That must be from your side of the gene pool.

Paul Emery

More from Chuck Smith, Instructor Anthropology Department Cabrillo College

Historically is our heritage as Californians that different from the holocaust?

"The first 50 years of the American Period was a horrible time for the Native Californians, given the sheer magnitude of what happened during that half century: scalpings of men, women, &children; incarceration in jails with the only way out being enforced indenture to whites for unspecified lengths of time; the kidnapping &sale of Indian children; the massacres of entire Indian villages; the military roundup of Indians and their enforced exile on military reservations where even the most basic of living amenities were lacking; their complete legal disenfranchisement. The outcome of all this was that during the first two decades of the American occupation, the native population of California plummeted by 90 percent - in short, a California version of the WWII Holocaust."

Paul Emery

Oh yes


Russ Steele


You are playing the classic liberal role in refusing to address the initial issue of this post. Dragging out your straw men to slay is just disrespectful of the others who comment here, who are interested in examining the Sandy Hook disaster, not exploring California Native American history. If I have missed the point, please explain how this is related to Sandy Hook?


JKoyote conflates the "wild west" of reality with all those Lone Ranger episodes of his youth.

Indeed, the mass killers that have struck recently have done a bang up job choosing targets that had the false safety within a "gun free zone", which really only makes sense if you think the presence of the gun turns nice people into bubbling sociopaths.

Sorry, no. Ozzie and Harriet arguing over what to watch on TV would not turn into a Sam Peckinpah slo-mo bloodbath if a gun was in the house.

The Colorado Batman killer very possibly chose the theater and not the campus *because* the gun free status of the campus had been overturned by the courts last March. Anyone with a valid concealed weapons permit can carry their gun(s) on campus. If what you want to do is to shoot as many people as you can before someone with a gun shoots you, a gun free zone is the E ticket, so choose the theater. It's private property and the owners thought everyone would be safer if no one had guns... as if that stops anyone intent on mass murder.

Douglas Keachie

The connection between the treatment of California Indians and the current stream of mass murders is simply one of the ongoing psychosis in American culture, that it is OK to kill the "other," the "not you or yours." it is not unique to the American culture. All I see here is arguing over how to argue, much like arging over the shape of the peace table for peace talks. Fluffernutters on parade, move on, no solutions to anything found here.

Account Deleted

Paul at 4:12 - "dead is dead" - Oh thank you, Paul, for reminding us of that. 1973 to 2011 est number of abortions in America: 54.5 million. They were innocent of any wrong doing and they were as human as you or I, Paul. Well, me anyway. I'll let you speak for yourself. What percentage of those aborted were of African descent? They were human and they were killed. That is medical science. We live in a culture that lets us decide to snuff out human life if it's: very young/wrong sex/not convenient/looks yucky/the father committed a crime against me/would be evidence of a crime the father committed/or you fill in the blank.
Some statistics:A child has a greater chance of dying on the way home from daycare than from a gun.
The age group 5-9 continues the trend with Unintentional Injury leading the list. Motor vehicle accidents have risen to 808, drownings have dropped to 234, fires and burns are at 178. Gun deaths are 28 or 1.8% of the 1534 deaths for 1997. Homicides are the fourth leading cause of death for 5-9 year olds with a total of 174. Of these 77 or 44.3% were committed with firearms. Car crashes kill 8 times more children than guns. Of those crashes 62% of the deaths involve unrestrained children ages 0-14. Drunk drivers cause 39% of fatal crashes and of those involving children 60% are riding with the drunk driver.
A 10-14 year old still has a greater chance of dying riding to and from soccer practice than from a gun.
This group continues with Unintentional Injury deaths totaling 1837. Motor vehicle accidents are 57% of the total with 1056, followed by drowning at 215, fires and burns account for 5.4% or 99, and firearm deaths are 94 or 5.1%. Suicide now becomes a troubling fact in this age category--as the third leading cause of death at 303. Of these suicides, suffocation is the most common at 154 or 50.8%, and firearms are used in 126 suicides or 41.6%. Poison is third at 14, or 4.6%. Homicide is the fourth cause of death with a total of 283 deaths. Firearms are the most used accounting for 73.5% or 208. It is in this age group that a lot of disturbing trends start which explode in 15-19 year olds. Until now, cars and drowning have been the most deadly for children. Crime and suicide now become a greater threat as children become adolescents
Our Dear Leader went on TV and boo hooed about the tragedy quite convincingly while failing to mention the fact that he voted for infanticide and held the coveted 100% rating from NARAL while in the Ill leg. He has done everything humanly possible to enable abortion in America and yet claimed that he was "the anti abortion' candidate.
What legislative body in this country operates in a "gun free zone"? Which of the political loud mouths that are calling for banning guns thinks it should apply to their own (or their own families) body guards?
A terrible tragedy occurred at a school in Conn - but there are bigger tragedies daily in this country. I would suggest we start working on the bigger problems before we worry about the lessor ones. I have a 3 year old grandson and I'm far more concerned about what will probably happen to him than worrying about what probably won't happen to him. I think a lot of folks need to calm down and use their brain.

Paul Emery

This whole posting was diverted when I questioned if the US state sponsored terrorism of the 19th century should be considered mass murder. It was then and remains now a valid question especially when the "wild west" was characterized by our host as being free of mass shootings such as what occurred this week.

Michael Anderson

Scott wrote: "I think a lot of folks need to calm down and use their brain."

Wow. You ask us to use our brains, just after diminishing gun violence and saying that the greater tragedies are the 54 million killed (aborted) babies since 1973. That's just sick.

I am speechless...

George Rebane

Re PaulE's 1110pm - There was and has never been a question or denial whether "the US state sponsored terrorism of the 19th century" was mass murder - of course it was. Since white man first landed on these shores, and it was clear to the Indians that colonization and their removal was the aim, mass murders were committed by both sides. But there is no debate on who killed whom the most, and with greater efficiency and rapacity.

As I have pointed out in these pages, since the Renaissance and until the 20th century, the Europeans were undoubtedly the biggest killers of other civilizations in the world. And it was done as matter of national policy as Europe colonized the world. We're here not talking about the slaughter in European wars, which again is a different topic area of mass death.

But what PaulE (and similarly minded) fail to understand is that there occurred no such shootings in the wild west (or east) during the 19th century as happened in Newtown. Since, say, the 1960s these modern era shootings have been solitary criminal acts by the mentally deranged or religious zealots, and not executions of public policy by the putatively sane.

Joining all mass killings under one tent stops any consideration of a specific kind of these atrocities in the hope of understanding them and minimizing their future occurrence. Doing so is another display of dysfunctional reasoning processes that is so common in the public round today, and contributes to inappropriate policy solutions which range from simple silliness to cravenly opportunistic promotions of a political ideology. I will have more to say about this in a future post.

Ryan Mount

What is the equivalence of a state-sponsored, programmatic and systematic 19th century genocide and a school massacre committed by what appears to be an extremely mentally 20 year old? (that's not a rhetorical question)

I would have been more interested to see a discussion a tad more relevant, like drone attacks, "smart" bombs, cruise missiles and the casual militarization of our modern culture(Call of Duty 2? Anyone?), than equating the recent events with the 100+ year sadistic policies. For example. why is a hellfire strike that murders children in Pakistan "acceptable,"* and this is not.

*ignored, really.


For "L" about 20 comments back: If musicians could only do one pluck, drumbeat, voice note, trumpet blast, etc per second, music would be pretty boring. Still, using just one pull of the trigger per second can kill sixty people in just one minute. End the myth that semi auto is safe and auto is dangerous.


Here's where the gun deaths are highest and lowest, per 100,000 population:


Paul Emery


I repeat, the discussion diverted when George compared modern times with the wild west which he alleges didn't have mass killers. That necessitated, from Georges view, a distinction and immunity of state sponsored terrorism from the conversation.

Yes, the random killing of innocents in drone attacks and military strikes on civilians violating sovereign rights of independent nations contributes to the disregard of human life for a glorious cause. Let's make that part of the discussion.


Ryan, the Hellfire strike would have been unacceptable had it been ordered by Bush or Cheney.

George, IIRC you have something in common with Socrates, who also decryed the deterioration in culture. It's all downhill. However, there apparently isn't an uptick in this sort of thing:
"Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning." (AP)

Note that '29 is 5 years before the Feds passed the law controlling the possession of machine guns and banning sawed off shotguns.

Joe Koyote

Is there a difference between mass killings and random mass killings? Was the peak in 1929 due to mobsters gunning each other down ala St. Valentines massacre? I tend to define mass killings as when the victims have been previously selected for a specific reasons versus random killing as when victims are in the wrong place at the wrong time and are victims for no apparent reason. While there is no moral high ground in any murder/killing the collateral victims from attacks that are political in nature are especially heinous. When children get murdered by drones someone makes a conscious decision to put them in harms way for political reasons by supposedly sane people. School shootings and the like seem to me to be the result of a different kind of insanity.

George Rebane

JoeK 141pm - Excellent and Amen! for "different kind of insanity". Prognosis for progress is now positive.


"Was the peak in 1929 due to mobsters gunning each other down ala St. Valentines massacre?"

My reading of the quote and the linked article is that it was about random murders, not killings by organized criminals. In addition, 1929 was also before prohibition was repealed.

Even in Norway, with no right to own firearms and fairly draconian laws restricting their sale and possession, a determined Norwegian bachelor farmer planned a mass execution. If there is a will, a disturbed individual will find a way, and our problem is that loners like this one can go without their families and communities taking effective action to stem such things.

I find it disturbing how the gun control crowd has been dipping their hands in the blood of children for political reasons before their little bodies were even cold.


I wrote, "I find it disturbing how the gun control crowd has been dipping their hands in the blood of children for political reasons before their little bodies were even cold."

I want to make it clear that I specifically include the Former Union Editor, Jeff Pelline in that group. He posted "the-gun-lobby-and-the-killing-of-children", his first on the matter, noontime on Friday, and no, those little kids wouldn't have been cold yet. Not to mention that there was no good information on what had been happening. Even now, there's no information from Connecticut law enforcement as to they have learned about the killer's motivation.


Greg again comes out and apparently identifies dead children as a political issue, and one he feels in insolvable. If someone runs amuck at MIT, will you be concerned about the killer's motivation, and not comment before you find it out? Get real!

Here's the bulk of my comments on the issues involved: http://farstars.blogspot.com/2012/12/no-way-to-keep-guns-away-from-mentally.html


The eight grade class I was teaching Friday had no trouble identifying the basic outlines virtually immediately. One of the parents called one of the students in total panic. How long did it take Gregory Goodknight to conclude that it had happened pretty much as it was announced in the first couple of hours? One whole day? Three or four days? Or, does he, still not have enough information, to form an opinion? Minds like these lead to these very same tragedies. Total denial, in favor of no gun regulations beyond what we've already got, apparently.

Account Deleted

re: Michael A at 11:28 - You will notice that I responded to Paul E's comment that 'dead is dead'. So I decided to point out who the 'dead' are in this country and their numbers. The aborted appear to heavily out number victims of gun violence by several multiples. I realize asking a liberal to use his or her brain is problematic, but one can always hope. Please, Michael, explain how I was trying to 'diminish' gun violence? I merely cited statistical facts. The lefties in the LSM and on postings at the Daily Kos, of all places are stacking the childrens' bodies in order to find something to stand on to vent their anger at the NRA for whatever grievances they have with right wing politics. That is sick, in my opinion.

Michael Anderson

Look, here's the thing Scott. Paul's observation that the genocide of the American natives equates with modern gun violence is spot on. This was all explicated in "Bowling for Columbine" in 2002. America is drenched in a culture of extreme violence, and the little children of Sandy Hook, and their teachers, are just so much collateral damage. No different than the drones that deliver violence on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, Somalia, Yemen, and other third world terrorist hot spots, including all the poor parts of the Middle East. It's just a machine, a human killing machine, and as long as it stays just under the radar, everything commerce will continue apace. Don't worry. Be happy.

Account Deleted

Hey Michael - I thought you were speechless. If you aren't even going to try backing up your insults, maybe you could at least apologize?
Next -
"America is drenched in a culture of extreme violence, and the little children of Sandy Hook, and their teachers, are just so much collateral damage."
I just pointed out the single biggest act of ongoing violence in this country in numbers that dwarf the violence against the native population of this country. So, what do we do? We can't undo what happened in the 1800's but perhaps we can have a calm discussion of a way forward. How about we affirm the rights and value of all human life? Or shall we continue to legally kill human life we don't like?

Michael Anderson


I was speechless yesterday. Today I am speechful. I hope you can follow along, it's really not all that complicated.

All the women I know support choice in their birth canal and their body. I'll apologize to you in the nanosecond that you apologize to them for having the temerity to claim to know anything about bearing human life. You're a man, Scott. You have no standing on the subject.

We've been legally killing human life we don't like since our inception. I happen to oppose it outside of the womb; for some odd reason you are focused on inside the womb.

I don't even really care about agreeing to disagree on this one, your ideal is going away and your entire world view will soon be relegated to the dustbin of history. It is likely that your centuries-long torture of the female spirit will amount to nothing more than a sad asterisk of human failing, much like witch hunts and flat-earth endeavors.

I don't know anything about you Scott, in person we might have a grand time together, and find some common ground. But until then, I find yours ideas abhorrent and offensive.



" the genocide of the American natives equates with modern gun violence is spot on"

Hardly, though I'm never surprised what Moore thinks he might be explicating. And many of the folks whose forefathers walked here were doing their best to do the same to the folks whose more recent forefathers sailed here.

George Custer arguably deserved what he got.

This looked early on to be yet another alienated young man who didn't fit in, and so far, none of those who follow the credo "Let no crisis go to waste" are working on anything that would stop boys from going Postal. Even DiFi is on it, bringing back a new "assault weapons ban" even though she complained the last was useless because makers kept producing cosmetic variants that met the letter of the useless law.

Plus, it does now appear only his mom was shot with the gas operated "assault weapon". All the kids were shot with pistols that are are century old technology. Actually, more like 120 year old technology.

Mandersonation, you'll just have to live with the fact there are many who believe abortion is murder, and they have as much a right to believe that and it's as valid a point of view as yours, or mine. It won't be going away anytime soon.

Paul Emery

So Scott, are you in favor of criminalizing a woman's decision to have an abortion? How would that be enforced? Would it be murder? Would doctors be guilty of accessory to murder? Would those who council and advise be guilty of breaking the law as accessory to murder? Who would enforce it- State, local, federal? Fill in some blanks here. Could a husband have his wife or partner arrested and imprisoned if guilty? Would the crime be committed at the moment of conception? Would you banish day after treatments? Would you allow contraception and birth control? So many questions. Help me out here.

Michael Anderson

DiFi's assault weapons ban is a non-starter. That is not where this problem will be solved, for a whole lot of reasons.

And Greg, I appreciate that the abortion issue is not going away anytime soon, and though the wrongly-labeled "pro-life" people have a right to their POV, it has nothing to do with validity. If they can form a nation-state that supports the suppression of women through cynically-labeled "pro-life" legislation, I will gladly support this particular version of the Great Divide.


Talk about cynicism... "pro-choice". Dems are pro-choice on so few things. Why not "pro-abortion, taxpayer paid" or "pro-abortion, to be paid by the insurance policy your employer will be forced to pay for"?

I'm pro choice on virtually everything, and think for an abortion to be paid by taxpayers, including Todd and Scott, it should be truly life threatening or the result of a criminal sexual assault by the sperm donor. Or by voluntary contributions to a non-profit, perhaps founded by a eugenicist who thought poor black or white babies would be better off dead than alive.

Todd Juvinall

Greg's last comment (11:37) is spot in. It is fascinating that MA and PE will support he killing of a baby in the womb up until birth apparently and shriek for anyone, even a mass murdering scumbag in the gas chamber. Their world i upside down. It has to be odd to be them and know their mom could have booted them into the trash bin from the womb. Amazing! But, my position is and has always been, no taxpayer money. Educate the human race on the value of all life and as Hillary has even said, make abortion few and far between.

Russ Steele

Law professor, gun owner and blogger on the national conversation on guns, which I find my self in agreement:


Why do people who favor gun-control call people who disagree with them murderers or accomplices to murder? Is that constructive?

Would any of the various proposals have actually prevented the tragedy that is the supposed reason for them?

When you say you hope that this event will finally change the debate, do you really mean that you hope you can use emotionalism and blood-libel-bullying to get your way on political issues that were losers in the past?

If you’re a media member or politician, do you have armed security? Do you have a permit for a gun yourself? (I’m asking you Dianne Feinstein!) If so, what makes your life more valuable than other people’s?

Do you know the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon? Do your public statements reflect that difference?

If guns cause murder, why have murder rates fallen as gun sales have skyrocketed?

Have you talked about “Fast and Furious?” Do you even know what it is? Do you care less when brown people die?

When you say that “we” need to change, how are you planning to change? Does your change involve any actual sacrifice on your part?

Let me know when you’re ready to talk about these things. We’ll have a conversation.

Would any of our anti-gun commenter care to address these thoughts?

Steve Frisch

Dear Russ: Don't you get it by now? We do not care about law, or history or the culture of our nation. All you gun owning right wing crazies are mass murderers. Just bring all your guns down to the foot of Broad Street today so we can package them up and send the to drug gangs in Mexico. We don't really care if any of the proposals would slow the rate of gun violence, because this is not about saving lives, it is all about stealing your liberty so we can control you and bring in the UN. We believe in blood-libel, because we are evil, hard hearted, monsters, who will seize any political advantage to hurt you. We don't give a damn for your safety as long as secret police armed guards protect us (including Dianne). None of us know anything about guns, we are totally ignorant, because we grew up in a society (the good old USA) where guns were not present (we never had families, went to the country, hunted, or learned anything about firearms). The murder rate has dropped because our secret plan to drug everyone is working. We don't give a shyte that of the 600,000 dead from guns in the last 20 years, more than 50% of them were brown. We don't plan to change at all, we plan to make you change, so we can take our rightful place as your overlord and master (until we invite the Kenyans in to do it).

No shut up and bring your guns down to the foot of Broad Street today so we can get started!

There, did you get what you really want instead of what you are pretending you want when you welcome an informed dialogue?

Brad Croul

An "assault" weapon is basically a big boy toy. They look really cool/badass but aren't really the best weapon for a lawful society - maybe they would be advised in a place like Somalia, but not Sonoma. A shotgun is probably all you need for home defense, a bolt action rifle for hunting, and a Glock for your purse and car.

We already have gun control. What we need is stupidity control. The school shooter's mom should have kept those guns locked up in a gun safe and not given the combo to her behaviorally challenged son.


Brad's comment is spot on, and it was the first thing I thought of as well. Guns should be locked up tight.

Steve, maybe there can be a conversation when you stop foaming at the mouth. Get a grip, dude.

DiFi and Co. can do their worst, but unless President O slaps an immediate moratorium on gun sales, you're going to see a spike in the already-rising market for firearms. And any ban will have about as much effect as those on drugs. They will just become more expensive.

Funding for mental health services is a good idea, but there is always the possibility that the govt. will hire shrinks who will deem anyone who wants a gun as dangerous. Even paranoids have real enemies, you know.

We're walking a slippery slope here. Make sure the safety is on.


Steven Frisch, you're off the deep end. Again. And you've made it clear over at Porcine's that, even before Sen. Feinstein has reintroduced her failed "Assault Weapons Ban", you've announced your intention to go to Washington DC to help lobby for it.

There are, by some estimates, a gun for every man, woman and child in the US, and clip fed semiautomatic weapons have been available to civilians since the 1890's, and one clip fed handgun designed and built in the US, first sold 101 years ago is still manufactured and available for sale in Truckee, assuming you have a gun shop. If not, Cabela's just down the hill will be happy to sell you one and deliver it via the California gun dealer of your choice.

Russ' post was fairly accurate, you're the one who's being irrational. Have you been drinking the electric koolaid with Keach?

Regarding school massacres, this one in 1927 killed more kids, and without guns:

We have boys going Postal, even without the wretched experience of working at the USPS. We have a problem with how our country is raising our boys in general, and too many with severe emotional problems are falling through the cracks. Something like this happens and the Steven Frisches and Jeff Pelline's immediately start dipping their hands in the blood of the children not yet cold. Clean yourself off, then talk.


Checking Pelline's sandbox, I see Steven Frisch called me a "twisted soul" who'd made a personal attack on Pelline over here. That "personal attack" was up at 4:45PM where I noted Pelline's first post on the matter, at noon when the little bodies were still lying in pools of blood, and not about the horror but rather "the gun lobby and the killing of children".

Jeff is letting no tragedy go to waste, and neither is Steven Frisch. Get a grip is right.

For the record, I don't own any "assault weapons" and I don't belong to the NRA.


"unless President O slaps an immediate moratorium on gun sales, you're going to see a spike in the already-rising market for firearms"

Earl, I hope you realize that's not something the President has the authority to do and you're just being tongue in cheek.


Keach @ 12:20pm- I don't recall making any comment about safety of semi- vs. full auro weapons. It depends who's holding the weapon, doesn't it?

As for Frisch @ 8:43, we shouldn't be critical of a man who is only expressing his honest opinion, albeit under the false cover of sarcasm. L

Steve Frisch

i am amazed at the lack of tolerance that both earl and greg show for sarcasm, since its in the quiver of one as an artist and on the barbed tongue of the other a professional curmudgeon.


I am often amazed at Steven Frisch's intolerance.

By the way, Stevie, that post of Russ' you went off on was a bit out of line, but not the way you thought, in that he didn't make it completely clear which part was a quote. Virtually the whole thing was in fact posted first by a blogger who is a law professor at the University of Tennessee


Your problem is you can't recognize rationality even when it jumps up and kisses you on both cheeks.

The comments to this entry are closed.