School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[Kevin_Lowe]

Oh my.

Sometimes, just sometimes, the liberal will allow a small glimpse of his or her true thought process.

It's usually not a pretty sight.

It would be mildly amusing to reply by saying "Oh my. Sometimes, just sometimes, the Fox News viewer will allow a small glimpse of his or her true thought process. It's usually not a pretty sight".

However that would be rather cheap. So lets's pull this reply apart a bit further.

For one, it's a perfect case of an issue currently being discussed elsewhere of posters using the pretence that they are talking about a group as a way to be uncivil without getting dinged by the moderators. If reported mikedenk can act innocent and say "I wasn't insulting a member, I was insulting liberals, it's not my fault if somebody thought I might be implying Kevin_Lowe was a liberal and hence that their thought process was not pretty. Besides, I even hid behind the word "usually" for additional cover. Maybe this wasn't a usual case. Can you prove it wasn't?".

Whether or not the above quoted post is technically a breach of the MA it's definitely uncivil, contains no stated logical arguments, and looks to me like textbook well-poisoning.

To expand on the fact it contains no logical arguments, mikedenk's post contains absolutely no meaningful content. They try to label my views as "liberal" without explicitly committing to it, and try to imply they are "not pretty" without explicitly committing to it, but they don't give us a single intelligent reason to disagree with them.

Posts like this are not meaningless, but they are just empty cheerleading from an ideological position which isn't defended and probably can't be. It's just a chest-beating display, not a contribution to an intelligent discussion.

What is the underlying thought process? We don't have enough information to say. We can guess there's some kind of Wild West libertarianism behind mikedenk's post, where mikedenk has an ideological commitment to the idea that people should be able to do whatever they want without the Evil Government interfering, up to and including things that predictably result in the deaths of innocent third parties. However even that isn't clear.

 

[Autolite]

I've just heard on the radio that President Obama is now considering the introduction of 'ammunition (magazine) capacity limit' laws.

Such laws have been in force here in Canada now for many years.

I am curious if anyone has mentioned to the big guy that the Canadian 'magazine capacity limit' laws have had absolutely zero effect on the reduction of the criminal use of firearms. (Perhaps he didn't get the memo).

Hunters and recreational shooters are always found to be in full compliance with these regulations yet the concept hasn't seem to have caught on with those folks who have criminal intent.

Apparently the Canadians have discovered that people inclined toward murder and armed robbery don't seem too terribly worried about being found with too many bullets in their illegally obtained firearms.

Best of luck with that Mr. Obama. Be sure to let us know how you make out with the new rules...

 

[Ambrosia]

I've just heard on the radio that President Obama is now considering the introduction of 'ammunition (magazine) capacity limit' laws.

[...]

Hunters and recreational shooters are always found to be in full compliance with these regulations yet the concept hasn't seem to have caught on with those folks who have criminal intent.

this argument kind of misses the point.

No criminal who ever has the thought of going to a populated area and opening fire is going to give a monkeys what laws they are breaking.

To use that as the reason to not pass these laws at all doesn't consider the fact that lots of crimes are crimes of opportunity.

In this school shooting case had the shooter not had easy access to his mothers arsenal would the shooting have taken place at all? Would he have gone for it with less guns or less powerful guns if those were all he could get his hands on in the spur of the moment?

Most of the gun owners in any given country are law abiding citizens. If a shooter steals a law abiding citizens weapons to go and commit a crime with then they are limited to what the law allowed the citizen to have.

A criminal intent on murdering many people is going to premeditate and get the biggest and best weapons they can find and after they have those weapons THEN they go shooting. Those kind of nuts will crop up in every country, no matter what gun laws are there. Lets call them type a nuts.

Type b nuts, of which the Newton shooter was one, use what they have available to them at the time they flip out. You only really find the type b shooters in the US, or South Africa, or some other country with a lot of guns available to the ordinary citizen.

It's type b shooters we can do something about with gun control laws. There is almost nothing anyone can do about type a.

 

[Autolite]

I'm not here to argue with the semantics the pro-gun forum members are wasting time on.

Sure, that's okay if we're just bantering back and forth on an online forum.

However, 'semantics' (or correct legal definitions) tend to become somewhat critical when there is an implication of an individual's criminal liability.

The law courts seem to be rather fussy in that respect...

 

[Montag451]

I am beginning to embrace the car analogy. How about

All guns to be registered
All guns to have insurance
All gun and storage to be inspected
Each owner has to attend classes and pass to get a licence, with a new set if classes and a new licence for each type of gun
If found using a gun while drunk, dangerously, drugs etc then you lose your licence and your gun for a period
Retest to get it back
If you have a medical condition that should disqualify you from owning a gun then you can't
If you make the gun available to others then you take full responsibility
I would even add that if your gun was stolen due to ack of care in proper storage hen you take responsibility

None if these seem overly draconian and still allow you the right to own, but simply enforce the responsibility.

Seems fair, no?

 

[JihadJane]

Anti-depressants have also been implicated in causing previously absent violent behavior.

...report Adam Lanza's uncle said the boy was prescribed Fanapt...

Fanapt is one of a many drugs the FDA pumped out with an ability to exact the opposite desired effect on people: that is, you know, inducing rather than inhibiting psychosis and aggressive behavior.
In fact, Fanapt was dropped by its first producer, picked up by another, initially rejected by the FDA, then later picked up and mass produced. The adverse side-effect is said to be "infrequent," but still it exists, and can't be ignored.
The reaction invoked by the drug in some people is reminiscent of the Jeffrey R. MacDonald case, where a Green Beret slaughtered his entire family and then fabricated a story about a marauding troop of "hopped up hippies".

'The Antipsychotic Prescribed To Adam Lanza Has A Troubled History All Its Own'

 

[GeeMack]

More then a few gun people want us to not make that distinction. The only reason I can see for that is to enable them to make ludicrous statements like if you want to ban guns we should also ban automobiles and swimming pools.

Guns nutz are not known for their intellectual honesty.

Interesting that we're here at a center for critical thinking, skepticism, and objectivity, and when someone mentions any of several preventable causes of death which present more of a risk than spree shootings or gun accidents, some people allow their irrational fear of guns to trump objective reality. Yes, people deliberately build swimming pools. Yes, people deliberately answer their cell phones while they're driving. Yes, people deliberately walk out on a golf course and lift a conductive rod high into the air. Yes, people deliberately hop into boats and head out on the water. Yes, people deliberately drink alcohol then get behind the wheel of a car. But you can just sort of ignore objective reality if it makes you feel nice and cozy with that self righteous irrational fear of guns.

 

[AlBell]

What we obviously need is mind control not gun control

Do you recommend electrode implants in brains at birth, or soma?

If soma who enforces drinking it and how do they so enforce?

 

[Montag451]

Difference between accident and deliberate use. Most largish objects falling on your head from a decent enough height can kill.

Somebody knocking a flower pot off a 10th floor balcony is worlds apart from deliberately dropping the same pot on someone

 

[joesixpack]

Apart from the fact that you're cherry-picking like mad, and the correct comparison would be all gun deaths versus all private pool deaths, there are another two more serious problem with the argument.

The first is that it might well turn out that private pools are a dangerous extravagance and that they shouldn't be allowed, or shouldn't be allowed in households with children. You can't just take for granted that private pools are a good idea and hence that anything that kills fewer people than pools is a good idea.

The second is that you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If pools and guns both kill people, that means both are social problems in need of a solution. It would be silly to demand that we must completely ignore the lesser problem (whichever of the two it is) until the greater problem is solved.

I'm not cherry picking anything. The comment was that more people die by firearms than by drowning and that the person who suggested otherwise was wrong. I was merely pointing out that no such claim was made. And I was absolutely correct.

Please don't argue with me over a point I'm not actually arguing.

 

[LTC8K6]

The Bushmaster XR-15^WP used at Sandy Hook would have fallen under the Assault Weapons Ban.

Iirc, it just needed the "bullet button" mod and it was good to go. This is recessing the mag release so that your finger can't release the mag, but a tool will, the tool being the tip of a .223 round.

Since a tool is required to release the mag, it was then considered a fixed magazine and therefore legal.

Cali requires this still.

 

[StankApe]

this argument kind of misses the point.

No criminal who ever has the thought of going to a populated area and opening fire is going to give a monkeys what laws they are breaking.

To use that as the reason to not pass these laws at all doesn't consider the fact that lots of crimes are crimes of opportunity.

In this school shooting case had the shooter not had easy access to his mothers arsenal would the shooting have taken place at all? Would he have gone for it with less guns or less powerful guns if those were all he could get his hands on in the spur of the moment?

Most of the gun owners in any given country are law abiding citizens. If a shooter steals a law abiding citizens weapons to go and commit a crime with then they are limited to what the law allowed the citizen to have.

A criminal intent on murdering many people is going to premeditate and get the biggest and best weapons they can find and after they have those weapons THEN they go shooting. Those kind of nuts will crop up in every country, no matter what gun laws are there. Lets call them type a nuts.

Type b nuts, of which the Newton shooter was one, use what they have available to them at the time they flip out. You only really find the type b shooters in the US, or South Africa, or some other country with a lot of guns available to the ordinary citizen.

It's type b shooters we can do something about with gun control laws. There is almost nothing anyone can do about type a.

it's apparent that these aren't normally "flip out" crimes..... well not at the TIME the crime occurs anyway. The shooters plan these things out ahead of time. If they limit magazine size, they can just carry 4, 10 shot mags instead of 2, 20 shot mags... Changing a magazine is literally as easy as they show it in the movies. it's a 5 second move,tops.

IMO, they should just mandate private sales involve a background check, and stiffen penalties for illegal possession of a firearm.

 

[Metullus]

AK 47, AR 15s.

I'm not here to argue with the semantics the pro-gun forum members are wasting time on.

What is it about the AK47 and the AR15 that makes each weapon an assault weapon? The question of what is and is not an "assault weapon" is hardly merely semantics if you are proposing to outlaw them. As has been pointed out many times in many threads as well as in the wiki article to which you linked the criteria used in the Federal AWB were largely cosmetic and had little to do with the danger each banned weapon posed. Banning weapons because they look scary is hardly rational.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban defined assault weapons. One of my ex-boyfriends owned one.

Here's Ted Koppel on whether the ban had any effect.Is it a miracle cure? Of course not. Should no one act because it won't prevent all shootings like this?

I see no reason why we cannot take some steps here even if we can't take very big steps.

Meaningful steps, perhaps. The problem is that it is arguable that a ban such as the AWB is based upon little more than bad PR. I doubt very much that such a ban would have prevented last week's tragedy - the shooter could just as well used other weapons that are as effective and which were never covered by the ban.

 

[AlBell]

...

That's nice. We're currently discussing whether you should have that right. Maybe you shouldn't?

Once SCOTUS rules on the issue of guns in the house we'll have an answer. Until then talk is cheap and meaningless.

 

[Autolite]

this argument kind of misses the point.

To use that as the reason to not pass these laws at all doesn't consider the fact that lots of crimes are crimes of opportunity.

An ineffective law such as an ammunition magazine capacity limit will likely tend to polarize the 'pro' and 'anti' camps even further. Law abiding firearm owners will of course grudging comply but will become even less trusting of the government. They will see such a law as the 'smoke-a-mirrors' political tactic that it really is, knowing that people with criminal intent are simply going to ignore it.

The elephant in the room is criminal behavior, not lots of bullets in someone's gun.

It will only further vilify legitimate gun owners and generate even more resentment for law enforcement and legal authority. The bad people will just carry on doing what they do. The only positive angle I can think of is perhaps a law that didn't work in Canada might work in the States.

I just can't imagine though why it would...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sure, that's okay if we're just bantering back and forth on an online forum.

However, 'semantics' (or correct legal definitions) tend to become somewhat critical when there is an implication of an individual's criminal liability.

The law courts seem to be rather fussy in that respect...

Yes, the gun nuts are arguing the definition like it's a reason not to move forward. I didn't say the legislators don't need to define what they are banning. My complaint is using this semantics argument like the shiny object, "oh look over there."

Yes, when/if the legislation is written it will need definitions. But the posts in this forum bringing this issue up aren't saying, let's discuss the definition, they are saying things like:

What is it about the AK47 and the AR15 that makes each weapon an assault weapon?

And

What do you understand to be the definition of "assault weapon"?

That's basically trying to derail the discussion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... The elephant in the room is criminal behavior, not lots of bullets in someone's gun. ..

Bull! It's both.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Meaningful steps, perhaps. The problem is that it is arguable that a ban such as the AWB is based upon little more than bad PR. I doubt very much that such a ban would have prevented last week's tragedy - the shooter could just as well used other weapons that are as effective and which were never covered by the ban.

Besides trying to sidetrack the issue, what's your point?

Is it that you believe a meaningful ban on some kinds of weapons is simply impossible?

Or are you just buying the talking point, "weapons or rifles? Oo, look over there", and regurgitating it?

 

[Metullus]

Yes, the gun nuts are arguing the definition like it's a reason not to move forward. I didn't say the legislators don't need to define what they are banning. My complaint is using this semantics argument like the shiny object, "oh look over there."

Yes, when/if the legislation is written it will need definitions. But the posts in this forum bringing this issue up aren't saying, let's discuss the definition, they are saying things like:
And

That's basically trying to derail the discussion.

How is it derailing the discussion when you are asked to define what you mean by "assault weapons" when you propose a ban of assault weapons? I am happy to discuss the definition with you; I am frankly curious as to what criteria you use to identify what is and what is not to be covered by the ban you proposed. If you are sticking with the original AWB criteria then you should be prepared to accept criticisms of those criteria. How is this unreasonable?

 

[Kestrel]

A lot of firearms violence can be avoided. Most of the victims in gang wars are members of gangs or people unlucky enough to live in a neighborhood infested with gangs. There are risks being the late night clerk at a convenience store or liquor store in a dodgy part of town, but you can avoid taking that kind of job. Drug deals gone bad can be avoided by not being a drug dealer. Bar fights that turn into gunfights can be avoided by choosing where you do your drinking. Family arguments that turn into murder are a bit harder to avoid, but there is always the option of leaving town.

A spree killer is a different matter. Short of barricading yourself at home you can't really avoid the risk. This makes spree killers much scarier than the far more common forms of firearms violence. We can't just ignore them because they are uncommon anymore than we can ignore serial killers and terrorist attacks.

So what do we as a society do about this problem? Australia responded with tight gun control measures after the Port Arther massacre^WP in 1996. Since that time, they have had zero shooting sprees. The measures taken by Australia may be politically impossible in the US, but we might be able to have some effect with lesser measures.

Restrictions on magazine size and certain weapons type will raise barriers for a potential spree killer. Spree killers are typically insane, not career criminals who would have little trouble finding a black market firearms dealer. The 20 year old who shot up Sandy Hook elementary is a prime example. If the family arsenal only included a couple of traditional deer rifles, would the carnage have been nearly as bad?

The mental state of spree killers also gives us some opportunity for intervention in cases where their family doesn't already have suitable weapons. Most spree killers fit into one of three groups. Those who are so insane they don't know what is happening like the Tucson shooter, sadistic psychopaths like Eric Harris at Columbine and angry, suicidal depressives. Requiring some minimal training before purchasing a firearm would give an opportunity for the insanity of all three groups to be noticed. The Aurora theater shooter was crazy enough that one gun shop turned him away. It's unlikely that he could have taken the 10 hour firearms safety class Colorado requires for a hunting license without that insanity being noticed. Unfortunately my state doesn't require any training before a firearms purchase.