2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

[dxmnkd316]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Couldnt agree more. You and I once had an epic back and forth (although you have so many you may not recall;-) )about guns in which you took the position that since increased gun laws wouldn't prevent all of these types of events it wasn't worth pursuing.

I reiterate my belief that with all of the social engineering failures the country has spent billions of dollars and dozens of years on, trying to control the sale and possession of guns (especially assault rifles and automatic weapons) is something worth trying.

While I agree with mookie that the government could reduce waste by .01% and fund a comprehensive gun policy, the government never reduces spending...still, I'd authorize this "over the budget" effort. Not as a knee-jerk reaction, not with the goal of preventing another SHES, but in an effort to reduce access to guns and gun violence.

Seems worth a try to me.

Social engineering? (I'm paraphrasing from someone in the now deleted Newtown thread...) It's been a massive failure because we try to treat every kid like they are special. We prop them up as the best at everything. Now when their grand plans for their life fall through we have a kid who has no mental capacity to cope with failure.

Like I mentioned earlier, I can't recall any of these mass murderers participating in sports. What I was getting at with that comment was the fact that playing sports teaches you to deal with failure.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Couldnt agree more. You and I once had an epic back and forth (although you have so many you may not recall;-) )about guns in which you took the position that since increased gun laws wouldn't prevent all of these types of events it wasn't worth pursuing.

I reiterate my belief that with all of the social engineering failures the country has spent billions of dollars and dozens of years on, trying to control the sale and possession of guns (especially assault rifles and automatic weapons) is something worth trying.

While I agree with mookie that the government could reduce waste by .01% and fund a comprehensive gun policy, the government never reduces spending...still, I'd authorize this "over the budget" effort. Not as a knee-jerk reaction, not with the goal of preventing another SHES, but in an effort to reduce access to guns and gun violence.

Seems worth a try to me.

But if the Federal Gov't gets involved, you end up with something like 50% overhead after you count the Federal / State / Local administration costs. Would it be better to start any such program at the grass roots level and each local government can determine how much involvement they want (one size does not fill all approach)????

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Couldnt agree more. You and I once had an epic back and forth (although you have so many you may not recall;-) )about guns in which you took the position that since increased gun laws wouldn't prevent all of these types of events it wasn't worth pursuing.

I reiterate my belief that with all of the social engineering failures the country has spent billions of dollars and dozens of years on, trying to control the sale and possession of guns (especially assault rifles and automatic weapons) is something worth trying.

While I agree with mookie that the government could reduce waste by .01% and fund a comprehensive gun policy, the government never reduces spending...still, I'd authorize this "over the budget" effort. Not as a knee-jerk reaction, not with the goal of preventing another SHES, but in an effort to reduce access to guns and gun violence.

Seems worth a try to me.

We just shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that sweeping "improvements" in gun control laws will have any measurable impact on the frequency of these mass shooting events. This problem with "gun violence" is far more complicated than making it harder for Adam Lanza to get a gun. Astonishing numbers of kids die each year from gun accidents. Brought to us by "law abiding" Americans who leave loaded weapons where kids can get at 'em. The streets of my home town (Chicago) have been flowing with blood this year. And the shooters are young, black and not demented. Nobody knows for sure how many guns are out there. But the number is surely in the hundreds of millions. What do we do about them?

IMO, our approach here should be comprehensive and deliberate. And I'm not optimistic in the slightest that that's the approach we'll take.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

If and when I ever own a gun, if there are children in the house, it would be locked in a separate location from the (also locked up) ammunition. It would be similar to how my parents did it: Locked up and we were not told where the guns were located. I never looked for them either.

 

[MUnRPI]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

We just shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that sweeping "improvements" in gun control laws will have any measurable impact on the frequency of these mass shooting events. This problem with "gun violence" is far more complicated than making it harder for Adam Lanza to get a gun. Astonishing numbers of kids die each year from gun accidents. Brought to us by "law abiding" Americans who leave loaded weapons where kids can get at 'em. The streets of my home town (Chicago) have been flowing with blood this year. And the shooters are young, black and not demented. Nobody knows for sure how many guns are out there. But the number is surely in the hundreds of millions. What do we do about them?

IMO, our approach here should be comprehensive and deliberate. And I'm not optimistic in the slightest that that's the approach we'll take.

There are many (statistically) valid arguments that can be made on gun control. The mainstream society is looking to government for answers, and demanding or lobbying against certain policies but you can't legislate peace. Everyone has to take responsibility for these tragedies.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

There are many (statistically) valid arguments that can be made on gun control. The mainstream society is looking to government for answers, and demanding or lobbying against certain policies but you can't legislate peace. Everyone has to take responsibility for these tragedies.

Let's take the matter of limiting the capacity of magazines. The ME reported all of Lanza's child victims were shot multiple times, at least one 11 times. Is someone who is capable of shooting a 6-year old 11 times likely to be slowed down by having to reload?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

If and when I ever own a gun, if there are children in the house, it would be locked in a separate location from the (also locked up) ammunition. It would be similar to how my parents did it: Locked up and we were not told where the guns were located. I never looked for them either.

More children are killed every year in gun accidents than have been killed in all school shootings combined. I've mentioned before an interview I did with a surgeon at Texas Children's Hospital, after a cluster of accidental kid shootings in Houston. He had many of the surviving victims as patients. And he said customarily the gun goes off when the kids are examining it closely. This results in head injuries. And if the child survives, he's facing the prospect of brain damage or disfigurement or both.

 

[walrus]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Let's take the matter of limiting the capacity of magazines. The ME reported all of Lanza's child victims were shot multiple times, at least one 11 times. Is someone who is capable of shooting a 6-year old 11 times likely to be slowed down by having to reload?

I think people not familiar with guns think it takes hours to reload a clip.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Let's take the matter of limiting the capacity of magazines. The ME reported all of Lanza's child victims were shot multiple times, at least one 11 times. Is someone who is capable of shooting a 6-year old 11 times likely to be slowed down by having to reload?

Yeah, but smaller clip sizes make sense. Higher chance of jamming. A guaranteed lower firing rate because of the reload time. Any number of reasons make sense to limit clip sizes. I believe the Gabby Giffords shooter was stopped because he had to reload.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Yeah, but smaller clip sizes make sense. Higher chance of jamming. A guaranteed lower firing rate because of the reload time. Any number of reasons make sense to limit clip sizes. I believe the Gabby Giffords shooter was stopped because he had to reload.

My only experience with limited capacity magazines came on the firing range in the AF, where I had to fire 10 rounds "rapid fire" from two 5 round magazines. Didn't seem to slow me down much. I qualified as a "small arms marksman." Actually, I think higher magazine capacity leads to more jamming. Didn't "Carrot Top" in Aurora use a 100 round magazine that jammed? Loughner, IIRC was using a handgun. And I wouldn't count it as a triumph of limited capacity that he was "only" able to kill six and wound twelve. My ideal solution would have been to drop a net over his head long before he showed up in that parking lot.

Anyway, the point that I've endeavored to make here several times is while these pending changes may be a good idea (I have no personal objection) in the larger context of reducing "gun violence" in the abstract, when it comes to dealing with this tiny group of mass shooters, these changes are likely to have next to no effect.

You're way too smart to make the "if it only saves one life argument," but I'm not as confident of some of our colleagues. If it only saves one life then whatever it is, it most assuredly isn't worth it.

 

[pirate]

We just shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that sweeping "improvements" in gun control laws will have any measurable impact on the frequency of these mass shooting events. This problem with "gun violence" is far more complicated than making it harder for Adam Lanza to get a gun. Astonishing numbers of kids die each year from gun accidents. Brought to us by "law abiding" Americans who leave loaded weapons where kids can get at 'em. The streets of my home town (Chicago) have been flowing with blood this year. And the shooters are young, black and not demented. Nobody knows for sure how many guns are out there. But the number is surely in the hundreds of millions. What do we do about them?

IMO, our approach here should be comprehensive and deliberate. And I'm not optimistic in the slightest that that's the approach we'll take.

Well, we start by recognizing that short-term wins will be few. Raise corporate taxes on gun companies and tariff the bejesus out of imports. Make the business less profitable for the manufacturers. This doesn't reduce old guns but it reduces new ones and eventually it will have an impact. Do the same for ammunition, this will likely have a quicker effect. Pay Microsoft or somebody to build a real database and change the laws for gun shops and gun shows...no same day sales. Increase the reward for turning in illegal gun dealers...increase the penalty for buying or selling guns illegally.

I'm sure the liquor companies fought tougher drunk driving laws like gun companies are fighting these efforts(and the NRA fights them too).

We haven't eliminated drunk driving and clearly the hardcore are still out there. Changing driving ages and number of kids in cars hasn't eliminated youth car accidents but it reduces the number of kids in cars and increases the age they can drive without an adult. Won't eliminate youth car deaths but has helped reduce them.

I have no illusion they stop. But in time I think they can be made harder to supply and possibly less deadly in terms of volume.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Meanwhile in New York...

2 Firefighters dead, 2 others wounded

Pickering said Spengler had staked out a position with an arsenal of several firearms on a berm overlooking the scene.

"It appears that it was a trap," Pickering said. "There was a car in a house that was engulfed in flames, probably set by Mr. Spengler, who lay in wait with his armaments and shot the first responders."

Merry Christmas!

 

[MUnRPI]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Let's take the matter of limiting the capacity of magazines. The ME reported all of Lanza's child victims were shot multiple times, at least one 11 times. Is someone who is capable of shooting a 6-year old 11 times likely to be slowed down by having to reload?

I meant that there are valid arguments on both sides that can be made. Both In favor and against

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Well, we start by recognizing that short-term wins will be few. Raise corporate taxes on gun companies and tariff the bejesus out of imports. Make the business less profitable for the manufacturers. This doesn't reduce old guns but it reduces new ones and eventually it will have an impact. Do the same for ammunition, this will likely have a quicker effect. Pay Microsoft or somebody to build a real database and change the laws for gun shops and gun shows...no same day sales. Increase the reward for turning in illegal gun dealers...increase the penalty for buying or selling guns illegally.

I'm sure the liquor companies fought tougher drunk driving laws like gun companies are fighting these efforts(and the NRA fights them too).

We haven't eliminated drunk driving and clearly the hardcore are still out there. Changing driving ages and number of kids in cars hasn't eliminated youth car accidents but it reduces the number of kids in cars and increases the age they can drive without an adult. Won't eliminate youth car deaths but has helped reduce them.

I have no illusion they stop. But in time I think they can be made harder to supply and possibly less deadly in terms of volume.

Actually, if we were able to make the same improvement in "gun violence" that we have in drunk driving, and highway safety in general, we'd all be delighted. I read an article recently that indicated if present trends continue we should have the number of gun deaths exceed the number of vehicle deaths for the first time ever in the next couple of years.

And our traffic death rate per mile driven is a tiny fraction of what it was when I was a kid. We've made enormous strides with passive and active restraints, design improvements in both cars and intersections and vastly improved lights, markers and signage. Changing licensing requirements for kids has also played a role. Plus, thanks in large measure to MADD, we no longer treat drunk driving as something humorous. When I was a kid we were killing 50K a year in cars. Now there are many more of us, driving many more miles and that annual death toll is down to around 30K. As I say, we've made great strides.

As to "gun violence," we've got cultural major cultural issues to resolve. Suicides by gun, accidental shootings and casual shootings are just some of the things we have to deal with. And some of what you suggest might result in fewer guns out there. But it won't stop street punks and drug dealers from acquiring firearms and using them. The truly bad guys will, I am afraid, find ways to keep themselves armed (during LBJ's "War on Poverty" DC bureaucrats gave nearly a million bucks to the Blackstone Rangers, part of which they used to acquire heavy weapons, which they stored in the basement of a church). The early Christmas Eve gun casualties in Chicago include six victims, 5 of whom were seriously wounded. And this goes on day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year. Largely ignored by the public. Taxation, regulation and confiscation won't change the gang culture or its embrace of gun violence.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-south-side-shooting-20121224,0,3054526.story

 

[pirate]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Actually, if we were able to make the same improvement in "gun violence" that we have in drunk driving, and highway safety in general, we'd all be delighted. I read an article recently that indicated if present trends continue we should have the number of gun deaths exceed the number of vehicle deaths for the first time ever in the next couple of years.

And our traffic death rate per mile driven is a tiny fraction of what it was when I was a kid. We've made enormous strides with passive and active restraints, design improvements in both cars and intersections and vastly improved lights, markers and signage. Changing licensing requirements for kids has also played a role. Plus, thanks in large measure to MADD, we no longer treat drunk driving as something humorous. When I was a kid we were killing 50K a year in cars. Now there are many more of us, driving many more miles and that annual death toll is down to around 30K. As I say, we've made great strides.

As to "gun violence," we've got cultural major cultural issues to resolve. Suicides by gun, accidental shootings and casual shootings are just some of the things we have to deal with. And some of what you suggest might result in fewer guns out there. But it won't stop street punks and drug dealers from acquiring firearms and using them. The truly bad guys will, I am afraid, find ways to keep themselves armed (during LBJ's "War on Poverty" DC bureaucrats gave nearly a million bucks to the Blackstone Rangers, part of which they used to acquire heavy weapons, which they stored in the basement of a church). The early Christmas Eve gun casualties in Chicago include six victims, 5 of whom were seriously wounded. And this goes on day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year. Largely ignored by the public. Taxation, regulation and confiscation won't change the gang culture or its embrace of gun violence.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-south-side-shooting-20121224,0,3054526.story

I don't disagree with the thugs having continued access to guns and that continuing to be a problem. However, it takes a criminal to easily procure a weapon from criminals. Jilted boyfriends and nutjobs aren't likely to head down to the mean streets to buy a gun with a handful of cash lest they be the victim instead of their girlfriend or supposed enemies. Just like a regular Joe can't go buy heroin if the mood strikes him, 20 year old kids, crazy grad students or stupid moms won't find it so easy to access guns if the controls are tightened.

I know americans are afraid of random hoodlums killing them as they walk along the street but, for the most part, hoodlums kill hoodlums; law abiding citizens commit a seeming majority of mass killings, and they would be the least likely to be able to get several guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition from a guy behind a bar. Hopefully, the nutjobs would try, and the CSI guys can try to figure out why they were murdered in an alley behind the bar.

Just like drunk driving laws don't stop the habitual drunk driver...I know they alter my drinking when I'm out; it just isn't worth the risk. And a lot of those previous DUI deaths were from the guy who had too many at the office party.

So, we'll still have hoodlums with guns and boyfriends will strangle girlfriends and disgruntled employees will stab their boss. But they won't be able to take 26 innocent people with them as easily.

And that is a start.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

it's about money.

and yes, thousands of security guards to watch over schools is a massive waste. if we need to pay for it we should tax guns and ammo 200% and lock box that money to fund the nra's wish list.

More on the NRA's proposal. It will cost US taxpayers $2B. The head of the National Association of School Resource Officers Mo Canady said that one armed guard would cost $80,000 per year, including salary, benefits, and equipment. The suggestion has led actual fiscal conservative Ron Paul to slam the NRA proposal.

And from an attached artile:

Meanwhile, the statistics show that this approach may not even work. According to a 2002 Secret Service study, in 41 school attacks, a law enforcement officer only ended the violence in 8% of the incidents. More often than not, the attack was so quick that it could not be stopped. Most notably, an armed officer failed to prevent the 1999 mass shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/2...plan-would-cost-2-billion-in-federal-spending

And that is a start.

And a good one. If it makes it a bit more complicated for the average person to own a firearm, it will make it more so for hoodlums. If guns are a bit more closely monitored, maybe the are considered as dangerous as they really are. Perhaps this has a subtle impact on society in marginalizing weapons in general. Many seem to think it won't have any impact...many others think it will have a major impact. The likely results will be somewhere inbetween which makes control worth while.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

I don't disagree with the thugs having continued access to guns and that continuing to be a problem. However, it takes a criminal to easily procure a weapon from criminals. Jilted boyfriends and nutjobs aren't likely to head down to the mean streets to buy a gun with a handful of cash lest they be the victim instead of their girlfriend or supposed enemies. Just like a regular Joe can't go buy heroin if the mood strikes him, 20 year old kids, crazy grad students or stupid moms won't find it so easy to access guns if the controls are tightened.

I know americans are afraid of random hoodlums killing them as they walk along the street but, for the most part, hoodlums kill hoodlums; law abiding citizens commit a seeming majority of mass killings, and they would be the least likely to be able to get several guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition from a guy behind a bar. Hopefully, the nutjobs would try, and the CSI guys can try to figure out why they were murdered in an alley behind the bar.

Just like drunk driving laws don't stop the habitual drunk driver...I know they alter my drinking when I'm out; it just isn't worth the risk. And a lot of those previous DUI deaths were from the guy who had too many at the office party.

So, we'll still have hoodlums with guns and boyfriends will strangle girlfriends and disgruntled employees will stab their boss. But they won't be able to take 26 innocent people with them as easily.

And that is a start.

Focusing on the next Adam Lanza as the rationale for tightening gun control laws is entirely the wrong approach, IMO. We lose more kids by accidental shootings each year than have been killed in all school shootings combined. What sense does it make to begin our search for a safer society by choosing the least likely event as a frame of reference? There are also limitations to the drinking/driving comparison. Even people who customarily drive drunk (most of my family and I narrowly missed being taken out a few years ago at this time of year) aren't intending to hurt anyone. Anyone who takes a gun to a school is. And you're overlooking the estimated 300 million weapons that are already out there. Adam Lanza didn't have to go to "the mean streets" to get his weapons, he stole them from his mother, whom he had murdered.

If we're looking to eliminate or cut way down on the number of mass shootings then we would be better served by trying to identify and treat potential threats before they begin pulling the trigger. That would mean changing the law to make it easier to require certain individuals to submit themselves to examination and if need be to treatment, whether they want to or not.

And your guns/drugs analogy is also of limited utility here. If it's so hard for "regular Joes" (do you mean whites?) to get heroin, then how come so many white, middle class kids are junkies? How come drugs are available for sale at the whitest high schools in the whitest neighborhoods? And the dealers aren't from the "mean streets" (do you mean black?) either.

The point is if you marginally impact suicides, ordinary murders, gang and drug violence you're talking about saving lots of lives. But if you marginally reduce the number or severity of exceedingly rare events, what real good have you done? Gang thugs kill themselves, to be sure, but they also kill lots of innocent women and children, too. They even have a word to describe those victims "mushrooms." You have unskilled shooters, frequently firing indiscriminately from a moving vehicle with notoriously inaccurate wepons. It's not a surprise that they kill lots of innocents, especially since they don't give a sh*t if they do. And I value the lives of those innocent kids on the southside of Chicago and in other big cities as much as I value the lives of the kids who were killed at Sandy Hook, as I know you do.

Making it marginally harder to acquire weapons legally is fine and would save some lives. We should also seriously upgrade the punishment for people who use guns to commit crimes. Florida has a "10, 20, Life" law. Flash a gun when you're robbing a 7/11 you've added an automatic 10 years to your sentence. Shoot somebody, it's 20 years. And if you kill somebody, it's life. These are all additional sentencs, irrespective of whatever other sentences may accrue. And "10,20, Life" is widely publicized, PSA's on TV, billboards, etc. We should also look at school security. And at a culture in which too many people think shooting someone is the proper response to life's little setbacks. Traffic accident? Somebody dissing you? Somebody making a play for your lady? Some stupid argument? Shoot 'em.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

WEBSTER, N.Y. (AP) — An ex-con killed two firefighters with the same caliber and make military-style rifle used in the Connecticut school massacre after typing a note pledging to burn down his neighborhood and ‘‘do what I like doing best, killing people,’’ police said Tuesday as another body, believed to be the gunman’s missing sister, was found.

William Spengler, 62, who served 17 years in prison for manslaughter in the 1980 hammer slaying of his grandmother, set his house afire before dawn Christmas Eve before taking a revolver, a shotgun and a semiautomatic rifle to a sniper position outside, Police Chief Gerald Pickering said.

The death toll rose to three as police revealed that a body believed to be the killer’s 67-year-old sister, Cheryl Spengler, was found in his fire-ravaged home.

Authorities say he sprayed bullets at the first responders, killing two firefighters and injuring two others who remained hospitalized Tuesday in stable condition, awake and alert and expected to survive. He then killed himself as seven houses burned on a sliver of land along Lake Ontario.

Police recovered a military-style .223-caliber semiautomatic Bushmaster rifle with flash suppression, the same make and caliber weapon used in the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., that killed 26, including 20 young children, Pickering said.

The chief said it was believed the firefighters were hit with shots from the rifle given the distance but the investigation was incomplete.

‘‘He was equipped to go to war, kill innocent people,’’ the chief said.

Obviously we need more guns. If those firefighters had had guns...oh wait, they still would have been shot.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Obviously we need more guns. If those firefighters had had guns...oh wait, they still would have been shot.

missing the forest for the trees........

 

[pirate]

Obviously we need more guns. If those firefighters had had guns...oh wait, they still would have been shot.

Childish, smartass comments really do a lot to further the dialog. Thanks.