Arizona Blue Dog Dem shot at public event

[Weird Harold]

The percentage of US citizens in jail is comparable only to the sort of regimes that the US condemns for breaches of human rights. Again - that's for the US's politicians to sort out.

I think before US Politicians can understand how other countries deal with overpopulated prisons, they need to stop trying to coerce other countries into joining the futile war on drugs -- a failed US policy that is filling US prisons, fueling drug cartels in Mexico, Columbia, and other countries.

US politics are all about "appearing to do something" rather than dealing with the real issues. It is no coincidence that virtually all enacted gun-control legislation in the US has followed some tragedy; there doesn't seem to be a lot of support for gun control anywhere without a bloody shirt for the Prohibitonists to wave.

Australia and England's wiki pages on gun politics both show a similar pattern in those countries -- some tragedy involves a gun and more restrictions are placed on law-abiding gun owners.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]It only takes one bullet to kill someone. Sure, it might 'lessen the potential canrage' but is one murdered person by the hands of a crazy is better than six?

Just some food for thought.

Yes, one murdered person by the hands of a crazy is better than six. By a difference of, uh... five lives. Those lives, and all they may have touched. There's a little food for thought for you.

Yes, it takes one bullet to kill someone. It takes a semi-automatic with an extended clip to kill six and wound fourteen more.

 

[oggbashan]

...Australia and England's wiki pages on gun politics both show a similar pattern in those countries -- some tragedy involves a gun and more restrictions are placed on law-abiding gun owners.

The gun control laws in the UK have gone far beyond the reasonable, making it very difficult for our Olympic contestants to compete in any sport involving guns.

However the public demand for gun control after the high profile incidents was very difficult for politicians of any party to resist, even if the legislators knew that changing the law wouldn't stop determined individuals - and it hasn't.

Having said that, even before any gun control legislation, the number of UK deaths caused by guns has always been low by comparison with the US. After the First World War, military surplus arms were available freely - but you had to be 'a gentleman' to buy crew-served weapons.

Og

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]It is no coincidence that virtually all enacted gun-control legislation in the US has followed some tragedy; there doesn't seem to be a lot of support for gun control anywhere without a bloody shirt for the Prohibitonists to wave.

Australia and England's wiki pages on gun politics both show a similar pattern in those countries -- some tragedy involves a gun and more restrictions are placed on law-abiding gun owners.

Whereas, the U.S. history of gun-fetishism and anti-control political policy have produced a better result? I don't understand what your point is. More mass shootings in the U.S. doesn't strike me as a more desirable outcome.

 

[Stella_Omega]

"... massacre as "an opportunity to grab the moment ..." reactions to the shootings in Tucson.

The same people that talk about gun control before and between massacres. Right after one has happened, they're supposed to shut up? That's the only time you hear them talking.

There are some, foreign commentors, like Og, who are civil and seem to be genuinely puzzled, but then there are others who are more concerned about casting aspersions on the size of my penis than participating in any real discussion.

Well, you know-- there are some topics upon which I, for example, get rabid. Because I KNOWWWWW I'm right, right? And some people just don't think I am right. There's a point beyond which it becomes very obvious that I, as an instance, will not listen to or tolerate differing opinions or admit that some people might have reasons for those opinions. That's when the name calling starts.

You will never change your mind about the sacrosanct nature of gun ownership, and really-- that's all she wrote. You might as well leave the conversation now. You don't have anything else to say.

 

[Weird Harold]

Whereas, the U.S. history of gun-fetishism and anti-control political policy have produced a better result? I don't understand what your point is. More mass shootings in the U.S. doesn't strike me as a more desirable outcome.

Is it paranoia when your opponent say that you have no rights -- despite Consitutional protection of the rights you supposedly don't have?

I don't think more mass murders is in any way desireable, but I also think the laws already on the books should have stopped this latest one.

What do you propose we do to prevent crazy people from going on rampages -- no matter whether they use a plastic spork or a truck bomb, or anything in between?

Legislation is going to be proposed this week to ban extended magazines; where has that legislation been the last six years?

I don't understand what your point is

The point is simple -- the shootings in Tucson could have been more effectively prevented by better detection, reporting, and treatment of disturbed individuals than they could have by renewing the assault weapons and extended magazine bans.

Don't worry so much about how many rounds he fired, worry about how to stop him from deciding to fire any rounds.

 

[Weird Harold]

The same people that talk about gun control before and between massacres. Right after one has happened, they're supposed to shut up? That's the only time you hear them talking.

Oh, I hear them talking between massacres, but I don't hear very many people agreeing with them -- not until they can stir up some "OMG Something Must Be Done" media frenzy.

 

[michchick98]

Don't worry so much about how many rounds he fired, worry about how to stop him from deciding to fire any rounds.

And that's my whole point. This guy slipped through the cracks. But the next guy who didn't slip through the cracks can get his hands on a gun, even with the strictest restrictions in place. You say one person murdered instead of six is okay. What does the family of that one person say? What does the family of 9 year old Christina Green say? "Oh, it was only one person, so that's okay. They had a ban on extended magazines for guns and could've killed a lot more people."

Yeah, if that makes you sleep better at night, you go ahead and keep telling yourself that.

At the risk of being dragged through the mud by the supporters of the U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment, I don't think every citizen should have a right to own/carry a gun. I think the gun ownership/usage should be restricted to military and law enforcement. Get the illegal guns off the streets, stop the crazies from having easy access to military grade weaponry. Oh sure, there'll be other ways for these crazies to carry out their attacks, but banning any and all guns not controlled by military or law enforcement is a step in the right direction.

But again, talking will get me nowhere, so while I have my opinions and I feel strongly about them, I won't get into the heated arguments and insults that are running rampant on this thread. I'll just agree to disagree until I, as an average citizen, can actually influence the lawmakers of this country to change an antiquated law.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Is it paranoia when your opponent say that you have no rights -- despite Consitutional protection of the rights you supposedly don't have?

No; it's paranoia when you start thinking people, or "opponent" as you call them, are saying "you have no rights", when no one has said anything of the kind.

I don't think more mass murders is in any way desireable, but I also think the laws already on the books should have stopped this latest one.

How? He obtained his weapons and ammo legally.

What do you propose we do to prevent crazy people from going on rampages -- no matter whether they use a plastic spork or a truck bomb, or anything in between?

Better mental health care. Ban trade in high-capacity clips. Lower the temperature of the rhetoric. What do you propose?

Legislation is going to be proposed this week to ban extended magazines; where has that legislation been the last six years?

Rep. McCarthy has introduced it every year. Her husband was killed in the Long Island Railway mass shooting.

The point is simple -- the shootings in Tucson could have been more effectively prevented by better detection, reporting, and treatment of disturbed individuals than they could have by renewing the assault weapons and extended magazine bans.

Don't worry so much about how many rounds he fired, worry about how to stop him from deciding to fire any rounds.

You're saying that once the crazies start shooting, it doesn't matter how much damage they do? Fuck, why not just let them buy RPGs then?

 

[Weird Harold]

At the risk of being dragged through the mud by the supporters of the U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment, I don't think every citizen should have a right to own/carry a gun.

No; it's paranoia when you start thinking people, or "opponent" as you call them, are saying "you have no rights", when no one has said anything of the kind.

Funny thing about that: Look at the post from Michchik just above yours. It saves me quoting Sarah Brady again.

How? He obtained his weapons and ammo legally.

There are laws other than those restricting access to guns -- laws that should have led to him being on in the database as mentaly ill.

Better mental health care. Ban trade in high-capacity clips. Lower the temperature of the rhetoric. What do you propose?

1: Enforce the existing laws before passing new ones. ETA: not just gun laws, ALL laws.

ETA: 1a: repeal stupid, victimless laws and replace thenm with better penalties for negligent behavior -- Junkies, dopers, and drunks can get high and OD at home or in bars and opium dens, but if they get behind the wheel or commit a crime while high, they go to jail, period.

2: Find a way that can get past the ACLU to force the mentally ill into treatment if they won't go voluntarily. The ones who will go into treatment voluntarily aren't usually the ones who go on rampages.

3: I don't know if it applies to this case or not, but crack down on bullying in schools -- prosecute the little bastards for assault, robbery, and all of the other things bullies do that would be felonies if an adult did them.

4: Pass EFFECTIVE gun control aimed at the people, not the objects. Don't ban ownership of extended magazines, ban using extended magazines -- as migratory waterfowl treaties require no more than three round capacity for shotguns and no more than five for centerfire rifles. An extended capacity magazine with cartridges in it would be a violation; in practice, having an extended capacity magazine outside of a display case would probably be a violation. As Ms McCarthy pointed out in her press release, the prohibition of ex post facto laws means the existing extended magazines can't be banned -- but there is no constituional impediment to banning usage.

Most cities have an ordinance against discharging a firearm within the city limits. Some have laws against having a loaded gun inside the city limits. Those are laws against actions, not objects.

You're saying that once the crazies start shooting, it doesn't matter how much damage they do? Fuck, why not just let them buy RPGs then?

I'm saying that stopping them from shooting, stabbing, blowing up, releasing poison gas, chopping, battering, or using a home-built electrically driven compressed air powered backpack sized gatling gun is more important than interdicting ONE possible means of mayhem. It is probably only the third most dangerous method crazies have used, anyway. Maybe the fourth, depending on how far back you count as "recent history."

You can continue to focus on the means used and partially interdict just one method, or you can focus on interdicting the motive and the means become irrelevant.

 

[ishtat]

The percentage of citizens killed by guns in the US would be regarded as wholly unacceptable in most European countries. Whether gun control could or would work in the US? That's for the US's politicians to sort out.


I would have thought that the politicians would at least look at how other countries face those problems.

Og

Og, that is not quite correct, the former Eastern European satellites of the Soviet Union have firearms death rates not dissimilar to the USA.

Their firearms death rates are fuelled by cheap vodka rather than western drugs. In both USA and Eastern Europe the most important form of firearms death is suicide not murder.

So far as other countries are concerned Australia introduced tighter gun controls in 1996 and it made no noticable difference to an already decreasing trend in deaths by firearms. We now average less than 50 murders with guns per year by firearms. However the US experience is so vastly different in magnitude that I don't think experience elsewhere can necessarily be extrapolated.

Personally, I think that the creation of a drugs market through prohibition, poverty, and farcically savage sentencing policies are more important drivers in the long run.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oh, I hear them talking between massacres, but I don't hear very many people agreeing with them -- not until they can stir up some "OMG Something Must Be Done" media frenzy.

Well, duh.

You can continue to focus on the means used and partially interdict just one method, or you can focus on interdicting the motive and the means become irrelevant.

it's not an either/or situation. You can work on both issues at once. Many people do.

 

[Weird Harold]

it's not an either/or situation. You can work on both issues at once. Many people do.

Of course you can work on both issues, but you seemt o be missing thepoint that nobody seems to be working on anything except more gun control in this case.

The only place I hear any real discussion about his mental health is:

A) "How did a crazy person get a gun?"

and

B) "That poor crazy boy. Now they're going to try to kill him too."

There are a few faint cries of "this is what happens when you cut social services" and "why couldn't he get help" but they're being drowned out by "OMG HE USED A GUN!"

 

[Stella_Omega]

Of course you can work on both issues, but you seemt o be missing thepoint that nobody seems to be working on anything except more gun control in this case.

The only place I hear any real discussion about his mental health is:

A) "How did a crazy person get a gun?"

and

B) "That poor crazy boy. Now they're going to try to kill him too."

There are a few faint cries of "this is what happens when you cut social services" and "why couldn't he get help" but they're being drowned out by "OMG HE USED A GUN!"

A few faint cries, huh.

Well, you might be right about that-- the battle to keep social services available is one that we KNOW we're losing. Have lost.

http://www.google.com/search?q=arizona+health+services

 

[stephen55]

It looks like there are two problems here.

1) People who are becoming mentally ill (and possibly very dangerous) are not being identified and properly treated, let alone followed up.

2) There is an insanely easy access to firearms, particularly high capacity firearms, that are specifically designed to shoot a large number of people (think a Glock 19 with a thirty shot clip).

Arizona (and by extension, all of the USA) has some serious problems.

Until these problems are properly dealt with, you are going to have more situations like Tucson Arizona and Virginia Tech.

If you don't want more of these situations, solve the problems.

If for whatever reason, you don't think these problems need or should be solved...get used to the situations.

There was an old saying...if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem.

I always had a problem with that saying.

Try this one.

If you try to prevent the solution, then you are part of the problem.

This one is self obvious.

You've got two problems.

Fixing one and working to prevent fixing the other.........is insane.

 

[Weird Harold]

Fixing one and working to prevent fixing the other.........is insane.

What part of my suggestion to Pass effective gun control laws instead of feel good cosmetic bans didn't you understand?

 

[DeeZire]

What part of my suggestion to Pass effective gun control laws instead of feel good cosmetic bans didn't you understand?

This part?

....The point is simple -- the shootings in Tucson could have been more effectively prevented by better detection, reporting, and treatment of disturbed individuals than they could have by renewing the assault weapons and extended magazine bans.

Don't worry so much about how many rounds he fired, worry about how to stop him from deciding to fire any rounds.

This part indicates that you feel passing effective gun control laws is less important than keeping a lid on crazies. I'd suggest they're equally important, but if your priority is, indeed, to help keep a lid on the crazies, will you be voting for liberal politicians who wish to increase funding for social services, or will you be voting for conservative politicians who wish to decrease funding for social services?

 

[Stella_Omega]

What part of my suggestion to Pass effective gun control laws instead of feel good cosmetic bans didn't you understand?[/SIZE]

Which laws are which, now?

 

[Weird Harold]

This part indicates that you feel passing effective gun control laws is less important than keeping a lid on crazies.

Not less important, less effective at preventing mayhem.

Both need to happen, but improving mental health care and ensuring it gets used is less controversial, addresses more potential problems and has fewer constitutional barriers.

Consider that more health care availability, even if it is ineffectual in stopping a few mass murders will certainly help prevent a lot of domestic battery, suicide, substance abuse, child abuse, and all of the other problems mental health care encompasses.

Come to think of it, I guess getting a high capacity magazine ban passed that, as proposed, won't actually remove any high-capacity magazines from the equation would be less important as well as less effective.

Which laws are which, now?

An example: Rep McCarthy proposes banning the manufacture, sale or transfer of high-capacity magazines, while admitting that her proposal will/can do nothing about the existing base of high-capacity magazines except block replacement as they wear out. Consitutional prohibitons on ex post facto laws mean those already owned can't be banned.

There are two effective alternatives:

1) Pass a funding measure for a buy-back program that can compete with the going rate for high-capacity magazines -- going black market rates if you ban manufacture and transfer first.

2) Don't ban the magazines, ban USING the magazines; Come down hard on anyone caught with even one round in a high-cpacity magazine. Just being out of your residence with one would be grounds for search.

There is also 3) both of the above.

There is no constitutional bar to either of those options I know of. They aren't ex post facto and they don't infringe on the right to keep and bear any more than bans on discharging a weapon inside the city limits or taking a weapon onto an educational campus do.

Neither would do anything about all of the other means of mayhem even the least functional nutcase can think of, nor would they prevent a nutcase who was actually proficient with a pistol from scoring as many hits with fewer bullets from a legal magazine or two.

They would, I think, effectively remove high-capacity magazines from most lone nutcase scenarios (mostly by pushing the black market price too high for all but the richest nutcases and giving police probable cause for stopping a nutcase with an extended magazine in his pistol.)

Either would certainly be more effective than the proposed "removal by attrition" ban.

Another example:

The Assault Weapons Ban banned a long list of characteristics that purported to define "an assault weapon" (and included basically Ms McCarthy's proposed magazine ban) Manufactures change a few cosmetic details and every specific gun the law intended to remove from civilian hands became even more popular.

Australia, otoh, banned semi-automatic and pump-action firearms and then came up with the funds to buy all of the newly banned weapons to remove them from private hands. As much as Australian shooters hate it and the NRA tries to discredit it, their method actually removed a significant percentage of semi-automatic and pupmp-action rifles and shotguns from private hands.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I worked in the system for many years, and the system is a cluster fuck because 1) you cannot force people to accept treatment, and 2) mental health is now a feel-good wallow designed for your contentment and entertainment. In many ways its like a singles bar.

As it was explained to me: IF YA PISS EM OFF, JOHNSON, THEY WONT WANNA COME BACK! IE, keep them coming back till all their benefits are exhausted.

Back in 1910 a New England lad got in some trouble there and did a little time in reform school. Paroled to an uncle in Florida, he pulled a similar stunt here and we hanged him close to his 14th birthday. He beat a young girl with a bicycle chain and stabbed her 65 times. The New England papers were very upset with us.

 

[Weird Harold]

I worked in the system for many years, and the system is a cluster fuck because 1) you cannot force people to accept treatment, and

No, but you can force them to at least be evaluated and get their name on the prohibited persons list for firearms and document their condition for possible future involuntary commitment proceedings.

The ACLU might be a problem getting any involuntary commitment law back on the books.

2) mental health is now a feel-good wallow designed for your contentment and entertainment. In many ways its like a singles bar.

That's a more difficult proposition. Legislating how professionals do their job (in such a way that politicians and lobbiests are prescribing by fiat instead of professionals being allowed to be professionals) doesn't generally lead to anything like professional performance.

There are no easy solutions for mental health care or for gun control, however much opportunistic politicians might want their voters to think.

 

[mikey2much]

You can't blame the gun only

(Just one caveat. The bullet wounds didn't send the blot clot to his heart until 35-years later--but the doctor confirmed that it was the Korean War wound that got him.)

It sounds to me like the War Dept got your dad killed not the gun that shot him. Who sent him over there and what was the reason for him to have to go?

 

[oggbashan]

...
Australia, otoh, banned semi-automatic and pump-action firearms and then came up with the funds to buy all of the newly banned weapons to remove them from private hands. As much as Australian shooters hate it and the NRA tries to discredit it, their method actually removed a significant percentage of semi-automatic and pupmp-action rifles and shotguns from private hands.

Many years ago, when I was in Australia, the federal Government had an arms amnesty, one of several since WWII when many Australian soldiers had returned with souvenir weapons. This one was started because a rifle champion, arrested for an unrelated offence, had been found in possession of far more guns than he had declared, and also several heavy machine guns.

Most of the amnesties had produced a reasonable collection of ancient weaponry, but this one triggered a press campaign because the first days' items surrendered were interesting.

Anyone could walk into any Australian police station and hand over any surplus/illegal arms with no questions asked. On day one, someone walked into a rural police station and deposited a large cardboard box full of WWI German hand grenades in a dangerous condition. On day two, someone drove into a rural police station's front yard and left a heavy howitzer with a limber full of HE shells.

On day three, someone drove a Grant tank to a city suburb's police station. The tank was loaded with HE and AP shells. The machinegun's belt was in position and ready to fire. The Australian government had sold surplus tanks to farmers to use for bush clearance but they were supposed to have had the guns and shells removed. As several tanks were given to the police with their armament operational, someone must have slipped up.

One of my distant relatives ran a scrap yard, now long gone, on the Queensland coast. He declared a set of 1890s large calibre (9.2 inch, I think) naval guns together with propellant and shells. The police removed the explosives but left the guns which had been part of Australia's coastal defences in WWI.

The news stories ran for the month of the amnesty and produced a massive quantity of armaments including enough artillery for a small country. How returning soldiers smuggled howitzers and heavy cannon? No one knows although several guessed that they were intended as regimental trophies.

Og

 

[DeeZire]

...There are no easy solutions for mental health care or for gun control, however much opportunistic politicians might want their voters to think.

So, WH, you never did answer my question about whether or not you'd support politicians who intend to raise funding for social services. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the entire enforcement issue is tied to funding. If the cops are underfunded, they won't have the manpower to track down the crazies. If there are no mental health facilities, there will be no way to treat the crazies when they do get tracked down.

In other words, are you willing to address the problem with your tax dollars, or are you limiting your support to dialogue only?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Not less important, less effective at preventing mayhem.

Both need to happen, but improving mental health care and ensuring it gets used is less controversial, addresses more potential problems and has fewer constitutional barriers.

Consider that more health care availability, even if it is ineffectual in stopping a few mass murders will certainly help prevent a lot of domestic battery, suicide, substance abuse, child abuse, and all of the other problems mental health care encompasses.

Come to think of it, I guess getting a high capacity magazine ban passed that, as proposed, won't actually remove any high-capacity magazines from the equation would be less important as well as less effective.




An example: Rep McCarthy proposes banning the manufacture, sale or transfer of high-capacity magazines, while admitting that her proposal will/can do nothing about the existing base of high-capacity magazines except block replacement as they wear out. Consitutional prohibitons on ex post facto laws mean those already owned can't be banned.

There are two effective alternatives:

1) Pass a funding measure for a buy-back program that can compete with the going rate for high-capacity magazines -- going black market rates if you ban manufacture and transfer first.

2) Don't ban the magazines, ban USING the magazines; Come down hard on anyone caught with even one round in a high-cpacity magazine. Just being out of your residence with one would be grounds for search.

There is also 3) both of the above.

There is no constitutional bar to either of those options I know of. They aren't ex post facto and they don't infringe on the right to keep and bear any more than bans on discharging a weapon inside the city limits or taking a weapon onto an educational campus do.

Neither would do anything about all of the other means of mayhem even the least functional nutcase can think of, nor would they prevent a nutcase who was actually proficient with a pistol from scoring as many hits with fewer bullets from a legal magazine or two.

They would, I think, effectively remove high-capacity magazines from most lone nutcase scenarios (mostly by pushing the black market price too high for all but the richest nutcases and giving police probable cause for stopping a nutcase with an extended magazine in his pistol.)

Either would certainly be more effective than the proposed "removal by attrition" ban.

Another example:

The Assault Weapons Ban banned a long list of characteristics that purported to define "an assault weapon" (and included basically Ms McCarthy's proposed magazine ban) Manufactures change a few cosmetic details and every specific gun the law intended to remove from civilian hands became even more popular.

Australia, otoh, banned semi-automatic and pump-action firearms and then came up with the funds to buy all of the newly banned weapons to remove them from private hands. As much as Australian shooters hate it and the NRA tries to discredit it, their method actually removed a significant percentage of semi-automatic and pupmp-action rifles and shotguns from private hands.

Thank you, this was worth reading.