US Connecticut Shooting

[mlp]

So you think all guns besides the government owned ones should be, what, outlawed, made more expensive, made to only hold one bullet? Or should the police go confiscate weapons people already own? Can we have swords? Cleavers? Baseball bats? Cars? Potassium? Pillows?

My post was in response to your post that Connecticut has an assault weapons ban and yet this killer used a weapon that his mother obtained and owned legally. I was trying to make the point that, if a law contains loopholes, the logical response isn't to say "An assault weapons ban doesn't work because the law didn't cover this type of quasi assault weapon", it's to remove the loopholes from the law. IOW, modify the law against slavery to include a prohibition against owning redheads as slaves, and modify the law against assault weapons to cover anything that has the firepower of an assault weapon.

As I said much earlier in this thread, bringing knives, pillows, fertilizer or anything else into this discussion is disingenuous at best. Guns have one purpose, and one purpose only - to kill or injure.

I've also made my position clear before - the Second Amendment's context is that of a "well regulated militia." We now have a national army and the state national guards. For those who argue otherwise and argue strict constructionism under their interpretation of the second amendment, I say fine - let everyone who wants own weapons of the kind the FF had in mind, but everyone who chooses to do so is also subject to being part of that "well regulated militia", ready and willing to muster out at a moment's notice. Because God knows, you're strict constructionists.

 

[Freesia]

The point I was making was that just because they have lots of guns, everyone in Switzerland isn't running around killing each other. In fact, that 20- year old Newtown killer wouldn't have had to shoot his mother in the face with her gun; he could have used one of his own guns that he would have been required to keep at the ready in the home had he been Swiss.

Switzerland is a bit of an outlier though, it cannot be compared to America in culture. It is likely a very quiet place full of wealthy people, and from what I have heard, clocks and swiss cheese.

 

[das_nut]

modify the law against assault weapons to cover anything that has the firepower of an assault weapon.

How do you define "firepower of an assault weapon"?

Or, to put it another way, lets say I have two rifles. Both are semi-automatics, both hold ten rounds. One's an AR-15, civilian model. One's just a semi-automatic rifle. Same ammunition. Same clip size. Both would fire at the same rate.

What's the difference in firepower?

I've also made my position clear before - the Second Amendment's context is that of a "well regulated militia.

Some would disagree that was the intent of the founding fathers, and that a "well regulated militia" is separate from the right to bear arms.

I'm not sure if you are unfamiliar with this, or you're just ignoring this argument.

 

[beancounter]

More Guns, More Mass Shootings—Coincidence?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/12/christmas-guns-black-friday-obama?google_editors_picks=true
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

"Gun enthusiasts like to say that possessing a firearm is a way for civilians to step in and prevent tragic shootings. But when Mother Jones' Mark Follman analyzed data about mass shootings during the last 30 years, he couldn't find a single instance of an armed civilian saving the day. In fact, when civilians attempted to intervene, they were often wounded or killed."

Hmm. Just like George Bush said - If you repeat the propaganda often enough, it becomes the truth.

 

[ledboots]

From your MotherJones link: "We used a conservative set of criteria to build a comprehensive rundown of high-profile attacks in public places—at schools, workplaces, government buildings, shopping malls—though they represent only a small fraction of the nation's overall gun violence. "
[And this]...

...The traumatic events included in our guide to mass shootings are the kind that tend to grab national attention—school and workplace shootings, attacks in shopping malls or government buildings—but they represent only a sliver of America's gun violence." Rest at ↑ link.


Schools, most workplaces, most government buildings, and shopping malls are gun-free zones. Concealed carry permit holders could not have helped in the 64 cases analyzed by this 'study' because they are not allowed to bring their guns to these places.

 

[ledboots]

There is the 1997 Mississippi school shooting case when the teacher went to his car and got his gun, thus disarming the killer, who was heading to the junior high to shoot it up as well.

And this case, although it was not widely reported that bystander guns were used to subdue the killer.

"It was January 16, 2002 when Peter Odighizuwa came to campus. He had been suspended due to failing grades. Odighizuwa was angry and waving a gun calling on students to “come get me”. The students, seeing the gun, ran. A shooting spree started almost immediately. In seconds Odighizuwa had killed the school dean, a professor and one student. Three other students were shot as well, one in the chest, one in the stomach and one in the throat.

Many students heard the shots. Two who did were Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges. Mikael was outside the school having just returned to campus from lunch when he heard the shots. Tracy was inside attending class. Both immediately ran to their cars. Each had a handgun locked in the vehicle.Bridges pulled a .357 Magnum pistol and he later said he was prepared to shoot to kill if necessary. He and Gross both approached Odighizuwa at the same time from different directions. Both were pointing their weapons at him. Bridges yelled for Odighizuwa to drop his weapon. When the shooter realized they had the drop on him he threw his weapon down. A third student, unarmed, Ted Besen, approached the killer and was physically attacked.
But Odighizuwa was now disarmed. The three students were able to restrain him and held him for the police. Odighizuwa is now in prison for the murders he committed. His killing spree ended when he faced two students with weapons. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance." http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/when-mass-killers-meet-armed-resistance.html?m=1

I am not saying everyone should walk around with a gun, obviously. But they can be used to help, too.

 

[mlp]

How do you define "firepower of an assault weapon"?

Or, to put it another way, lets say I have two rifles. Both are semi-automatics, both hold ten rounds. One's an AR-15, civilian model. One's just a semi-automatic rifle. Same ammunition. Same clip size. Both would fire at the same rate.

What's the difference in firepower?

From your description, none.

Some would disagree that was the intent of the founding fathers, and that a "well regulated militia" is separate from the right to bear arms.

I'm not sure if you are unfamiliar with this, or you're just ignoring this argument.

And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. It makes trying to have a discussion with you tedious.

 

[mlp]

IMO, those who argue that there's something magically special about guns that makes ownership/use of them especially protected and makes the owners more secure contribute to the gun culture, whether or not you own one yourself, in the same way that a veg*n who goes on about how no meal is complete without meat contributes to the meat culture.

If life were fair, gun violence would affect only those who are gun/gun rights proponents. But life isn't fair, and so most gun proponents will be able to hold onto their views while others pay the price.

 

[mlp]

Yakherder, your posts are always interesting and intelligent and most often thought provoking. I invariably enjoy reading them.

I think that you and I share very similar views of humanity, although despite that, I seem to be a somewhat cockeyed optimist - but then, I haven't seen firsthand what you've seen.

I agree that any change in gun laws, no matter how small, will result in uproar and upheavel from certain segments of our society. But that's been true with respect to every progressive change, from civil rights for African Americans to gay rights. Even the election of Barack Obama brought out the really ugly in a lot of people. If we had let fear and bigotry determine our course, the civil rights movement would not have happened, nor would the gay rights movement. That's true of progressive movements not only in theis country, but around the globe and throughout history.

ETA: I apologize for breaking this out into three consecutive posts, but I didn't want any confusion between what I was directing at specific individuals and what I was saying in more general terms.

 

[AuburnLavender]

I haven't read every reply and I admit that I am not really very knowledgeable about guns/gun culture etc. all I know is how it makes me feel. The fact that it was, seemingly, very easy for someone to walk into a school with a gun and shoot innocent children is something that doesn't really make sense to me. I am British and I wouldn't imagine ever owning a gun. Whether these two things are related I couldn't say. My twitter and facebook feeds have had several people talking about the shooting in a Dunblane school and how, after this supposedly, Britain banned certain guns (I'm afraid I don't recollect what exactly) and no shootings in schools have happened since. Does anyone know exactly how relevant this would be? I can see how someone may want a personal gun but an automatic weapon? I'm not sure how anyone would want this for personal protection? As I say, I don't really understand gun ownership so I can't comment from personal experience. How easy would it be to enforce a change in gun ownership laws in a country as large as the US? Is the mental health of the shooter an issue that needs to be looked at/included in discussion?

My thoughts ultimately rest with the victims.

 

[das_nut]

From your description, none.

So, are you for banning all semi-automatics?

And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. It makes trying to have a discussion with you tedious.

I'm just pointing out that you're holding onto one interpretation of the Constitution. There are others.

Unless you recognize that there are going to be other interpretations, you will be at a disadvantage when it comes to advocating your point.

 

[das_nut]

My twitter and facebook feeds have had several people talking about the shooting in a Dunblane school and how, after this supposedly, Britain banned certain guns (I'm afraid I don't recollect what exactly) and no shootings in schools have happened since.

There has been mass shootings after Dunblane though. Mr. Bird, for example.

 

[mlp]

So, are you for banning all semi-automatics?

Yes.

I'm just pointing out that you're holding onto one interpretation of the Constitution. There are others.

Unless you recognize that there are going to be other interpretations, you will be at a disadvantage when it comes to advocating your point.

And I was just pointing out that in my post I recognized that others have another interpretation. So there really was no need to lecture me, but when there's no actual need, one can always be manufactured.

 

[AuburnLavender]

There has been mass shootings after Dunblane though. Mr. Bird, for example.

Yes. That is true. The thing that is quoted is that there's been no school shootings since the ban. I suppose the quote is to appeal to people's outrage at school shootings. I am just trying to understand a bit more about what difference a change in gun laws might make and understand how easily accessible guns are to people who may do this kind of thing. I assume (rightly or wrongly) that it's easier to acquire a gun in, for example but not exclusively, the US than it would be in the UK?

 

[das_nut]

Yes. That is true. The thing that is quoted is that there's been no school shootings since the ban. I suppose the quote is to appeal to people's outrage at school shootings. I am just trying to understand a bit more about what difference a change in gun laws might make and understand how easily accessible guns are to people who may do this kind of thing. I assume (rightly or wrongly) that it's easier to acquire a gun in, for example but not exclusively, the US than it would be in the UK?

Depending on the gun and the area, probably. There used to be cities that banned certain types of guns up until a few years ago, but that law was struck down within the past decade.

You can even buy a full automatic gun in many states if you jump through enough hoops, and I don't think the UK allows that at all. Then again, I can't remember the last time a legally purchased fully automatic weapon was used in a shooting.*

Most of the US mass shootings are done with semi-automatics, either pistols or rifles. A semi-automatic fires one bullet when the trigger is pulled. The gun control argument is that semi-automatics make it easier to kill people. I'm not really sure about this - a revolver has a similar rate of fire, and most shootings have a small amount of victims. In theory, a high-capacity magazine (more bullets) makes some semi-automatic rifles more dangerous, but in practice, swapping magazines takes under a second.

I'm not sure what guns are used in most US gun homicides. As I've said, most involve a small number of victims. Considering gun homicides ties to drugs and stupid machismo, I wouldn't be surprised if more "manly" or "intimidating" weapons are disproportionately used. Hmmm, there's an idea - maybe all guns should be pink and have pictures of hearts and penises on them.

* A quick google search turns up two cases of legally owned full-automatics being used in shootings. Both resulted in the murder of one person, AFAICT. The first was a law enforcement officer who murdered an informant. The second, which I can find only vague references to, was a civilian-owned fully automatic weapon used to murder someone else.

 

[yakherder]

How easy would it be to enforce a change in gun ownership laws in a country as large as the US?

It isn't just the size that's the issue, it's the culture. In a country where people don't consider guns to be part of their heritage, it's probably not as big of a deal telling them they can't have them (or certain types of them) anymore. In America though, as irrational as it might seem to someone who didn't grow up in that culture, it's a very volatile issue... like telling someone they're not allowed to own a house anymore or something. It might be difficult to see that element of our culture from this form, given the left leaning nature, but it's a serious issue, more so in particular regions of the U.S. or specific demographic groups. In my National Guard unit, which is in Vermont, I am one of the few people who does not own a gun. About a third have at least one civilian version of a military style carbine, such as the M4 used in the shooting, and some have more than one. Gun control in places like this is an entirely different matter than countries where it isn't the norm, or even places within the U.S. like New York City which has it's own entirely different culture.

It's for that reason that solving the problem isn't as easy as establishing a link between guns and gun violence. The relevant issue is how to go about getting from point A to point B. If all of a sudden laws were put in place severely limiting gun purchases, or even worse attempting to confiscate those already owned, there would be serious social consequences that could result in anything from rioting to state secessions. Laws are only relevant if you can hold a country together after creating those laws.

My stepfather was one of those people. He didn't have any assault weapons, but he had somewhere in the range of 20 various types of other guns. If laws had been passed prohibiting him from owning those, I have no doubt that the police would have had to kill him to retrieve them. He wasn't a bad guy and he wasn't crazy within the context of the culture he belonged to, but he had no tolerance for what he would have considered a broken government trying to take away his rights. Any realistic solution must take into account that a large portion of the United States are living with this mentality.

Some aspects of it are probably worth fighting, such as the ban on fully automatic weapons. Very few people would argue that they are a necessity, and very few people owned them, so it was not an incredibly risky move taking them off the civilian market. The same is true with extended clips.

 

[das_nut]

Some aspects of it are probably worth fighting, such as the ban on fully automatic weapons.

I'd argue that the NFA restrictions appear to be working. It's not a ban, but it restricts ownership to such a degree that those weapons are highly unlikely to be used in a crime.

The same is true with extended clips.

While I think the political will is there to renew an AWB-style regulation and banning of extended clips, I have strong doubts that it'll reduce mass shootings. All it means is that the shooter needs to carry a few more clips.

 

[Wolfie]

If life were fair, gun violence would affect only those who are gun/gun rights proponents. But life isn't fair, and so most gun proponents will be able to hold onto their views while others pay the price.

If life were fair, gun violence would affect only those who are violent criminals.

 

[Eleven]

There is nothing fair about anyone getting shot for any reason. If life were fair, there would be no gun violence. But, since life is not fair, we should try to limit the amount of people being shot.

Introducing more gun violence into a situation in an attempt to stop gun violence is foolish at best.

 

[Eleven]

It isn't just the size that's the issue, it's the culture.

The culture argument is an excuse. U.S. culture has been changed many times by the force of law. Guns are yet another example of people holding on to something that most of American society understands need to go away. We're sick of people being shot and we're sick of people holding on to the culture of shooting people, whether it be in a defensive posture or not.