Do We Invite Carnage? (updated 26jul15)

George Rebane

This is in the Letters to the Future department.  We recently had two more multiple killings in the US – one man killed two and wounded nine with a handgun in a Louisiana movie theater, another two young brothers stabbed five family members to death in their Oklahoma home (more here).  This follows the murder of five military service members in Tennessee the week before.  And it wasn’t that long ago before more multiple murders were committed, and before that even more.  There definitely seems to be a correlated sequence of multiple killings from unexpected ambush going on in our land.  And none of them are crimes of forceful takings; there was no robbery or confiscation of material things by the killers, they just wanted to kill as many people as possible before (usually) taking their own lives or being killed by police.

All of these killings receive extensive media attention.  Regular programming is interrupted with detailed reports, more often than not containing very little additional information but repeating in great detail what was reported before.  The media outlets seem to be in a frenzy to compete with each other as they broadcast live from the crime scenes the very latest developments no matter how insignificant, just to have another excuse to comfort their audiences so that they will not miss a jot or jiggle about the latest tragedy.

The killers seem to be of two distinct groups – the mentally weak/deranged and the ideologically driven.  The Tennessee killings were definitely motivated by Islamic globalism, and was the latest of a long string of such inspired killings in America.  The Louisiana killing had components of both a deranged ideology and a deranged psychology.  The Oklahoma killings were committed for unknown reasons by two deranged sons of a larger family, and seem to have no greater motivation than some intra-family tensions.  Yet they all have a common thread in that whatever the dissatisfaction was, it was best solved by multiple killings that would draw a known measure of national and international attention to the killers and their causes.

To me it becomes more clear with every episode that such killing sprees are triggered and, perhaps even motivated by the coverage that the previous occasions of murder and mayhem received.  The common mentality of the killers seems to be that their final ‘moment in the sun’ is clearly worth the loss of their lives and/or lifelong freedom.  The question quickly arises how would the frequency and magnitude of such killings be affected if they each did not receive the media circus that each has to date launched.  Would they continue to be so attractive to the next potential killer if the ‘glory component’ were removed or greatly reduced?

When you consider the number of borderline deranged or ideologically primed people out there who are drawn and positively impacted by today’s lurid and drawn out coverage of these events, it staggers the imagination about what is yet to come.  We can get a sense of the numbers when we consider poll results of our indigenous Muslim population.  The results from a poll by the liberal Migration Policy Institute are reported here.

To arrive at an estimate of the deranged one need only to consult the ‘Mental Illness Facts and Numbers’ published by the National Institute of Mental Health (Download Mentalillness_factsheet).  It would be extremely conservative to assume that in the US at least one person in 100,000 is in a mental state that a continuing reportage of single person carnage would trigger them to seriously consider perpetrating one such event themselves in order to bring their own condition to some state of conclusion or resolution.  If we expand that into a population of 320 million, then there are at least 3,200 of such desperate individuals out there looking at the news and seeing their own vindication in a similar act.  Out of such a population, it is not unreasonable to accept that two or three per year would commit to such a crime, and at least one would proceed undetected to execution.  As the NIMH report indicates, the actual numbers are most likely higher.

So the question stands – do we entice our own mentally ill and religious zealots to commit mass murders by the exhaustive coverage of such events.  I believe we do.  But if that is the problem, then the cure is not clear in a liberal nation whose population is in the large stimulated by circuses rich in death and destruction.  The state cannot readily shut off such reporting, the demand for which has become a cultural imperative for us.

[26jul15 update]  As expected, our liberal commenters would rather not address the point of the above commentary, but immediately rewind and replay their sermons on ‘gun violence’.  This relatively new term is used today by people given to socialism and central planning as a blanket pejorative in their unceasing efforts to disarm America’s civilian population.  One typical approach is to cite the average number of people whose death is caused by firearms, the implied point for the light thinkers being that if we only removed guns from the law abiding population, then this many deaths would be avoided and lives saved.

Today public sentiment dictates that their approach to banning guns must be surreptitious and piecemeal, essentially proscribing the legal usage of guns, making their acquisition range from difficult to impossible, and reducing the availability of ammunition and other gun related equipments.  But their fundamental tack is still to add more gun laws to the books to augment and complicate the unenforced laws already in place.

Apropos to that, Associated Press reports that almost all the recent mass shootings were committed by people whose possession and acquisition of guns was already prohibited by existing laws (more here).  The killers obtained their murder weapons either because government did not enforce a law, or the law’s enforcement went awry through one or more bureaucratic mistakes.  Nevertheless, our progressives’ eternal solution is to pass yet more laws which are guaranteed to suffer the same fate at the hands of criminals, crazies, and the dedicated combatants.  And so goes our national gun debate in 2015.

Comments

[Jon]

Please note that the TN killer also noted to have documented mental illness, not strictly ideology. The LA theater killer- mental illness with far/far right wing ideology present as well (ie, hated liberals).

[George Rebane]

The TN killer's 'mental illness' is a claim of depression by his family. If that is mental illness, then according to the NIMH we are almost all mentally ill at one point or another. Weak connection when compared to the strong and worldwide established strong connection.

In our Muslim population, those condoning violence against the US (their own country) number around 700K. That is almost beyond comprehension when considering the potential for killing sprees as time goes on.

[Jon]

George, we are both talking about the homeland, the domestic borders of the US. Many of us believe there are various threats and various ideologies, domestic and foreign, that pose equal problems at the moment. Again, we have plenty of statistics since 911 to analyze.

[George Rebane]

Jon 657pm - not to lose sight of the topic here which is the contribution of coverage to carnage.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: George Rebane | 25 July 2015 at 07:02 PM

Are we seriously talking about the contribution of the media to the carnage while regularly denying here the role easy access to guns, large capacity magazines, and the modern interpretation of the second amendment plays?

It is like bizarro world.

[Russ]

Ellen refuses to watch the 10:00PM saga of murder and mayhem. It seems to lead every night on the late news, with some cub reporter standing blocks aways from the event with no new information about what happened, interviewing who ever comes down the street. I just turn off the sound and wait for the weatherman/women to give the weather forecast. Once the weather is over, off goes the TV, I do not want to know what the toothless man in the torn t-shirt, or the overweight lady thinks about what happened, and how nice the victim was. It would be a nice break if the victim was a scumbag once in a while.

Watching the evening news one gets the impression that murder and mayhem across the nation is growing by leaps and bounds, yet the crime stats indicate it is declining in most normal communities, Chicago and New York do make the normal cut. It seems with crime declining, the press is trying harder and harder to keep the theme alive and well on the late evening news. They seem to be creating the news that crime is rampant.

One bit of information that seem to crop up in the next to last sound bite is the killer has been, or is currently on psychotropic drugs, for some mental problem. It seems to me if 90% of the killers have used psychotropic drugs, there may be a connection. Thoughts?

[Jon]

Most of the drugs these guys are on are easily obtained with a prescription. These things are certainly not helping, and valid questions to ask. How about we address gun purchase loopholes and such? How is it that these guys are obtaining guns legally on the free market?

[Jon]

By the way Russ, I'm with your wife and your feelings about the news. I've gone a step further and cut off satellite service and no local TV.
Plenty of choices now online without sensationalism. Only problem is streaming major sporting events like the Super Bowl, but usually my family has a tradition that day anyway- spending that winter NorCal Sunday doing something in the great outdoors, then having dinner and if lucky the game may be on a TV in the restaurant. Losing local TV and most of the garbage channels has been a blessing.

[Account Deleted]

"Are we seriously talking about the contribution of the media to the carnage while regularly denying here the role easy access to guns, large capacity magazines, and the modern interpretation of the second amendment plays?"
I'm sure the easy access to guns is why folks are being stabbed to death.
"modern interpretation of the second amendment"?
Whose interpretation?
What about folks using cars to mow down innocent victims?
Would you feel better if you were shot with a fire arm with a 'small' capacity magazine? What is the proper size of magazine to murder folks with?
George is trying to fathom the mind of people that commit random killings in order to perhaps lesson the carnage and all we hear from the left is that they are upset about the kind of weaponry being used.

[Todd Juvinall]

The left fought hard to make sure the mentally ill were guaranteed their constitutional rights back in the late 60's and early 70's. They were successful in that endeavor and states closed mental hospitals and tossed them onto the streets. But they have their rights. Another victory for the left.

[Bill Tozer]

I ran a lap on the nice rubberized track at some high in Colorado while visiting the area. One week after I left that area the Columbine shooting took place. That track and field area I stumbled across and ran a lap was on the high school grounds...Columbine.
The news was shocking, but come on people, it did not warrant 24/7 day in and day out coverage leading to the weeks of non-stop repetitious coverage. Enough already.
Then an Oregon school shooting and a few more copycat school shootings. Was quite the fad for awhile. The common denominator was every school shooter in that period was a kid on anti-depressants. All those head meds each and every shooter was on were (are still are) FDA approved and tested on and for adults, not kids.

Now, shootings happen so often I don't even care to read even a paragraph about it. As boring to me as the Michael Brown non news stories. It's not that the frequencies of the murders fail to get to me anymore. I am just too deeply saddened by where our world is heading to even get excited or riled up about it anymore. If I was a raghead and grew up seeing mass murders and worshippers blown to bits on a every over day occurrence, I would think these evil unspeakable senseless acts of murder were normal. Like, so what, another one bits the dust. But we did not grow up that way or witness hundreds of these horrid episodes. Enough already people, when's football season starting, or has the snowpack in the higher elevations or the Canadian wilds melted yet????

I am with Jon. No TV for 2 1/2 years now and only missed it on SuperBowl Sundays, both of them over a 900 day period, give or take. Turn off the boob tube and let the world go to hell in a hand basket.

The media is responsible as far as folks like to consume that kind of stuff. One of the breaking points for me was the Oakland Earthquake. Yes, a couple dozen souls perished, but friggin damn it, why in the fuk where we subjected to 3 (that's THREE) weeks straight of the same funking footage of a pancaked bridge? 3 weeks of 24/7 coverage and the same shots of a sandwiched bridge???? It's only the Bay Area, not someplace important or newsworthy. That started me thinking about taking the tv to the dump. Eventually, I took all 3 to the dump, each still working fine and without any glitches. 3 week coverage of a collapsed Bay Area bridge??? Beam me up, Scottie. Then 3,000 souls lost their lives in an earthquake in China and never even got 20 minutes of coverage. Fuk the Bay Area. It's not like we are talking about real humans or a real story here. Barely a story and barely human, just like the shooters in the recent color of the week fad in Louzeanna, Bama, and other places.

Hey Jon, I bought up a bunch of sardines so you couldn't clean out the shelves again, you greedy bluejay you.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 25 July 2015 at 09:58 PM

That may be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Try killing 16 people with a knife in a movie theater, or 26 school children and teachers..sure in some extreme cases it could be done...but 88 people a day die from gun violence in America and one day you guys are going to have to recognize that guns actually have something to do with it.

[Account Deleted]

"but 88 people a day die from gun violence in America..."
And what does that have to do with "large" capacity magazines? Or "assault" weapons? Or current gun control laws?
I could easily kill far more than 26 school children with out a gun - in fact, if I were trying to kill as many folks as I could at one go, a firearm would be among my last choice.
Steven Frisch - please tell us exactly what laws you would pass that would have prevented Sandy Hook or the Aurora Colorado theater shooting.
We're trying to stop the carnage, Steve. You just want to focus on the weaponry. It's called getting to the root of the problem. It involves looking at the facts, and not running off with your hair on fire about 'guns'. We're trying to determine why some humans decide to try to kill a lot of other random humans and stop it or at least slow it down. You can join the effort or go off on rants.

[Todd Juvinall]

ScottO was there not a fellow who murdered a lot of people i China with a knife?

[fish]

Posted by: Steven Frisch | 25 July 2015 at 11:25 PM

.....but 88 people a day die from gun violence in America and one day you guys are going to have to recognize that guns actually have something to do with it.

Yes they do....just like "A $2 drop in gasoline is linked to some 9,000 additional road fatalities per year in the United States, (NPR recently reported.)"*. Fortunately though nothing will be done about it.

Barack Obama: US Firearms Salesman of the Year (2009 - 2014 - projected winner for 2015 as well)

Interesting that his former haunt (the general geographic region anyway. I doubt the mean streets of Hyde Park are contributing much to the tally) is responsible for about 10% of your daily kill rate. I would expect other progressive strongholds are similarly represented in the numbers.

http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings

* http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/americas-top-killing-machine/384440/

[George Rebane]

I invite your kind attention to the 26jul15 update to this post.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: George Rebane | 26 July 2015 at 08:30 AM

Naturally you are going to update the post with what is essentially a denial that the large number of gun deaths in the United States has nothing to do with guns.

It has everything to do with guns.

Anywhere I live in the country I could go out and get a gun in about 1 day, or less. I live in California; I could cross over into Nevada in about 45 minutes and go to a private dealer or gun show and walk out with a gun today.

If I live in Chicago, the favorite example here even though it is not the highest crime or even gun death per capita city in the US, I could go to Indiana in about 1 hour and get a gun.

A big part of the problem is that anyone can get a gun of almost any make or model almost any time they want.

I also agree that a big part of the problem is the rise of psychotropic drugs, elimination of in patient mental health facilities over the last 50 years, and a culture of violence that leads to the US not only being one of the highest gun related violence countries in the world, but also having incredibly high level of violence of all stripes....from assault to domestic violence.

Of course it is true that you could kill 26 people with a bomb or a knife or a hammer Scott....but it is a lot harder to do, the chances of you being stopped in the process of the crime and the numbers dead being reduced are much higher, and frankly a lot of people simply don't have the strength to do it. I can't see Dylan Roff overpowering those 9 people at Mother Emanuel with a hammer Scott.

And isn't it just like Todd to say the functional equivalent to, "Hey some guy in China did it, so it is POSSIBLE for someone to commit mass murder with a toothbrush, thus laws against guns won't stop mass murder."

I would think with all the self proclaimed smart people here the logical fallacy of this position would be clear.

To deny the link between gun violence and guns is like denying the link between sunrise and light. It defies logic.

I don't expect to make any headway here.

[fish]

Posted by: Steven Frisch | 26 July 2015 at 08:53 AM

I would think with all the self proclaimed smart people here the logical fallacy of this position would be clear.

I have never proclaimed to be one of the "smart people" when posting here. I have in fact stipulated my status as "midwit" on a couple of occasions. This is why its so sad when when the Emerys and JoKe show up to argue.

To deny the link between gun violence and guns is like denying the link between sunrise and light. It defies logic.

I'm not sure that anybody here has recently attempted to sever the link. Of course guns and gun violence are inextricably linked.

The question of violence in general and guns requires more nuance.

I don't expect to make any headway here.

Nor in greater population either it would seem.

[Bill Tozer]

This may help you Steven Frisch: I feel your pain. There, all better now.

[Steven Frisch]

"Apropos to that, Associated Press reports that almost all the recent mass shootings were committed by people whose possession and acquisition of guns was already prohibited by existing laws (more here). The killers obtained their murder weapons either because government did not enforce a law, or the law’s enforcement went awry through one or more bureaucratic mistakes."

This might be a valid point IF gun proponents had not opposed these laws to begin with, did not resist these laws as they are being implemented, did not find every way to get around background checks through private dealer and gun show exemptions, did not glorify those who violate these laws for standing up for their view of the 2nd amendment, and did not starve government of the resources needed to enforce the laws.

It is kind of hypocrisy to state that proper enforcement of existing laws would solve the problem when the gun industry opposed the laws to begin with and resist their enforcement.

[Todd Juvinall]

How do you explain the incredible number of murders on a weekly basis in Chicago DC and other places with very strict gun laws.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 26 July 2015 at 09:32 AM

I think I explained it above...the US ranks number 1 in the world in the number of guns owned per capita and even if the jurisdiction I live in has strict gun control I can go just about anywhere in a day and get a gun.

The answer is simple; reduce the supply of guns.

[fish]

Posted by: Steven Frisch | 26 July 2015 at 09:26 AM

This might be a valid point IF gun proponents had not opposed these laws to begin with, did not resist these laws as they are being implemented, did not find every way to get around background checks through private dealer and gun show exemptions, did not glorify those who violate these laws for standing up for their view of the 2nd amendment, and did not starve government of the resources needed to enforce the laws.

In our political system all sides get to influence legislation. As a proponent of representative democracy I thought you favored this.

Who specifically has "glorified" those who violate the law and why hasn't law enforcement prosecuted the violators? Standing up for "their view of the second amendment" is completely legitimate method to practice non-violent protest Steve. If these actions are found to be in violation of statute then it is for the courts to decide. Something else you endorse if I'm not mistaken.

Starving the government for resources is just another euphemism for "we can't allocate resources properly give us more money". I'm sure the Mexican government would have been much happier had the last two administrations focused on legitimate gun related issues instead of political stunts like "Fast and Furious".

[fish]

Posted by: Steven Frisch | 26 July 2015 at 09:38 AM

The answer is simple; reduce the supply of guns.

Horse meet barn door.

[Todd Juvinall]

Ponder this libs, those countries that have laws restricting gun ownership have seen many changes in their governments, revolutions and system failures. America, where gun ownership is protected for individuals, has has a fairly calm government. Please explain that?

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: fish | 26 July 2015 at 09:46 AM

"Who specifically has "glorified" those who violate the law and why hasn't law enforcement prosecuted the violators?"

Well, many here did for example when they glorified people aiming firearms at Federal agents at Bunkerville.....an illegal act.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 26 July 2015 at 09:50 AM

",,,,those countries that have laws restricting gun ownership have seen many changes in their governments, revolutions and system failures."

I think you might want to walk that statement back Todd...looking at per capita gun ownership the stability of the government and the ownership of guns seems to be a little less connected than you think.

There may be a few other external forces at play than just the ownership of guns.

[Steven Frisch]

here are the per capita statistics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

[fish]

Posted by: Steven Frisch | 26 July 2015 at 09:53 AM

Well, many here did for example when they glorified people aiming firearms at Federal agents at Bunkerville.....an illegal act.

If I recall correctly the glorification was of the resistance in general not specifically the drawing down on the feds.

Again if it was illegal why hasn't FEDGOV elected to prosecute? Tons of video evidence for a government prosecutor to pour over....I'm surprised that nothing has happened given this fact alone.

[Todd Juvinall]

Tell us Mr. Frisch what the gun ownership rules were in 1930's Germany. Also Spain. How about any ARAB country today. How about 1917 Russia. Or the Baltic States in the 20'2. Maybe present day China. You see, the private ownership of guns has kept teo things from happening in America since 1787. Foriengn invaders (except Britain in 1812) are wary of attacking the homeland and the government is wary of making the citizens to mad. Like Jefferson said in the Declaration, PO me too much and we have the right to toss the government and put in another.

[George Rebane]

fish 1005am - Mr fish, you might point out to Mr Frisch that pointing guns at redcoats was an illegal act. And then one can question such progressives, suddenly intent on laws being followed, why their own regime ignores so many laws and purposely avoids their enforcement and/or prosecution of violators.

[Gary Smith]

Am interesting topic I have been thinking about. Besides the media factor I think another possible factor is the drugs that are prescribed by mental health professionals. Maybe in a small percentage of mental health patients there is a adverse side affect that pushes them over the edge? Maybe there is a pattern with study that could be shown between some of these drugs and certain types of mental illness? But with our new HEPA privacy laws of course what drugs were prescribed will never be know. My guess is the drug companies like it that way. Try find out what drugs or the mental health records for the kid that committed the Sandy Hook massacre. They will never be released.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 26 July 2015 at 10:37 AM

Well it would appear that having oceans between the US and Europe and Asia would have something to do with the low incidents of foreign invasion as well.

[George Rebane]

GaryS 1044am - Excellent point that you and RussS (807pm) bring up. To presume that prescribed psychotropic drugs taken by so many of these mentally deranged killers play no part in the carnage is definitely a bridge too far that is crossed only by those collectivist who first and foremost want to co-opt the conversation to gun control.

[fish]

Posted by: George Rebane | 26 July 2015 at 10:41 AM

I don't think in the most rhetorically overheated moment of that thread (Bundy/Bunkerville) that the notion of revolution was broached. We're not there yet.

The selective interpretation/enforcement of the law by the current administration however is a completely legitimately topic for Steve to address.

[George Rebane]

fish 1052am - Agreed. My 1041am point was that ALL forms of situational pushback to government force/agencies is deemed illegal by governments, and especially so by governments that gratuitously rattle their sabers on their certain road to autocracy.

[Jon]

Steve 10:49...exactly. Reminds me of Todd's theory last week when he said the Swiss have avoided invasions due to the preponderance of armed men thoughout the country.

..yeah..

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: George Rebane | 26 July 2015 at 10:49 AM

Posted by: Steven Frisch | 26 July 2015 at 08:53 AM

Please note, I am agreeing with you guys that the link between psychotropic drugs and mass murder need to be explored.

Why did we decentralize and privatize mental health care again?

[fish]

Posted by: Steven Frisch | 26 July 2015 at 11:36 AM

Why did we decentralize and privatize mental health care again?

There was legislation and legal cases in California that forced the closure of state run mental health facilities. This resulting both from an attempt to save money (legislation) and the prohibition of forced institutionalization except of the most dire of circumstances (Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act, which virtually abolished involuntary hospitalization except in extreme cases. (legislation stemming from various legal rulings)).

"California has traditionally been on the cutting edge of American cultural developments, with Anaheim and Modesto experiencing changes before Atlanta and Moline. This was also true in the exodus of patients from state psychiatric hospitals. Beginning in the late 1950s, California became the national leader in aggressively moving patients from state hospitals to nursing homes and board-and-care homes, known in other states by names such as group homes, boarding homes, adult care homes, family care homes, assisted living facilities, community residential facilities, adult foster homes, transitional living facilities, and residential care facilities. Hospital wards closed as the patients left. By the time Ronald Reagan assumed the governorship in 1967, California had already deinstitutionalized more than half of its state hospital patients. That same year, California passed the landmark Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act, which virtually abolished involuntary hospitalization except in extreme cases. Thus, by the early 1970s California had moved most mentally ill patients out of its state hospitals and, by passing LPS, had made it very difficult to get them back into a hospital if they relapsed and needed additional care. California thus became a canary in the coal mine of deinstitutionalization."

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/

I imagine that going forward these will be reestablished both as legitimate treatment centers and as a place to use to house opponents of future progressive regimes.

Is privatization germane to the link between the prescription of psychotropic drugs and the incidence of firearm related mass murder?

[Todd Juvinall]

Steven Frisch | 26 July 2015 at 10:49 AM

Oceans did not stop the invasion by the hideous white men to this hemisphere as you Libs constantly tell us. If the Indian had guns what would have been the outcome?

[Bonnie McGuire]

Are our public schools still collecting $420 per child (mostly boys) they put on Ritalin (or Adderall) because it was easier than discipline? A form of meth. Research shows most of the young men shooters have this background leading to the use and abuse of other drugs to control their misery. There have been many documentaries regarding this obscene practice in public schools. So glad our family members and family attorney wouldn't let them force it on our wonderful, talented, hard working grandson when he was young. Locally we now have generations of desperate meth (and other drug) users roaming our towns, neighborhoods and woods stealing whatever to support their addiction. Those targeted need to be able to protect themselves from our government created insanity. Hate to tell you this, but we've witnessed it first hand.

[Gregory]

"It is kind of hypocrisy to state that proper enforcement of existing laws would solve the problem when the gun industry opposed the laws to begin with and resist their enforcement." -Frisch

Imagine little Stevie Frisch, three days after Christmas, complaining that to have any fun he needs some new toys. Mom and Dad say you're not playing with the ones you wanted last week. Who wins? No Steve, you're being told that if you want more restrictive gun laws, start taking the last ones you demanded seriously. If the old ones don't need enforcing, repeal them.

I don't think any particular law will solve the problem, mainly because there is no single "problem". If we're talking about mass killings, they generally happen in pretend "gun free zones", so one fix might be to outlaw pretend gun free zones and, come to think about it, they weren't happening with any frequency before the Frisch's of the world decided they felt better about life if everyone saw a sign that declared it so.

At the same time of the Virginia Tech massacre in their pretend gun free zone, the University of Utah was agonizing over their own quandary... freshmen with concealed handgun permits expected to be able to store their weapons in their rooms and, under Utah law, had the right to do so... but what happens if their assigned roomate didn't want a gun in their room? I don't know how they resolved that problem but one thing is clear: there hasn't been any problems with the kiddies in Utah shooting up their math classes. It's also clear the mass shooters are choosing killing venues that are supposed to be gun free, if everyone else obeyed the sign at the entrance.

Why don't we solve the problem once and for all by just making murder and manslaughter illegal?

[Account Deleted]

"The answer is simple; reduce the supply of guns."

So, I'll ask you again, Steven F., what laws, rules, etc would you specifically propose?
You love to prop up your little straw men and post your cut and paste brain-dead arguments - how about following up with sane replies that answer my questions?
And please tell us how reducing the supply of guns will reduce other mass violence that doesn't involve guns?
I'm afraid the govt answer to that is mass surveillance - both electronic and by visual tracking of physical movements. AI can 'watch' over the populace by sifting through our correspondence, postings and online traffic patterns. Coupled with data on our purchases and movements in vehicles, they will have no trouble proving that this sort of tracking and intervention (off to the facility) stops random carnage.
And the volk will love it.
There will, of course, be all sorts of other unfortunates that have to be vacuumed up 'for their own good' because they have funny ideas about following the Constitution, but I digress.

[Account Deleted]

"Why don't we solve the problem once and for all by just making murder and manslaughter illegal?"

Oh, no - we can't have that! The 'disparate outcome' rule puts a stop to that.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: fish | 26 July 2015 at 12:03 PM

"Is privatization germane to the link between the prescription of psychotropic drugs and the incidence of firearm related mass murder?"

I actually think that is a very good question Fish.

The case many have made is that before the rise of psychotropic drugs in the 1960's & 70's patients were institutionalized, and thus more controlled. If that is the case they were less available to commit crimes. I would have to actually look at the data to see if that is true.

And I'm with Bonnie sharing a personal experience; I know a kid who if the school system had had their way would have been on Ritalin for years and whose parents resisted and overcame the 'inconvenience' of having an active child who is now a top achiever.

[Gregory]

I see from the national stats, there are only 88 guns per 100 people in the USA. I guess some of you guys are just going to have to share.

Japan has only .6 guns per 100 people; other countries with that same level of ownership are Haiti, North Korea, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. Choose your paradise, but be aware... if one looks at combined murder and suicide rates as a "violent death rate", Japan beats us handily. They also have sword control.

[Todd Juvinall]

Frisch has no answers just slogans. I like what Gregory said. If there is such a problem with the ten thousand or more gun laws and they are not working, repeal them. Then we can debate their replacement. But, like all of Frisch's input here, there is no WIKI for him to cut and paste.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 26 July 2015 at 12:57 PM

No, I just have answers that you don't agree with and don't want to hear. If I were king (and I ain't) I would do the following:

1) Destroy all guns confiscated and adjudicated rather than keeping them in the marketplace
2) Ban all assault style weapons....period
3) Ban all high capacity magazines
4) Require a certificate of ownership be issued in advance for all gun sales
4) Require a 30 day minimum check for ALL arms purchses (no check conducted no sale)
5) Ban sales at gun shows and from private parties--sales would be required to go through a dealer
6) Require registration of all guns...ALL
7) Ban public carry of firearms (except concealed weapons in tightly controlled situations)
8) Require that 'collectable' firearms be disabled
9) Require showing certificate of ownership for the purchase of ammunition
10) Ban ammunition designed to penetrate body armor.

Don't like it, move to Serbia :)

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 26 July 2015 at 12:48 PM

"And please tell us how reducing the supply of guns will reduce other mass violence that doesn't involve guns?"

I never said reducing guns would reduce the huge number of people killed by hammers every year.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

But since the statistics show that the ration of gun deaths to knives, fists and hammers is about 5:1, 12:1 and 18:1 respectively it would force people to commit their murder a little more up close and personal.

[Todd Juvinall]

Steven Frisch | 26 July 2015 at 01:26 PM

Another WIKI list and this was from the Communist Party of America.

[Gregory]

"Are we seriously talking about the contribution of the media to the carnage while regularly denying here the role easy access to guns, large capacity magazines, and the modern interpretation of the second amendment plays?"

Steven Frisch writes as if the 2nd Amendment only recently was thought of as conferring an individual right, but there are famous opinions to the contrary which clearly show they were so widely believed as to not require a SCOTUS taking a case:

From one infamous majority opinion:
"[This] would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased...to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford, March 6, 1857

Taney didn't like the idea of Negroes With Attitude and Guns, both of which would be a natural consequence of granting Dred Scott his due.

I'd like to assure Frisch that, were he King and tried to trash the Bill of Rights as he has detailed, he would be the first one up against the wall after the revolution was over.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 26 July 2015 at 01:45 PM

Sorry, no Wiki here Todd, I made the list up all by myself.

What I find amazing is how stupid Todd and Don appear when they just say shit off the top of their heads.

[Gregory]

What I find amazing is how stupid Frisch appears when he writes shit after giving it what passes for thought in his world.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Gregory | 26 July 2015 at 02:05 PM

I will gladly let you stand with your peers Gregory :)

[Gregory]

In the matter of restrictive gun laws, it would appear Bernie Sanders is one of my peers, though I wouldn't put him past supporting onerous gun restrictions on the law abiding if he didn't have to win any more elections in his home state.

[Todd Juvinall]

Honestly, Steve Frisch is the most ignorant poster on this blog. My goodness, hide the children.

[Steven Frisch]

There is nothing in my list posted above that has not either been implemented at local levels in the US before or has not stood the test of a Constitutional challenge.

There should be nothing in that list that responsible law abiding gun owners disagree with.

[Don Bessee]

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAH! Frischy is always good for a laugh, sounds like you would be happier in Serbia! frischy @ 157, there are no posts from me on this thread braniac. LOL Perhaps the other thread noting your perception of self-perfection condition that makes for such a brittle exterior covering the usual vacant interior that causes the repetition of long discredited socialist talking points. Ya, sounds like a crack in the in the candy coating for sure. ;-)

[Todd Juvinall]

Steven Frisch | 26 July 2015 at 02:35 PM

So if all on your list are already law or proved Constitutional? You apparently can't read the question of you. What would you do was the question. Once again proving your are the dumbest person posting here.

[Gregory]

By Frisch's 2:35 we could reimpose slavery and cite Dred Scott v. Sandford as a justification.

Steven Frisch, CEO of the wretchedly misnamed Sierra Business Council, none of the laws you enumerate in your 1:26 would pass muster in the modern SCOTUS save #5 and that is already pretty much the law.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 26 July 2015 at 03:06 PM

You're an idiot Todd. They are not widely nor universally applied.

[fish]

Posted by: Steven Frisch | 26 July 2015 at 01:26 PM

1) Destroy all guns confiscated and adjudicated rather than keeping them in the marketplace

This would be fine except I doubt that local law enforcement would forgo the revenue from these sales. It could be done very easily administratively but frequently isn't. It behooves the monarch to keep the kings men happy.

You would also have to ensure that weapons weren't seized capriciously and destroyed without due process.

2) Ban all assault style weapons....period

You'd have to settle on a workable definition. Democratic legislators seem completely incapable of crafting legislation that actually gets rid of "assault weapons".....they are pretty good at criminalizing non lethal cosmetic features......maybe this is another ploy to continuously fail upward legislatively.

Perhaps the king will be more effective.

3) Ban all high capacity magazines

Largely pointless but hey you're King Steve and the monarch gets to be capricious.

4) Require a certificate of ownership be issued in advance for all gun sales

I'm not sure that I understand the rationale for this at all.

4) Require a 30 day minimum check for ALL arms purchses (no check conducted no sale)

Again, I'm not sure that I understand the rationale for this. In California it's seven days....again it seems rather arbitrary. Perhaps the gears of the bureaucracy just turn a little slower in Steveghanistan?

5) Ban sales at gun shows and from private parties--sales would be required to go through a dealer

His lordship will probably just create a black market.

6) Require registration of all guns...ALL

To what end other than eventual confiscation?

7) Ban public carry of firearms (except concealed weapons in tightly controlled situations)

Interested to know what those "tightly controlled situations" would be? Protecting the liege perhaps?

8) Require that 'collectable' firearms be disabled

Sound thinking my lord...there has been a rash of musket related crime as of late!

9) Require showing certificate of ownership for the purchase of ammunition

Again his lordship is going to make a certain set of people fabulously wealthy from black market ammunition sales. I hope to be one of these people.

10) Ban ammunition designed to penetrate body armor.

Hollow point ammunition only sire then....excellent choice! I'm sure your subjects will approve.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Gregory | 26 July 2015 at 03:13 PM

Gregory, how nice of you to name my employer. I wonder why you would do that? What does it have to do with anything we are talking about here?

[Gregory]

As a founder and current CEO, you are your employer, Steven.

Your 'all guns must be registered' is already unconstitutional... if you are a felon or any other person forbidden arms, your guns are protected from needing registration due to 5th Amendment protections against self incrimination.

[Gregory]

Regarding 'no private sales, all must go through dealers'... look at the fine print. Most all of the "sales" that would start going through dealers would be transfers between family members.

[Todd Juvinall]

Fish and Gregory have demolished the Steve Frisch, Letterman Top Ten and very handily. When Frisch said they (the ten) were already on the books or constitutional, he showed his ignorance of the questions asked. Then in response to his inanity he namecalls. I think the readers here can see his total ignorance and childish behavior are his stock and trade.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Gregory | 26 July 2015 at 03:47 PM

I think you are kind of showing how little you know Greg. I work for a corporation not for myself.

[Todd Juvinall]

Gregory is totally right. Frisch is his own non-profit boss. Just look at those 990's. If you can make out what they mean then you should be a IRS agent.

[Gregory]

Steven Frisch, it's not like you're one of the worker bees at the Sierra Business Council hired off the street for a quarter of your pay. You are a proud co-founder and current CEO, correct? And because of your position, people like the Mayor of Sacramento sign op eds with you concerning public matters.

You don't get to turn off the public persona just because you want to espouse a radical fringe position on a blog and make no mistake, it is a radical fringe position, even for California.

[Account Deleted]

Oh, thank you Steven F. As I thought. Once you have to actually try to come up with a specific you fall on your face. How would any of your anti-Constitutional laws have prevented Sandy Hook?
Seems our little nut job forgot to follow the existing rules and just offed mom and made off with the weapons.
Naughty, naughty - didn't follow the Steven Frisch rules. Steve will be just livid. And the children are still dead, but hey - we gots all these new rules! Doesn't that make the parents of the dead children feel waaaaay better? Of course we don't want to have any guns at the schools. At least not at the govt run schools. The president is happy his daughters go to a swell private school and there's a rumour that maybe folks with machine guns hang around the place.
So his kids are safe. Sorry about yours.
Steve, really - you jump from one statistic to the next and conflate them all with out thinking. Stop using the cut and paste and use your brain.
First you cite statistics on 'gun violence' and then jump to murder. Not the same thing, my friend.
'Gun violence' includes suicide, (large capacity mags mean a lot here) drunken fools accidentally shooting themselves or their kids or their buddy and so forth.
Like most folks, you have no education on fire arms, save what you read in the LSM or Daily Kos.
Really, Steve - "I never said reducing guns would reduce the huge number of people killed by hammers every year."
Uh - who said you did? Please try to stick to the subject of reducing random violence.

[Bill Tozer]

Ok, everyone knows it is easier to kill a few people with a gun than with a ball ping hammer or a fireplace poker. I would use a tomahawk and long knife, but that is not the preferred instrument of mayhem used by murders or terrorists or the criminally insane. Every so often, someone uses an explosive device or just plain drives a car down a crowded sidewalk. But yeah, guns are easier and do a splendid job of whacking folks.

But, why are these formerly rare events becoming so commonplace. Is it something in the water (for the non-Muslim attacks)?? My answer is the blanket statement that the days are becoming more evil as predicted. Not a very satisfactory answer I admit. It is no consolation to those who wish to return to the days of Ozzie and Harriet. The first man born murdered his brother (Cain and Abel) and it was not called The Wild Wild West for nuthin'.

Remember that mother than put her kids in a car and pushed the vehicle into a pond about 10 years ago? Shocking. Made international news and here in the States the debate raged for days as to why. It was almost unbelievable at the time that any mother was capable of doing such an unthinkable thing to her children. Some (especially the women's groups) blamed the husband for not stopping it while he was at work. What is my point??? My point is nowadays, if some crazy Mom drowns her kids in the bathtub we just read it and weep with no week long story reharsh and experts spouting their opinions on CNN. We are conditioned and it happens all the time now. Just a news blurb.

Why? Why all the gang bangers and family murders and shot-em up bang bang stories daily?? Because of the breakdown of societal structure. Because of the devaluation of life. Because of the "do your own thing" attitude. Because of drugs, mental and emotional illness, because of too many rats in the cage, because of a feeling of isolation, because of this feeling of being lost and friendless on a hostile planet. Because of a lack of love in one's heart. We live in a time when evil reigns supreme. Solution: Kill everybody. Real solution? Prepare for it getting worse. Our government is.

[Gregory]

Regarding the Wild West, I believe Tucson was never as dangerous as Boston.

My comments on King Steve's proclamations:

1) Destroy all guns confiscated and adjudicated rather than keeping them in the marketplace
Bad gun! Bad gun!
Putting firearms out of the financial reach of the poor, especially blacks, has been a feature of US gun control efforts from the start, and all this does is raise prices for used guns. It would also likely destroy a number of irreplaceable firearms with historic or sentimental value. Granddad's M1911 from WWI or WWII, perhaps.

2) Ban all assault style weapons....period
"Assault weapon" is a US political fabrication, an intentional conflation of single shot per trigger pull semi-auto/autoloading rifles and pistols with machine guns that are cosmetically similar. "Assault rifles" date from around WWII and have never been legal for sale in California. "Assault weapon" as a term of art was from the start designed to make enough people think the Assault Weapons Ban was banning machine guns, when they were already effectively banned already, with new production halted (for civilian sales in the few states that allow them) during the Clinton years.

And, King Steve, after telling your subjects to throw away these weapons... were you intending to actually compensate owners for the actual market value before the proclamation?

3) Ban all high capacity magazines
This only affects self defense uses. Folks intending to kill innocents can carry as many 10 round (purely subjective, the most common legislated "high capacity" number) magazines they want. A self defense weapon will likely only have one or two at hand. And by banning, I assume King Steve would want to force owners of such legislated contraband to dispose of them without compensation.

4) Require a certificate of ownership be issued in advance for all gun sales
Obviously just to make it a bigger hassle to gain ownership.

4) (sic... two #4's) Require a 30 day minimum check for ALL arms purchases (no check conducted no sale)
And if someone is wanting to buy a gun for an immediate threat against their lives, they can just hope their would-be killer has a full schedule. This hurdle of Frisch's assumes there is no valid need to have a gun, including defense of self and family.

I'm not sure there is any good reason whatsover to make someone wait 30 days if they already lawfully possess one or more guns. Steve?

An aside... US v. Miller, the very SCOTUS case that found the big national firearms act (1934) to be constitutional, had Miller claim a self defense need for the sawed off shotgun when he lost a lower court case. The SCOTUS hearing was without defense counsel speaking for Miller because he was murdered in the meantime and his estate didn't hire an attorney so for 80 years, we got laws based on a precedent found without anyone arguing the case against the Federal attorney. In a further irony, one of the justices opined that unless there was evidence that the sawed off was usable in a "well regulated militia" they couldn't rule the 2nd applied (there was no one to present such evidence, and military historians can point to numerous examples) and, with the biggest double whammy... those military-styled weapons Frisch wants to ban outright are exactly what that justice would have found constitutionally protected 80 years ago.

5) Ban sales at gun shows and from private parties--sales would be required to go through a dealer

So, I have to go to a dealer to give or lend a gun to my adult son?

6) Require registration of all guns...ALL
Except those possessed by felons, other violent criminals, the insane, the underage. They can't be convicted of registration violations.

7) Ban public carry of firearms (except concealed weapons in tightly controlled situations)
Like in Chicago... if you aren't a crony of the Mayor, forget about it.

8) Require that 'collectable' firearms be disabled
Bad gun! Bad gun! These are undetectable in crime stats.

9) Require showing certificate of ownership for the purchase of ammunition
Again, just makes it harder to own and use your firearms for valid purposes.

10) Ban ammunition designed to penetrate body armor.
This one really is insidious... as these proposed laws effectively ban most hunting ammunition and at least one, banning any "Teflon" bullet, actually resulted in removing a handgun cartridge that was designed to not only not go through body armor but also not through walls.

It may well be that all of the above have, at one time or another, been found to be constitutional... before the 2nd was fully incorporated into the Bill of Rights and found to bind state and local governments, but the current movement is repeal of state and local laws that infringe on the now settled law that the 2nd is an individual right to own and carry guns. Just how much owning and carrying can be regulated before it would be considered an unconstitutional infringement is the current task of state and federal courts.

Steve missed a couple from the all time hit parade of laws to catch those without criminal intent... mandatory trigger locks, requiring locked metal storage boxes, etc. Anything to make it harder to actually use a lawfully possessed firearm, even if one's door is being broken down by thugs during a home invasion.

Steven Frisch, just wondering... is the "Sierra Business Council" posted as a gun free zone? Inquiring minds want to know.

[fish]

From the city "Where Black Lives Matter".......

and where....despite recent court rulings it remains difficult to legally purchase a gun.

July To Date

Shot & Killed: 45
Shot & Wounded: 229
Total Shot: 274
Total Homicides: 47

The Weekend’s Stupidity

Shot & Killed: 7
Shot & Wounded: 34
Total Shot: 41
Total Homicides: 7

Year To Date

Shot & Killed: 234
Shot & Wounded: 1319
Total Shot: 1553
Total Homicides: 268

I wonder if they run an excursion bus....much like the casino buses we all see on the highway....to buy guns in the hinterlands surrounding Chiraq?

[Todd Juvinall]

Now the poor gal who handed herself in jail is the cause celeb of the anti-cops. I am sorry she did that to herself but the spin the race hustlers are using is so farcical. The cop was initially polite to her but she did not obey the commands and was out of control. But as Sheriff Clark of Milwaukee says (he is black), obey the commands and be courteous. All will end well. Don't and all hell breaks loose.

I wonder why Al and Jesse are not saying the same things about the Arab who murdered five white military last week. As they stay quiet on that, their cred level drops way way down.

[Steven Frisch]

1) Destroy all guns confiscated and adjudicated rather than keeping them in the marketplace.

Yes, with roughly just under one gun per person in the US, and with many jurisdictions embracing a SOP where confiscated guns are sold and end up back on the market, I believe the policy should be that once guns are confiscated and adjudicated (note that, because if jurisdictions wanted to save collectible guns for historic purposes they could) the guns should be destroyed, thus INCREASING THE COST of buying a gun. I don't really care if the cost of a gun goes up.

2) Ban all assault style weapons....period

Assault weapons that fire multiple rounds with a single trigger pull, that are designed for urban warfare and anti-personnel uses rather than legitimate hunting purposes, should be banned, period. No more AR-15's that make little men feel like soldiers.

3) Ban all high capacity magazines

I don't really give a damn if Greg thinks this is arbitrary--I don't want the murderer of my friends to be able to have a 100 pound magazine for an altered or even a legal assault weapon, I want them to have to change magazines more often. And yes, I don;t care if we 'compensate' owners of high capacity magazines for them. Make them illegal and confiscate and destroy them as we find them.

4) Require a certificate of ownership be issued in advance for all gun sales.

This is analogous to to the gun ownership certification required in Great Britain and Germany. Registering owners rather than guns means before potential owners are even eligible to purchase a gun an initial screen for mental health and criminal behavior is conducted. If it creates a two step process to purchase a legal firearm, I got no problem with that.

5) Require a 30 day minimum check for ALL arms purchses (no check conducted no sale)

30 days is a more realistic period of time for law enforcement agencies to conduct the investigation they need to do to ensure that mistakes are not made. If someone has a safety issue in the mean time they could go to law enforcement and report the problem. In cases where an interim carry permit needs to be issued to provide safety that could be done, but it would be done under the auspices of law enforcement. If you think your ex husband is going to kill you you should go to law enforcement anyway.

6) Ban sales at gun shows and from private parties--sales would be required to go through a dealer.

Yes, I don't really give a damn if this means that Dad can;t give junior an AR-15---the kid needs to get registered, issued a permit, and the sale needs to be controlled.

7) Require registration of all guns...ALL

So if we need to change the Constitution to do this, or return to a more rational interpretation of the 2nd amendment, so be it.

8) Ban public carry of firearms (except concealed weapons in tightly controlled situations)

There is no reason for people to be walking into a Denny's or a Walmart with an AR strapped to their back. It is bullshit anti-social behavior. If one needs to get a concealed carry permit for safety let them go to their local police and get one.

9) Require that 'collectable' firearms be disabled

This is a market limitation measure. As guns get more expensive the utility of collectable forearms will increase and make them more attractive for the commission of crimes. Disabling could be done without damaging the firearm.

10) Require showing certificate of ownership for the purchase of ammunition

Yes, this makes it harder to use ammunition for legitimate purposes, but it also makes it harder to use ammo for illegitimate purposes. If you are a legal certificate holder it should slow you down by about 30 seconds. If you are not legal it means you have to go through someone else and makes it criminal behavior.

11) Ban ammunition designed to penetrate body armor.

Stands on its own just ask any cop.

[Steven Frisch]

Oh, I changed the numbering, thanks Greg.

[fish]

Posted by: Steven Frisch | 28 July 2015 at 07:49 AM

Well good luck with your bold proposals King Steve.

[Todd Juvinall]

Steve Frisch's proposals are not his. He is always a cut and paste guy and a WIKI fanatic. My guess, the Communist Manifesto or some other high level coomie book. He seems to be a follower of Marx and I don't mean the brothers.

[Bill Tozer]

Communist Manifesto Todd? You made a grievous error my good man. I will attempt to correct that for you. You either meant Agenda 21 or the Obama Doctrine. There, it's fixed.

What I cannot understand is all this hullabaloo over "Bang, your time has expired." Agenda 21 can only work in theory and reality if we decrease the population. Now that we have people taking it upon themselves to implement this Enlightened Vison by doing their own population control, the lefties get their panties all crinkled in a wad. Go figure.

Anybody know if Chicago's population is increasing or decreasing?

[fish]

Posted by: Bill Tozer | 28 July 2015 at 08:57 AM

Don't know with any certainty William but given Chicago propers impending financial problems and routine crime related weekend antics my guess would be decreasing.

[Bill Tozer]

Steve, one small teenie weinnie point you overlooked. I once owned a 1866 US standard issue Calvary rifle. Single shot. I drove around with that in the back of the van down by the river without problems. You see, the ATF declared a gun that old was NOT a firearm. Nay, it was legally classified as an antique. To me, it was a historical antique well worth it's weight. Think there are more laws you have to get changed along with a total rewrite of the 2nd Amendment than you may be aware of.
Guns don't kill people, but antiques sure did.
Heck, why stop at the 2nd Amendment. Make it unconstitutional not to have a private wind farm. Hmmmm. Not a bad idea. I know, call it a tax, not a mandate.
I could peddle solar powered ball caps with little plastic propellers on top. Beenie and Cycil together again.

[Bill Tozer]

Here you go. Not a bad idea if it were Constitutional. Let's leave ole grannie and the remaining WW2 vets defenseless. It's for their own good. Joe K will not read this for sure.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/07/28/obama-pushing-largest-gun-grab-american-history-nra

[Gregory]

Let's start with the most idiotic Frisch statement first:

"2) Ban all assault style weapons....period

Assault weapons that fire multiple rounds with a single trigger pull, that are designed for urban warfare and anti-personnel uses rather than legitimate hunting purposes, should be banned, period. No more AR-15's that make little men feel like soldiers."

No such thing exists, Frisch. What you are describing are NFA Machine Guns, the most heavily controlled firearm in the USA. Banned in California and many other states since 1934 and in the few states that do allow them, it's only after the Federal government passes them with an equivalent of a Secret clearance investigation.

NONE of the weapons covered by the last "assault weapons ban" fired "multiple rounds with one trigger pull" as they were all one round per trigger pull, semi-automatic designs that can't be fire six times any faster than a revolver can.

Steven Frisch, you seem to be just as informed about firearms as you are about atmospheric physics. That, and the 2nd Amendment was never about hunting.

[Gregory]

Continuing, it's my understanding that licensed NFA machine guns have never been used in a crime, and constitute a tiny percentage of the guns in private hands in the USA.

"1) Destroy all guns confiscated and adjudicated rather than keeping them in the marketplace.

Yes, with roughly just under one gun per person in the US, and with many jurisdictions embracing a SOP where confiscated guns are sold and end up back on the market, I believe the policy should be that once guns are confiscated and adjudicated (note that, because if jurisdictions wanted to save collectible guns for historic purposes they could) the guns should be destroyed, thus INCREASING THE COST of buying a gun. I don't really care if the cost of a gun goes up."

Of course you care, Steve. Your schemes are designed to make the cost of guns go up! Exactly the same as the old "Ban the Saturday Night Special" campaigns as whites knew the "Saturday Night" being discussed was (please pardon the language, retained for historical authenticity), was a "Niggertown Saturday night". Face it, Steve, you just want to disarm the poor first, and it was blacks in the South that bore the brunt of the first gun control laws in the country. Ban the cheap guns that an average black man might be able to afford, and you've won.

A poor man or woman wanting to protect themselves and their family from threats real or imagined have an absolute and individual right to keep and use a gun, as real and every bit as important as the right of the rich to hire bodyguards.

[Gregory]

OK, we've established Frisch has no clue (or at least had no clue) as to the difference between machine guns and fake machine guns, so the "assault weapon" disinformation campaign to blur the distinctions hit him right between the eyes.

"3) Ban all high capacity magazines

I don't really give a damn if Greg thinks this is arbitrary--I don't want the murderer of my friends to be able to have a 100 pound [sic] magazine for an altered or even a legal assault weapon, I want them to have to change magazines more often. And yes, I don;t care if we 'compensate' owners of high capacity magazines for them. Make them illegal and confiscate and destroy them as we find them.

A 100 pound magazine would be hard to carry... let's assume Frisch meant 100 round magazine, such as the Colorado shooter had with him. First, the big problem there was the pretend gun free zone of the movie theater, and there's a reason the military doesn't use 100 round drum magazines. They tend not to work reliably and while the Colorado mental case was smart enough to travel far enough to find a "gun free zone" to use as a killing field, he was dumb enough to choose unreliable equipment. That 100 round magazine jammed early on. Ten 10 round mags would have served his purposes better.

Thank Zarquon for incompetent homicidal maniacs, many more would have been killed had he just stuck with pump action shotguns loaded with OO buckshot.

Just think... one infamous crime perpetrated by one disturbed individual, using, among other items, one faulty 100 round drum magazine that jammed and saved some lives as a result, and Frisch thinks that means any magazine larger than 10 should be banned unless owned by local, state or federal agencies.

I think just about everyone would accept that as arbitrary.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Gregory | 28 July 2015 at 09:40 PM

You are entitled to your ignorant, twisted opinion Goodnight :)

[Gregory]

Not opinion, Stevie, facts.

BTW, you never did answer a direct question... is the "Sierra Business Council" a gun free zone? If not... why?

[fish]

Posted by: Steven Frisch | 28 July 2015 at 09:52 PM

It appears, the police say, that James E. Holmes, the man accused in the Aurora shootings, used all three types of weapons inside the theater as well, first firing the shotgun, then using the semiautomatic rifle until its 100-round barrel magazine jammed, and finishing off with a pistol. (A second .40-caliber pistol was also found at the scene, though it was unclear whether it had been used in the theater.)

What's twisted about Gregs comment? He is correct. The 100 round magazine did jam, as they are prone to do. Someone with a fanny pack, a little skill, and ten 10 round magazines could have caused far more carnage in the Colorado theater than Holmes did!

[Jon]

Greg, you sound like you are an expert on yet another topic. Unreal. That makes by my count- 59 topics of your expertise so far! You are in the top 1% in America! What an awesome man.

[fish]

Posted by: Jon | 28 July 2015 at 10:23 PM

I'm sure you've compiled a list of Gregs errors on the topic jon?

Any time then.....

[Gregory]

Crickets from Jon. Thanks, fish. It does appear Jon, like Frisch, prefers politically correct ignorance over facts when it comes to guns. No, I'm no "expert" when it comes to firearms, but I have been paying attention to folks who are for a few decades. It ain't rocket science; semi and fully automatic firearms are 100+ year old technology and there is just no excuse for calling for their confiscation if you can't even tell the difference.

The best advice I ever came across regarding magazines is to not trust them until you have emptied them a few times without a hitch. If one fails to feed reliably, the best remedy is to take a large rock and smash it into oblivion to make sure you don't use it again... I wouldn't be surprised if the Colorado shooter barely had the price tag removed before his spree. Again, it could have been worse... imagine the carnage if he had been competent along with being homicidal.

"4) Require a certificate of ownership be issued in advance for all gun sales.
5) Require a 30 day minimum check for ALL arms purchses (no check conducted no sale)

30 days is a more realistic period of time for law enforcement agencies to conduct the investigation they need to do to ensure that mistakes are not made. If someone has a safety issue in the mean time they could go to law enforcement and report the problem. In cases where an interim carry permit needs to be issued to provide safety that could be done, but it would be done under the auspices of law enforcement. If you think your ex husband is going to kill you you should go to law enforcement anyway."

Steve has a hard time internalizing the difference between an individual right to own and carry guns, and a privilege that may be granted if you ask nicely enough and wait your turn. There is no "investigation" unless it's for an NFA weapon; either you are known to law enforcement as a criminal or mentally fragile individual, or you have a clean record, retaining all the rights of a citizen or permanent resident. Get stopped for speeding and, as soon as the cop runs your plates or driver's license through the system, they could have the same info.

Steve is just designing a Byzantine system that meant to convince folks to not bother; prove to the authorities you deserve it. If you think ANYONE is trying to kill you going to law enforcement is an imperative, but people have died *after* going to LEA and applying for a permit, but before it is granted. Especially in this county, you are on your own much of the time; the lone officer on patrol could be an hour's drive away if you call 911 in the middle of the night when someone is trying to break in.

If an adult citizen with a clean record wants to buy a legal gun, they have a right to buy the gun. Period. That said, ethical dealers (which is most all of them) can and do refuse to sell guns when something tells them something is not right with the buyer.

[Todd Juvinall]

Steve Frisch is the consummate bureaucrat. He actually endeavors to be one after BKing the Passages. But now he knows everything about everything and knows all about weapons. Wow! Just as he knows all about child rearing, liens and taxes. What a guy!

Reading his confiscate gun manifesto, well, one so hard to comply with people would give up, we can all rest easy the fellow is looking after us all. BTW, the gal back east that wrestled the gun away from the liberal serial killer and shot him to death before he could kill her, she should be getting the SBC award!

[Todd Juvinall]

Drapers Meadow Massacre, July 30, 1755.

We think times are tough.

"What followed was a very sophisticated campaign designed to denude the areas west of the Blue Ridge of settlers. Not only were farms burned and settlers killed but livestock was slaughtered and fruit trees cut down. Historically, the Shawnee and their closest allies the Delaware had raided for prisoners. Now it became common for prisoners to be dismembered and disemboweled and the remains left were pursuing militia were sure to find them. By 1763 most of the Virginia frontier beyond Winchester was completely depopulated."

And everyone thinks Cecil the Lion was the only lion ever taken.History, you gotta love it!

[Gregory]

Steven Frisch, co-founder and six figure compensation CEO of the famed rent seeking 501c3 "Sierra Business Council" (it isn't a Council of businesses), had a list of 11 feces (well, theses, but they stank enough to rename) regarding guns. We only got through debunking the first 5... here's the rest:

"6) Ban sales at gun shows and from private parties--sales would be required to go through a dealer.

Yes, I don't really give a damn if this means that Dad can;t give junior an AR-15---the kid needs to get registered, issued a permit, and the sale needs to be controlled."

But then this new universal registration scheme of yours apparently covers all guns down to a bolt action .22 rifle of the sort that would be used at a Scout summer camp. This fascination of Frisch's with the AR15 has a life of its own, apparently because he still thinks it's a machine gun that fires multiple times with one pull of the trigger. No Steve, it's the same sort of one shot per pull autoloading that has been continuously legal for civilians for about 125 years, with similar rates of fire available from revolvers.

It appears Frisch's dad never took him shooting.

"7) Require registration of all guns...ALL

So if we need to change the Constitution to do this, or return to a more rational interpretation of the 2nd amendment, so be it."

Wow... Steven Frisch, CEO of the Sierra Business Council, is calling for the 2nd and 5th Amendments of the Bill of Rights to be weakened. Imagine what we can do once he makes it legal to charge people with the crime of not turning themselves in, or not giving testimony against themselves.

"8) Ban public carry of firearms (except concealed weapons in tightly controlled situations)

There is no reason for people to be walking into a Denny's or a Walmart with an AR strapped to their back. It is bullshit anti-social behavior. If one needs to get a concealed carry permit for safety let them go to their local police and get one."

I've seen this once or twice, and it wasn't an "anti-social" tantrum. A Walmart shopper with a rifle may have purchased it there and had a warranty issue.

If they're hungry, have no place to leave the rifle and be assured of its security and the Walmart or Denny's doesn't mind, why is it Steven Frisch's business? Go somewhere else, Steve. And let's remember, Steve really doesn't want the local police to issue carry permits, either.

Those of us without a phobia regarding guns don't see the mere carrying of a firearm as being threatening, which is covered by the term "brandishing". Look it up, Steve.

"9) Require that 'collectable' firearms be disabled

This is a market limitation measure. As guns get more expensive the utility of collectable forearms will increase and make them more attractive for the commission of crimes. Disabling could be done without damaging the firearm."

More evidence of Steven Frisch wanting to disarm the poor and a willingness to destroy the function of a piece of history to keep it from being used rather than just displayed on a wall somewhere, merely to help drive up the price of self defense.

"10) Require showing certificate of ownership for the purchase of ammunition

Yes, this makes it harder to use ammunition for legitimate purposes, but it also makes it harder to use ammo for illegitimate purposes. If you are a legal certificate holder it should slow you down by about 30 seconds. If you are not legal it means you have to go through someone else and makes it criminal behavior."

Hate to be the one to break it to you, Steve, but the illegit:legit ratio is probably 1:100000. Thugs who just want an excuse to pop a cap into somebody's ass don't look forward to weekends of hunting or target shooting, taking along a couple of bricks of .22LR or a few hundred rounds of NATO 5.56.

Be honest, Steve. You just want to make it difficult for your political opposites and to keep a good list of who is shooting.

"11) Ban ammunition designed to penetrate body armor.

Stands on its own just ask any cop."

You do that, Steve. Last I heard, after thirty years of that scary "cop killer bullet" story, no cop has actually been killed by one of those cartridges; it's just another one of those invented categories used by the Frischies of the world who are trying to chip away at a fundamental right of US citizens.

The truth behind the BS is that any bullet designed to go through armor is already effectively banned, bullets that may infringe on the old law aren't be designed to go through armor but are lead free designs for hunting and target use to get around environmental laws popping up against lead ammo that technically fall under the armor piercing language. And, for the real kicker, armor piercing designs tend to do the least damage to the target, leaving the most survivable wounds.

In short, from 1 to 11, Frisch is just repeating claims he does not understand about a fact of life he hates... Americans have an individual right to own and carry guns, and have from the very forming of the country. That is why the USA has the largest number of guns per capita in the world; we're a wealthy country whose citizens have always had that right, nearly 240 years. Progressives in the 20th century did their best to erase that right, replacing the standard model of the 2nd amendment with a collectivist interpretation, but we once again have the standard model that was the accepted interpretation in the 18th and 19th centuries. This is progress.