Many dead in Connecticut primary school shooting
December 14, 2012 2:19 PM Subscribe

The BBC is reporting that police arrived at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut soon after 09:40 local time today, answering reports that a gunman was in the school's main office.

The Los Angeles Times reports that "...according to State Police spokesman Paul Vance, the gunman entered the school and fired at students and staff in one section – two rooms – at the school." Lt Vance later said 18 children were pronounced dead at the school, and two died after they were taken to hospital. Six adults were also killed. The gunman died at the scene. The Wall Street Journal reports state police saying another victim was found dead elsewhere in Newtown, putting the total toll at 28.

Early reports named 24-year-old Ryan Lanza as the gunman, but officials later said his brother Adam, 20, was the suspect. Ryan Lanza was being questioned by police, the Associated Press and New York Times reported.

There is a currently rapidly evolving wikipedia page on the shooting.

posted by Wordshore (3058 comments total) 50 users marked this as a favorite

Note to all: we discussed this and are going to go with this as the topical thread. Thanks everyone for being patient while the news did its thing.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 2:21 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

.
posted by ericb at 2:23 PM on December 14, 2012

.
posted by tykky at 2:24 PM on December 14, 2012

.

And then !

!!!!!
posted by RakDaddy at 2:24 PM on December 14, 2012

.
posted by curuinor at 2:25 PM on December 14, 2012

.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:25 PM on December 14, 2012

My heart goes out to the families of the children and of the teacher killed by her own adult child.

Newtown is as peaceful a place as I can think of in Connecticut. And for a person to enter a K-4 elementary school and kill children ... it just speaks to incredible illness.
posted by zippy at 2:25 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

A transcript of President Obama's address to the nation earlier this afternoon.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:26 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

.
posted by radwolf76 at 2:26 PM on December 14, 2012

I don't usually think of the cops in these kinds of situations but that would have to be a crime scene that would haunt you to your grave.
posted by Egg Shen at 2:27 PM on December 14, 2012 [82 favorites]

Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States
posted by ericost at 2:27 PM on December 14, 2012 [34 favorites]

.
posted by marimeko at 2:28 PM on December 14, 2012

"When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, "Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping." To this day, especially in times of "disaster," I remember my mother's words and I am always comforted by realizing that there are still so many helpers – so many caring people in this world." -Fred Rogers
posted by Blasdelb at 2:28 PM on December 14, 2012 [336 favorites]

This is good. Thank you for setting it up this way.
posted by Auguris at 2:28 PM on December 14, 2012

It's disturbingly similar to the Dunblane primary school massacre that prompted the UK's handgun ban.
posted by Rhaomi at 2:28 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 2:28 PM on December 14, 2012

Fred Rogers' advice on how to talk to kids about things like this, Tragic Events in the News [Coral Cache Backup Link], helped me with my feelings about this, and I'm a grown man.
posted by ob1quixote at 2:29 PM on December 14, 2012 [40 favorites]

I don't usually think of the cops in these kinds of situations but that would have to be a crime scene that would haunt you to your grave.

I had a neighbor who was a cop who responded to Columbine. He confirmed your supposition.
posted by caryatid at 2:29 PM on December 14, 2012 [8 favorites]

This is heartbreaking. I was already upset about the knife attack on 22 children in a school in China earlier this morning, and now this. My heart is filled with poison and my head is drowning in evil.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:29 PM on December 14, 2012 [10 favorites]

Connecticut massacre suspect: How the media IDed the wrong guy.
posted by ericb at 2:30 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

A thorough Washington Post story. A story from the Hartford, Connecticut Courant.

The home at 36 Yogananda Street was the propert of Nancy Lanza and Peter J. Lanza. Nancy Lanza is confirmed dead at the school.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:30 PM on December 14, 2012

MetaTalk thread about how best to handle this topic. There are also people using the chat server for real-time discussion.
posted by mbrubeck at 2:30 PM on December 14, 2012

If there is a sign of hope in the world today, it's that we broke Mr. Rogers' webpage.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:30 PM on December 14, 2012 [52 favorites]

As a new parent, I have noticed a difference in my reactions to any tragic news involving children (Syria, Sandy, Bopha, and now Newtown). It's much, much more visceral and I find myself almost frozen in an indescribable state of terror and guilt.

. for the victims.

. for the lack of words to accurately describe my feelings.

! for my imminent action to donate to the Brady Center and any other organization dedicated to helping make sure this cannot occur again.
posted by CancerMan at 2:30 PM on December 14, 2012 [12 favorites]

Nobody died in the Chinese knife attack so far. Guns, they are part of the problem.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:31 PM on December 14, 2012 [63 favorites]

My employer is local news site Patch.com. People from all over the world are leaving condolences on the Newtown Patch facebook page. Also on the local site there is a list of memorium prayer services in the area if you want to help in some way. Personally I'm really busted up over this. It's a bad day.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:32 PM on December 14, 2012

The Second Amendment of the Constitution reads as follows:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

There are already a good number of public figures and organizations today (nevermind internet commentors like us) who have made it publicly known that they don't seem to notice or care about the first three words.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:33 PM on December 14, 2012 [23 favorites]

If Guns Do Not Kill, Tax the Bullets

“These mostly simple machines last forever,” Mr. Moynihan said.

But he wasn’t through.

“On the other hand, we have only a three-year supply of ammunition.”

His solution: Increase the tax on bullets. He wouldn’t raise the tax on ammunition typically used for target shooting or hunting. But he proposed exorbitant taxes on hollow-tipped bullets designed to penetrate armor and cause devastating damage.

“Ten thousand percent,” Mr. Moynihan said.

That would have made the tax on a 20-cartridge pack of those bullets $1,500. “Guns don’t kill people; bullets do,” said Senator Moynihan, a Democrat who died in 2003.

posted by tonycpsu at 2:34 PM on December 14, 2012 [110 favorites]

Fred Roger's Advice for talking about Tragic Events in the News

"In times of community or world-wide crisis, it's easy to assume that young children don't know what's going on. But one thing's for sure -- children are very sensitive to how their parents feel. They're keenly aware of the expressions on their parents' faces and the tone of their voices. Children can sense when their parents are really worried, whether they're watching the news or talking about it with others. No matter what children know about a “crisis,” it’s especially scary for children to realize that their parents are scared.

Some Scary, Confusing Images:
The way that news is presented on television can be quite confusing for a young child. The same video segment may be shown over and over again through the day, as if each showing was a different event. Someone who has died turns up alive and then dies again and again. Children often become very anxious since they don’t understand much about videotape replays, closeups, and camera angles. Any televised danger seems close to home to them because the tragic scenes are taking place on the TV set in their own livingroom. Children can't tell the difference between what's close and what's far away, what's real and what's pretend, or what's new and what's re-run.

The younger the children are, the more likely they are to be interested in scenes of close-up faces, particularly if the people are expressing some strong feelings. When there's tragic news, the images on TV are most often much too graphic and disturbing for young children.

“Who will take care of me?”:
In times of crisis, children want to know, "Who will take care of me?" They're dependent on adults for their survival and security. They're naturally self-centered. They need to hear very clearly that their parents are doing all they can to take care of them and to keep them safe. They also need to hear that people in the government and other grownups they don’t eveen know are working hard to keep them safe, too.

Helping Children Feel More Secure:
Play is one of the important ways young children have of dealing with their concerns. Of course, playing about violent news can be scary and sometimes unsafe, so adults need to be nearby to help redirect that kind of play into nurturing themes, such as a hospital for the wounded or a pretend meal for emergency workers.

When children are scared and anxious, they might become more dependent, clingy, and afraid to go to bed at night. Whining, aggressive behavior, or toilet "accidents" may be their way of asking for more comfort from the important adults in their lives. Little by little, as the adults around them become more confident, hopeful and secure, our children probably will, too.

Turn Off the TV:
When there's something tragic in the news, many parents get concerned about what and how to tell their children. It's even harder than usual if we're struggling with our own powerful feelings about what has happened. Adults are sometimes surprised that their own reactions to a televised crisis are so strong, but great loss and devastation in the news often reawaken our own earlier losses and fears – even some we think we might have "forgotten"

It's easy to allow ourselves to get drawn into watching televised news of a crisis for hours and hours; however, exposing ourselves to so many tragedies can make us feel hopeless, insecure, and even depressed. We help our children and ourselves if we’re able to limit our own television viewing. Our children need us to spend time with them – away from the frightening images on the screen.

Talking and Listening:
Even if we wanted to, it would be impossible to give our children all the reasons for such things as war, terrorists, abuse, murders, major fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes. If they ask questions, our best answer may be to ask them, "What do you think happened?" If the answer is "I don't know," then the simplest reply might be something like, "I'm sad about the news, and I'm worried. But I love you, and I'm here to care for you."

If we don't let children know it's okay to feel sad and scared, they may think something is wrong with them when they do feel that way. They certainly don't need to hear all the details of what's making us sad or scared, but if we can help them accept their own feelings as natural and normal, their feelings will be much more manageable for them.

Angry feelings are part of being human, especially when we feel powerless. One of the most important messages we can give our children is, "It's okay to be angry, but it's not okay to hurt ourselves or others." Besides giving children the right to their anger, we can help them find constructive things to do with their feelings. This way, we'll be giving them useful tools that will serve them all their life, and help them to become the worlds' future peacemakers -- the world's future "helpers."

Helpful Hints:

Do your best to keep the television off, or at least limit how much your child sees of any news event.
Try to keep yourself calm. Your presence can help your child feel more secure.
Give your child extra comfort and physical affection, like hugs or snuggling up together with a favorite book. Physical comfort goes a long way towards providing inner security. That closeness can nourish you, too.
Try to keep regular routines as normal as possible. Children and adults count on their familiar pattern of everyday life.
Plan something that you and your child enjoy doing together, like taking a walk, going on a picnic, having some quiet time, or doing something silly. It can help to know there are simple things in life that can help us feel better, in good times and in bad.
Even if children don't mention what they've seen or heard in the news, it can help to ask what they think has happened. If parents don't bring up the subject, children can be left with their misinterpretations. You may be really surprised at how much your child has heard from others.
Focus attention on the helpers, like the police, firemen, doctors, nurses, paramedics, and volunteers. It's reassuring to know there are many caring people who are doing all they can to help others in this world.
Let your child know if you're making a donation, going to a town meeting, writing a letter or e-mail of support, or taking some other action. It can help children to know that adults take many different active roles and that we don't give in to helplessness in times of worldwide crisis.

posted by Blasdelb at 2:36 PM on December 14, 2012 [199 favorites]

.
posted by likeatoaster at 2:36 PM on December 14, 2012

I picked my grandson up from his bus stop this afternoon. I guess I won't have the radio on in front of him for the forseeable future. Only partly because I don't want him hearing any of these details-he's only a kindergartener-but because I can't listen without bursting out into tears.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 2:38 PM on December 14, 2012 [11 favorites]

They were interviewing a fourth grade boy on the radio

The news stations have been interviewing a lot of the kids. I could make more sense of it when it was high school kids after a shooting but with kids this young I don't get why the parents are letting it happen. Go home and be a family together, leave the news to the press conferences.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:38 PM on December 14, 2012 [48 favorites]

.
posted by homunculus at 2:39 PM on December 14, 2012

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(and so tragically counting)
posted by raztaj at 2:39 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

When I met my husband-to-be on line, he lied to me. He told me he was a baggage handler at the airport rather than a postal worker because he was embarrassed by the term "going postal." In the 12 years that we have been together I don't think any postal workers have gone berserk-- it seems to be schools, malls, and movie theater shootings.

This sort of news is so ubiquitous now yet it is the elementary school shootings really haunt me. I still think about that Jewish community Center shooting in Los Angeles sometimes. Elementary school children. Fuck. That people in our society should take out their anger on these sweet, innocent little ones makes me weep.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:40 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

White men from prosperous families grow up with the expectation that our voices will be heard. We expect politicians and professors to listen to us and respond to our concerns. We expect public solutions to our problems. And when we’re hurting, the discrepancy between what we’ve been led to believe is our birthright and what we feel we’re receiving in terms of attention can be bewildering and infuriating. Every killer makes his pain another’s problem. But only those who’ve marinated in privilege can conclude that their private pain is the entire world’s problem with which to deal. This is why, while men of all races and classes murder their intimate partners, it is privileged young white dudes who are by far the likeliest to shoot up schools and movie theaters.

Interesting essay that looks at mass shootings from a different cultural angle than most.
posted by tzikeh at 2:40 PM on December 14, 2012 [138 favorites]

If any of the reporters are shoving microphones in the kids' faces without full parental consent and participation, I, as a member of the media, would like to offer said reporters my most sincere dick-punchings.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:40 PM on December 14, 2012 [55 favorites]

ESPN has asked its staff to refrain from using the word "shooter" and basically stop tweeting altogether. Good move.
posted by troika at 2:40 PM on December 14, 2012 [18 favorites]

It's disturbingly similar to the Dunblane primary school massacre that prompted the UK's handgun ban.

Frankly, the disturbing record of exactly none more even remotely comparable shows the bankrupt folly of this brazen overreach.
posted by dhartung at 2:41 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

Good move.

I would love to see significantly more of this restraint in the news media honestly.
posted by jessamyn at 2:43 PM on December 14, 2012 [26 favorites]

> Frankly, the disturbing record of exactly none more even remotely comparable shows the bankrupt folly of this brazen overreach.

Trying to parse that sentence...
and...
can't do it.
posted by spock at 2:43 PM on December 14, 2012 [90 favorites]

We are that much more horrified, and grieving en masse, because this happened as a single incident--and maybe because of the demographic and location--but we suffer this loss over and over and over again as a nation every. single. year.

Title: Protect Children Not Guns 2010

Publication Date: August 2010

What does it say?

This annual report from the Children’s Defense Fund documents the impact on children and teens (0-19) of weak gun laws and easy access to guns. The report is based on the latest information available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2007) and includes information on gun homicides, suicides, and unintentional shooting deaths by age group, race/ethnicity, and state.

Key findings:

In 2007, 3,042 children lost their lives to gun violence and an additional 17,523 suffered non-fatal gun injuries and the emotional aftermath that followed (p. 1).

The annual number of firearm deaths of white children and teens decreased by 54 percent between 1979 and 2007, while the deaths of black children and teens increased by 61 percent (p. 8).

The number of children and teens in America killed by guns in 2007 would fill more than 122 public school classrooms of 25 students each (p. 2).

The 3,042 children and teens killed by gunfire in the U.S. in 2007 is comparable to the total number of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq and four times the number of American combat fatalities in Afghanistan to date (p. 1).

More preschoolers (under age 5) died by gunfire (85) than law enforcement officers (57) killed in the line of duty (p. 2).
posted by availablelight at 2:43 PM on December 14, 2012 [56 favorites]

Huckabee: Schools ‘A Place Of Carnage’ Because We ‘Systematically Removed God’

Looks like someone's setting up a run for 2016.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:43 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

.
posted by Han Tzu at 2:44 PM on December 14, 2012

How the media ID'd the wrong guy: http://theweek.com/article/index/237888/connecticut-massacre-suspect-how-the-medianbspided-the-wrong-guy.

Think about that next time you are trying to be quick on the Twigger/Tritter.
posted by spock at 2:45 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

.
posted by absolutelynot at 2:45 PM on December 14, 2012

Charles Pierce: More Gun Horrors And Unanswered Questions

The Bell Tolls For All Of Us
posted by homunculus at 2:46 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

I suppose for me the thing that transforms this from terrible to maddening is a sickening sense that, once again, nothing will be done, and nothing will change, and this will happen again. I hope Obama meant it when he declared that something must be done, but this is the third mass shooting this year alone, and what has been done?

Fine, gun enthusiasts. You want gun control off the table? Give me an alternative. Make a suggestion, and an honest one, backed up by real data and research. Give me an answer that will make something like this so anomalous as to be unthinkable, instead of what it is now, which is inevitable.

Because it is, for me, as though fate had aligned to make the point as clearly as possible. There were two attacks on schools today, one in China, one in the U.S. In China, the attacker had a knife. In America, a gun.

In China, there are no dead. In America, more than 20.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 2:47 PM on December 14, 2012 [129 favorites]

Yeats, via Pierce

Where dips the rocky highland
Of Sleuth Wood in the lake,
There lies a leafy island
Where flapping herons wake
The drowsy water-rats.
There we've hid our fairy vats
Full of berries,
And of reddest stolen cherries.
Come away, O, human child!
To the woods and waters wild
With a fairy hand in hand,
For the world's more full of weeping than
you can understand.

posted by hap_hazard at 2:47 PM on December 14, 2012 [31 favorites]

Jesus fucking wept.
posted by octobersurprise at 2:47 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

.
posted by saturday_morning at 2:48 PM on December 14, 2012

Huckabee: Schools ‘A Place Of Carnage’ Because We ‘Systematically Removed God’

Oh, go to hell, Huck. Do the Amish not have enough God in their community too? I better not hear Fox News whining about people talking about gun control. If they are gonna blame the first amendment I can blame the second.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:48 PM on December 14, 2012 [34 favorites]

Also:

Michigan GOP issues statement of condolence hours after ramming concealed carry law through legislature.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:48 PM on December 14, 2012 [10 favorites]

@BorowitzReport on Twitter:

If laws controlled guns the way the NRA controls politicians, the US would be the safest country in the world.

and

Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I wish mental health care were as easy to get as, say, a gun.

posted by spock at 2:48 PM on December 14, 2012 [62 favorites]

Huckabee: Schools ‘A Place Of Carnage’ Because We ‘Systematically Removed God’

Looks like someone's setting up a run for 2016.

What an utterly clueless sack of shit.
posted by Ratio at 2:48 PM on December 14, 2012 [50 favorites]

Huckabee: Schools ‘A Place Of Carnage’ Because We ‘Systematically Removed God’

Because if there's one thing we know for sure, it's that prayer makes you immune to bullets. Remind me where I've heard that one before?

But seriously, what with all the gun-nuts running around demanding that we not "politicize the tragedy" by having an honest national discussion of the circumstances that brought us to where we are today, trust Mike Huckabee to find a way to really politicize it, and in the most callous and insensitive fashion imaginable to boot.
posted by fifthrider at 2:49 PM on December 14, 2012 [18 favorites]

.
posted by Defying Gravity at 2:49 PM on December 14, 2012

.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 2:49 PM on December 14, 2012

This is heartbreaking. I was already upset about the knife attack on 22 children in a school in China earlier this morning

Yeah I don't know if it is just bias confirmation but yesterday my husband and I noticed independently that here in Raleigh we seem to have seen a spike in the number of firearm murders just in the last couple of weeks. A mom and two kids. A husband and wife. An Indian restaurant owner. A young man. On and on. Nothing ties them together, just guns and death.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:50 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

Huckabee: Schools ‘A Place Of Carnage’ Because We ‘Systematically Removed God’

Schools aren't the only place we need more God in. Let's talk about all the people who desperately need some kind of mental health care, who we just call "loony" or "evil" and Other and ignore, grateful that we're not one of Them, hateful that They exist. Doesn't God want us to love one another? Shouldn't we start loving each other BEFORE the guns come out?

What's happening here is a tragedy, but the tragedy runs deeper than any mainstream media outlet will acknowledge. Or any fucknut Republican ex-candidate, for that matter.
posted by Rory Marinich at 2:50 PM on December 14, 2012 [23 favorites]

.
posted by lord_wolf at 2:50 PM on December 14, 2012

Gun control proponents have been gathering at the White House, but I think they're on the wrong side of the river to do any good. The NRA headquarters are down the road in NOVA.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 2:51 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

Newtown and the Madness of Guns

I figure if we can post about Huckabee's bloviating, then this is fair game.
posted by RakDaddy at 2:51 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

I got an email from my kids school about this - we're in Wahington, so it's really just boilerplate stuff, they are award of the situation, general safety, how to talk to children about it, and so on. Still, you NEVER want anything from your kids school with the word "shooting" I'm it, and that's the second one this year.

I am not sure what the hell I am doing in a country where that sort of thing is necessary.
posted by Artw at 2:51 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Drinky Die writes "Nobody died in the Chinese knife attack so far. Guns, they are part of the problem."

This is anecdote not data.
posted by Mitheral at 2:51 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

troika: "ESPN has asked its staff to refrain from using the word "shooter" and basically stop tweeting altogether. Good move."

Related: Syfy Pulls 'Haven' Episode in Wake of Newtown School Shooting
posted by brundlefly at 2:51 PM on December 14, 2012

If today’s shooting won’t prompt action on guns, then nothing ever will

After these massacres our public officials regularly vow that a “conversation” — whatever that means — has to take place about guns. After which they throw up their hands and lament that “political reality” dictates that no actual discussion about gun policy could possibly go anywhere. And nothing happens.

This time I want to believe things may be different. This seems like a level of horror that belongs to a whole different category, one that has the potential to shame our public officials into action, as long as we insist that there is no other moral alternative.

There was a hint of this in President Obama’s remarks today. Choking up with emotion, he said: “The majority of those who died today were children. Beautiful little kids between the ages of five and 10 years old. They had their entire lives ahead of them. Birthdays. Graduations. Weddings. Kids of their own.”

“As a country we have been through this too many times,” Obama added. “We’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.”

Let’s believe he means it, while simultaneously insisting he prove it. Obama’s statement rose to the occasion emotionally, but the unique horror of today’s events demands that Obama and other public officials rise to the occasion politically.

You’re not supposed to say this on days like today, but political action is exactly what’s needed. The usual voices will try to shut down the debate by warning against “politicizing” the tragedy. But we should “politicize” it, if by that we mean undertaking a discussion about how our elected officials can act to stop this madness.

Gun violence is one area where something approaching a bipartisan consensus has formed among commentators and observers that reform is imperative, even as the only people who continue to refuse to act are those in a position to actually change things. This time, our public officials — the president included — simply must start an actual policy discussion about the appropriate response to the slaughter caused by the easy availability of guns. Not just a “conversation” about how screwed up our culture is or the usual argument over whether Evil and/or mental illness are the real culprits (as the gun rights advocates tell us) that require addressing. It’s easy access to guns that translates the darkest of human impulses, whatever their cause, into the massacre of innocent children.

posted by zombieflanders at 2:51 PM on December 14, 2012 [26 favorites]

.
posted by But tomorrow is another day... at 2:51 PM on December 14, 2012

.

Work was anything but silent after we heard about this (New Haven CT). Everyone wanted to talk about it--we had a lot of people watching and spreading the most up-to-date news (as well as "news"). I'm not sure how much of it was the excitement of gossiping about a massive, tragic, fairly local, ongoing event. Hopefully most of my coworkers were just trying to parse it or recognize it in their own ways. I'm not sure what's an appropriate reaction to something like this.
posted by Baethan at 2:51 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Gun control proponents have been gathering at the White House, but I think they're on the wrong side of the river to do any good. The NRA headquarters are down the road in NOVA.

They're out in the exurbs, which in all likelihood is precisely to prevent this kind of action from taking place as often as it does in DC.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:53 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

I heard Obama speak on the radio; if you read or heard it, you might find it worth watching too.
posted by insectosaurus at 2:53 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's disturbingly similar to the Dunblane primary school massacre that prompted the UK's handgun ban.

The children murdered at Dunblane were almost the same age as the suspect in today's killings. I don't think that's meaningful, but it's something which struck me as so saddening.

.
posted by Jehan at 2:53 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

From last week's Daily Show on the response to the Javon Belcher shooting:

Jon Stewart Tears Into Fox News For Arbitrarily Deciding When And Where People Can Talk About Gun Control
posted by homunculus at 2:53 PM on December 14, 2012 [14 favorites]

I am completely removed from my emotions right now. I'm in shock, I completely do not get this in any way. It does not compute in my mind how this is possible.

.
posted by roboton666 at 2:53 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

This boingboing post was interesting in the context of the gun control discussion.
What science says about gun control and violent crime

The part that I saw that made the most sense was the quoted thingy about tribal affiliation. World view and tribal affiliation matters more than science of facts.

It also brings to mind a whole slew of things I've read recently about the phenomenon known as "running amok" and how it is considered a culturally linked reaction. The things people have linked to above about what kinds of people are more likely to act out in this manner is interesting in that line of thought as well.

No solutions, but commentary at least. Hopefully some understand will come out of it, eventually.
posted by daq at 2:53 PM on December 14, 2012 [9 favorites]

How the media ID'd the wrong guy:

Would that be libel, slander, or defamation? At what point can you sue the media for the tremendous damage to your reputation they caused?
posted by ceribus peribus at 2:54 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

This is anecdote not data.

You want data on guns being better at killing people than knives? Is the gradual falling out of favor of swords as the primary tool in modern warfare data or anecdote?
posted by Drinky Die at 2:54 PM on December 14, 2012 [116 favorites]

Also, a gem of a video that got buried when the other thread got folded in:

Charlie Brooker, on the perverse consequences of the way we report shootings.
posted by fifthrider at 2:54 PM on December 14, 2012 [41 favorites]

Ten Arguments Gun Advocates Make, and Why They're Wrong
posted by zombieflanders at 2:54 PM on December 14, 2012 [35 favorites]

ESPN has asked its staff to refrain from using the word "shooter" and basically stop tweeting altogether. Good move.

I don't think I understand. Is there some question as to whether or not there was a shooter? I understand things like refraining from putting out the name of the person alleged to have done this at least until the cops confirm it, but "shooter"?

Or is there perhaps some other reason for not saying "shooter" that I'm just missing entirely?
posted by Flunkie at 2:55 PM on December 14, 2012

The 10th Regiment of Foot: "Gun control proponents have been gathering at the White House, but I think they're on the wrong side of the river to do any good. The NRA headquarters are down the road in NOVA."

Gun control proponents showing up at the NRA HQ does not sound like something that would end well.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:55 PM on December 14, 2012

My daughter's schoolbus will be dropping her off in a few minutes. She's about to get the biggest hug of her entire life.
posted by The corpse in the library at 2:55 PM on December 14, 2012 [22 favorites]

I am still just in complete shock. I can't believe I live in a place where these kinds of mass shootings happen so regularly now.
posted by SkylitDrawl at 2:55 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

Unfortunately, love is not always enough to help the mentally ill. What is?
posted by Melismata at 2:56 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

It’s Easier For Americans To Access Guns Than Mental Health Services, Sy Mukherjee, Think Progress, 14 December 2012
posted by ob1quixote at 2:57 PM on December 14, 2012 [24 favorites]

fifthrider, I think of that every time.

How awful that "every time" has to be the way I refer to mind-breaking atrocities like this.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 2:57 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

Flunkie: "Shooter" is a basketball term, someone who "shoots" the ball into the net from a distance. ESPN reports on basketball and thus the request to not use any terminology related to guns.
posted by CancerMan at 2:57 PM on December 14, 2012 [8 favorites]

Sometimes counseling. Sometimes medication. Sometimes institutionalization. And sometimes nothing.
posted by Justinian at 2:57 PM on December 14, 2012

You want data on guns being better at killing people than knives? Is the gradual falling out of favor of swords as the primary tool in modern warfare data or anecdote?

Believe it or not, I just got out of a rather flabbergasting argument on /b/ with a number of individuals who were thoroughly convinced that one would be safer fighting a man with a gun hand-to-hand than a man with a knife, because you could "deflect the barrel," and who believed firmly that the average person would have a harder time killing with a gun than with a knife because it apparently takes more skill to use a pistol than a knife effectively... (An argument that I thought was settled since about the dawn of the Meiji Restoration.)

If anything, this proves that this nation desperately needs a pro-knife lobby to balance things out.
posted by fifthrider at 2:57 PM on December 14, 2012 [13 favorites]

Tell me why I don't like Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays.
posted by perhapses at 2:58 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

I've been hearing from friends and family members who have called today just to check in and say "Hi Mom." It's a sad day for all of us who work in schools.
posted by Lynsey at 2:58 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

Or is there perhaps some other reason for not saying "shooter" that I'm just missing entirely?

While reporting sports news, ESPN is more likely to use the word shooter in a different context than referring to today's tragedy.

(on preview, what CancerMan said)
posted by ceribus peribus at 2:58 PM on December 14, 2012

BBC: "Dressed in black and wearing a bullet-proof vest, the gunman is thought to have had several weapons at the school, although it is not clear whether he used more than one."

NYT: "Law enforcement officials said the weapons used by the gunman were a Sig Sauer and a Glock. In addition to the two handguns, the police also found an M4 carbine at the scene that they believe belonged to the gunman."

Assuming for the purposes of discussion, these two reports are true, two inferences are probable: 1) there was premeditation and 2) the assailant will likely be found to possess considerable right-wing political literature.

It's statistically likely. These events look more and more alike, the more you study them in detail.

It will be several days at least before we start seeing reliable information on the assailant's background.
posted by warbaby at 2:58 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Or is there perhaps some other reason for not saying "shooter" that I'm just missing entirely?

I imagine not to use 'shooter' in the sports sense (shoot the puck, shoot hoops?) as to not collide with tweets relating to the shooting and risk being taken out-of-context as insensitive.
posted by mazola at 2:58 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Oh, wait, maybe ESPN wants to temporarily avoid referring to basketball players who take shots as "shooters"? Rather than wanting to avoid referring to the person who did this as a "shooter"?
posted by Flunkie at 2:58 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Unfortunately, love is not always enough to help the mentally ill. What is?

Well, like, I meant the kind of love that leads to us deciding to invest in a much more effective mental health program across America. Maybe start by acknowledging that mental health is a serious thing, the mentally ill aren't just punch lines to jokes, and that we have to treat it as seriously as we treat physical illness? It's embarrassing, the way this country talks about this issue.
posted by Rory Marinich at 2:58 PM on December 14, 2012 [30 favorites]

The thought foremost in my mind whenever one of these happens is 'Surely this will be the one that prompts some sort of action'. Then the next one comes around, and everyone once again starts talking about shooting sprees as if they're an inevitable part of American life.

Maybe it's because I never lived in the USA long enough to absorb the culture, but I don't understand why this is considered such a hard problem to solve. How about a 10-year gun ban, just to see what happens? Ten years without any handguns or automatic weapons to play with is surely worth it if it might drastically reduce killing sprees like this.
posted by anaximander at 2:59 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

I feel really terrible for poor Ryan Lanza. First the media fingers him as the killer, then he learns that his mother is dead, his brother having killed her, two dozen other innocents, mostly children, and then himself. And I'm really wondering about the other murder in town - the father in this family seems currently unaccounted for.
posted by maryr at 2:59 PM on December 14, 2012 [56 favorites]

In addition to Brooker's observations above, Roger Ebert once offered this telling anecdote of how NBC interviewed him the day after the Columbine Massacre about how movies could inspire this kind of violence. He disagreed and went further:

"Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

NBC did not use the interview.
posted by Doktor Zed at 2:59 PM on December 14, 2012 [204 favorites]

They were interviewing a fourth grade boy on the radio who described what they heard from the gym and how they all hid in the supply closet before being evacuated by the police. They saw a guy facedown on the ground, handcuffed. I had to switch stations after that because I started crying, even though the kid sounded calm, but jesus fuck. No one, let alone an 8-year-old, should have to go through that.

What is weird to me is that all of the kids they are interviewing seem so completely calm. I watched an interview of a third grade girl earlier, and she was almost eerily serene throughout. Are these kids just in shock, or what?
posted by SkylitDrawl at 3:00 PM on December 14, 2012

availablelight writes "Title: Protect Children Not Guns 2010"

Note that the report includes anyone under the age of 20 as a child. Many of the children killed in that report are soldiers in the drug war which is one of the reasons why poor (IE:black) children are over represented.
posted by Mitheral at 3:00 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Drinky Die writes "Nobody died in the Chinese knife attack so far. Guns, they are part of the problem."

This is anecdote not data.

If guns aren't more effective at killing than knives, then what is the argument in their favor?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:00 PM on December 14, 2012 [15 favorites]

Nobody who thinks that their precious killing machines are worth these casualties has anything to say to me today.
posted by Phire at 3:00 PM on December 14, 2012 [10 favorites]

The Onion: Fuck Everything, Nation Reports

Following the fatal shooting this morning at a Connecticut elementary school that left at least 27 dead, including 20 small children, sources across the nation shook their heads, stifled a sob in their voices, and reported fuck everything. Just fuck it all to hell.

All of it, sources added.

posted by Rory Marinich at 3:00 PM on December 14, 2012 [100 favorites]

Let's put the message of the Brooker video right here in the thread again: Mass shootings come in clusters because seeing news coverage of shootings -- NOT Batman, NOT Grand Theft Auto, NOT Ice T or Marilyn Manson or other fictional work -- may convince fragile people that their voices will be heard if they shoot up a school. This is one of the reasons I personally am not surprised this is happening so often.

I am mulling today how feasible it would be for news outlets to not report the name or picture of a killer, as the psychiatrist in the Brooker video suggests. Social media would clearly make an end run around them, so that would be a problem. Or what if, as suggested, the coverage was limited to a local area? Would that squelch copycat killings?
posted by gusandrews at 3:00 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

the assailant will likely be found to possess considerable right-wing political literature.

And if he doesn't? Like few mass shooting incidents do?
posted by lstanley at 3:01 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

Also from the Onion: Right To Own Handheld Device That Shoots Deadly Metal Pellets At High Speed Worth All Of This
posted by Rory Marinich at 3:02 PM on December 14, 2012 [25 favorites]

I've been listening to the radio and reading about this all day. I can't tear myself away, but I wonder if the reporting is part of the problem. Yet, when something like this happens - how can you not report on it?
posted by insectosaurus at 3:02 PM on December 14, 2012

Believe it or not, I just got out of a rather flabbergasting argument on /b/ with a number of individuals who were thoroughly convinced that one would be safer fighting a man with a gun hand-to-hand than a man with a knife, because you could "deflect the barrel," and who believed firmly that the average person would have a harder time killing with a gun than with a knife because it apparently takes more skill to use a pistol than a knife effectively...

This does not surprise me at all, considering the type of people who tend to post on /b/.
posted by SkylitDrawl at 3:02 PM on December 14, 2012

Drinky Die writes "Nobody died in the Chinese knife attack so far. Guns, they are part of the problem."

This is anecdote not data.

Saying 'there was a similar attack in China where a guy used a knife! Gun control won't stop people from going berzerk if they are going to do it' is an anecdote.

Saying 'the Chinese attack both had zero (0) guns and zero (0) fatalities' is data.

Saying 'availability of guns has no effect on fatality rates' is idiocy.
posted by FatherDagon at 3:02 PM on December 14, 2012 [55 favorites]

I've told this story a few times before, but it has never felt more relevant.

The night of 9/11 I was out on a fire escape of a friend's apartment in the east village. Everything was surreal that day, no way to process any of it, and the streets below me were completely empty.

And then I looked dow to see the image that will remain probably the most striking thing I will ever see in my life: a mother and daughter dancing hand in hand down the empty street, the daughter (about 4 or 5, I'd guess) laughing while the mother cried.

Today's tragedy struck my sister's family's community, though thank, well, everything they are all okay. These are the days parents suit up for.

My thoughts are with every parent doing the equivalent of dancing with their young children tonight, and especially with those who wish they could be.
posted by Navelgazer at 3:03 PM on December 14, 2012 [63 favorites]

Maybe it's because I never lived in the USA long enough to absorb the culture, but I don't understand why this is considered such a hard problem to solve.

Because you need a Constitutional Amendment to ban (all) guns. That's extraordinarily difficult.

How about a 10-year gun ban, just to see what happens?

See above. It's unclear exactly where the constitutional line lies in terms of reasonable gun control. But a blanket ban would unquestionably fail the test. Even just a handgun ban rather than an all-gun ban is on extremely shaky ground.

I'm not sure I have a good answer here, but a blanket ban is not possible.
posted by Justinian at 3:03 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Are these kids just in shock, or what?

Kids rarely act as you expect them to. They are not adults.

In some ways kids just kind of act as if everything is normal but the trauma can reveal itself in other ways that may be harder to detect and not immediately visible.

IANAD.
posted by mazola at 3:04 PM on December 14, 2012 [10 favorites]

I think that the most distressing thing about all of this is how there have been enough mass school shootings in recent memory for "school shootings" to be a genre that people can comment about with some expertise.
posted by LMGM at 3:04 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

And for me, The Onion is, just now, saying the most honest and true things about this event. Maybe just don't read the site for today?
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 3:06 PM on December 14, 2012 [92 favorites]

I got into an argument today with someone who insisted that a sufficiently motivated person will find a way to kill, with or without guns. He claimed that it would be just as easy to run an SUV through a crowd of people, so there is no point in trying to regulate guns any further.

Apparently, in his world, mass vehicular homicide is just as real of a threat as mass shootings. When I tried to point out that this is fairly ludicrous and not even a thing that actually, you know, happens, he insisted that it is.

I have no idea how to counter that type of willful ignorance and obstinance, but it runs deep in this country.
posted by malocchio at 3:06 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

If Guns Do Not Kill, Tax the Bullets

Someone just saw Chris Rock's bullet control bit.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:06 PM on December 14, 2012 [11 favorites]

As I mentioned in the deleted thread, year 2001 me never thought he'd see 2012 me write this, but The Onion really needs to back the hell off of this story for the time being.

Why? This is what they do very, very well.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:06 PM on December 14, 2012 [10 favorites]

His solution: Increase the tax on bullets. He wouldn’t raise the tax on ammunition typically used for target shooting or hunting. But he proposed exorbitant taxes on hollow-tipped bullets designed to penetrate armor and cause devastating damage.

A very great number of the bullets used for hunting are hollow-tipped and they do not penetrate armour.
posted by atrazine at 3:06 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

zombieflanders: Ten Arguments Gun Advocates Make, and Why They're Wrong

Honestly, and I say this as a major proponent of gun control, that article is as fact-free and intuition-heavy as any of the pro-gun arguments I've been hearing.
posted by invitapriore at 3:06 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

.
posted by annsunny at 3:07 PM on December 14, 2012

.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:07 PM on December 14, 2012

Bless those teachers who took such good care of the children in their care. They kept their cool huddled in closets and did not add to the stress the kids were already feeling, doing what they could to allay the children's fears. They were the true heroes of the day.

My heart breaks for all involved. I can't imagine what those families are feeling.
posted by NoraCharles at 3:07 PM on December 14, 2012 [17 favorites]

While I agree with Ebert, I'm still a bit angered whenever I see the poster for the new Red Dawn movie.
posted by perhapses at 3:07 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Guns are not ever going to be banned in the US. Many people rely on hunting for a significant part of their food, even today. Farmers and ranchers need guns to put down injured animals and to hunt predators.

Even without getting into the whole self-defense question or the Constitutional question, guns are tools many people in the US need and use responsibly.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:07 PM on December 14, 2012 [9 favorites]

A very great number of the bullets used for hunting are hollow-tipped and they do not penetrate armour.

Yeah, somebody confused hollow-point and armor-piercing rounds. They're, like, kind of opposite.
posted by Justinian at 3:08 PM on December 14, 2012 [8 favorites]

Would that be libel, slander, or defamation? At what point can you sue the media for the tremendous damage to your reputation they caused?

Ask Richard Jewell (in the next life).
posted by dhartung at 3:08 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

The Onion really needs to back the hell off of this story for the time being.

The Onion combines emotional accuracy with saying the shit real journalists aren't allowed to say because of this stupid fucking "objective journalism" crap that results in nobody saying anything honest. I wish they were large enough to report on every national story this quickly.
posted by Rory Marinich at 3:08 PM on December 14, 2012 [71 favorites]

Why? This is what they do very, very well.

It just really sucks that they've had so many chances to prove this.
posted by yellowbinder at 3:08 PM on December 14, 2012 [18 favorites]

If any of the reporters are shoving microphones in the kids' faces without full parental consent and participation, I, as a member of the media, would like to offer said reporters my most sincere dick-punchings.

Fuck parental consent. They shouldn't be shoving microphones in those kids faces period.
posted by kmz at 3:09 PM on December 14, 2012 [44 favorites]

Guns are not ever going to be banned in the US. Many people rely on hunting for a significant part of their food, even today. Farmers and ranchers need guns to put down injured animals and to hunt predators.

Yeah, us being the only country that has hunting and farms, we are in a unique situation worldwide.
posted by FatherDagon at 3:09 PM on December 14, 2012 [116 favorites]

I realize that this is a controversial issue to talk about, but it is something that clearly needs to be talked about: none of these children would be dead if they had all been home schooled.
posted by flarbuse at 3:09 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

Even without getting into the whole self-defense question or the Constitutional question, guns are tools many people in the US need and use responsibly.

What I generally hear proposed is a handgun ban which is different. That leaves hunters alone. But it's not clear that would survive a Constitutional challenge either.
posted by Justinian at 3:09 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Is BoingBoing the only place saying the killer was autistic? That's the first I've heard that.
posted by Toekneesan at 3:10 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

As I mentioned in the deleted thread, year 2001 me never thought he'd see 2012 me write this, but The Onion really needs to back the hell off of this story for the time being.

the Onion honestly has been more cathartic and comforting to me than anything else today.
posted by KathrynT at 3:10 PM on December 14, 2012 [17 favorites]

filthy light thief: " Someone just saw Chris Rock's bullet control bit yt ."

Yeah, the Rock routine is mentioned in the piece.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:10 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

perhapses: "While I agree with Ebert, I'm still a bit angered whenever I see the poster for the new Red Dawn movie."

Tell me about it. There are plenty of racist idiots salivating for my blood after they saw the movie. Doesn't exactly make me feel great about working in this country.
posted by Phire at 3:11 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

> I realize that this is a controversial issue to talk about, but it is something that clearly needs to be talked about: none of these children would be dead if they had all been home schooled

Are you joking?
posted by The corpse in the library at 3:11 PM on December 14, 2012 [55 favorites]

I realize that this is a controversial issue to talk about, but it is something that clearly needs to be talked about: none of these children would be dead if they had all been home schooled.

Are you saying we should home school all children because school shootings? Because...I'm sorry, what.
posted by SkylitDrawl at 3:11 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

Reporter on NPR just talked about how kids in the school "knew what 'lockdown' meant" and had practiced for the eventuality. I can't get past my initial response of sadness to get to that actually being good news.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 3:11 PM on December 14, 2012 [10 favorites]

While I agree with Ebert, I'm still a bit angered whenever I see the poster for the new Red Dawn movie.

Speaking of movies, Gangster Squad is only a few weeks away from it's rescheduled release.
posted by ceribus peribus at 3:12 PM on December 14, 2012

I realize that this is a controversial issue to talk about, but it is something that clearly needs to be talked about: none of these children would be dead if they had all been home schooled.

What on earth? What is your point? That every child in America should be home schooled? That is hardly possible and that still leaves movie theaters, shopping malls, sports arenas, community centers, and many other places where large numbers of people including children gather.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:12 PM on December 14, 2012 [15 favorites]

"'The reaction is always the same: shock, disbelief, sadness, prayers, repression,' writes the [Berliner Zeitung]."

Atlantic: The Rest of the First World Is Astounded by America's Enduring Gun Culture
posted by ryanshepard at 3:12 PM on December 14, 2012 [28 favorites]

Even without getting into the whole self-defense question or the Constitutional question, guns are tools many people in the US need and use responsibly.

They aren't called assault rifles because they're made for hunting venison and plinking bottles off a fence.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:12 PM on December 14, 2012 [18 favorites]

This .gov petition on gun control - started after todays events - is fast approaching the required 25K mark.
posted by piyushnz at 3:12 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

mazola Kids rarely act as you expect them to. They are not adults.

In some ways kids just kind of act as if everything is normal but the trauma can reveal itself in other ways that may be harder to detect and not immediately visible.

And adults frequently don't react to trauma or grief as you would expect them to, either. I remember that every time I hear someone say about a person found at the scene of a crime, "you can tell they had something to do with it, they didn't get teary or anything."
posted by hat at 3:12 PM on December 14, 2012 [13 favorites]

.
posted by evoque at 3:13 PM on December 14, 2012

I'm reasonably certain flarbuse is being ironic.
posted by Phire at 3:13 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

item, I fully realize that satire may be an approach that is too difficult or too soon for you, but nobody is forcing you to follow those links.

Is BoingBoing the only place saying the killer was autistic? That's the first I've heard that.

I've seen it on at least two of the news blogs, attributed to the surviving brother (Ryan Lanza: "autistic or asperger's with a personality disorder"), but it must be said this is not something the police have formally said.
posted by dhartung at 3:13 PM on December 14, 2012

Jesus, this whole thing makes me ill.
posted by OmieWise at 3:14 PM on December 14, 2012

A handgun ban through legislation (as opposed to Constitutional amendment) would absolutely not survive a court challenge. District of Columbia v. Heller made that point crystal clear.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 3:14 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

Is there a way I can thank President Obama for his "meaningful action" speech, and to ask that he follow through? Is his twitter account still active?
posted by CancerMan at 3:14 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

piyushnz: "This .gov petition on gun control - started after todays events - is fast approaching the required 25K mark."

Well that will certainly send sales through the roof.
posted by the_artificer at 3:14 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

Is BoingBoing the only place saying the killer was autistic? That's the first I've heard that.

Xeni Jardin (or anyone on BB) is the last source anyone should look to for any kind of fact-based reporting or balanced analysis. There is nothing in any of the articles linked from that post to indicate that the killer was autistic.
posted by Ratio at 3:14 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Over and over again
posted by the duck by the oboe at 3:15 PM on December 14, 2012 [13 favorites]

Since it is now looking like the media might have reported (read: guessed) the wrong dead parent at home (some outlets are reporting that the mother was not at school but was the body found at home), I would really appreciate not guessing things like where the alleged killer or his brother falls on some sort of spectrum yet.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 3:15 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Is BoingBoing the only place saying the killer was autistic? That's the first I've heard that.

Newtown Patch:

Patch exclusive: The man identified in media reports Friday as the shooter has told friends that he thinks his developmentally disabled brother may have committed the crime, Patch has learned.

posted by 1970s Antihero at 3:16 PM on December 14, 2012

FatherDagon, someone was asking why the US doesn't "ban guns". That is part of the reason. I am myself an advocate of enhancing gun control in the US.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:16 PM on December 14, 2012

re:The Onion doing this well, see also the article "Nation Celebrates Full Week Without Deadly Mass Shooting" that was posted a little over a week after the shootings at the Sikh temple and Texas A&M... only to be (literally) updated just hours later with a brutal "Never Mind" after the shooting at the Empire State Building.
posted by Rhaomi at 3:16 PM on December 14, 2012 [17 favorites]

I was already crying on the way home but I had to pull over while listening to the president speak.
posted by theredpen at 3:17 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

malocchio writes "Apparently, in his world, mass vehicular homicide is just as real of a threat as mass shootings. When I tried to point out that this is fairly ludicrous and not even a thing that actually, you know, happens, he insisted that it is."

Happened at the my high school graduation bush party.

FatherDagon writes "Saying 'availability of guns has no effect on fatality rates' is idiocy."

I had this go around recently in another thread and I'm not really in the mood for it again so I'll sum up my opinion and bow out:

America has a Violent Culture problem not a lack of gun control problem. Many of these crimes are committed with already illegal weapons (though it appears not in this case so far). Concentrating on increasing gun controls will, in America, be ineffectual and at best mask some of the symptom. Money and effort put into trying to bandage this symptom with gun controls would IMO be better expended on addressing the violent culture problem.

piyushnz writes "This .gov petition on gun control - started after todays events - is fast approaching the required 25K mark."

It'll have to get in line 'cause the petition to build a Death Star already passed the 25K
posted by Mitheral at 3:17 PM on December 14, 2012 [8 favorites]

none of these children would be dead if they had all been home schooled.

Later might be a good time for that, if there is in fact a good time for that. Now is not a good time.
posted by jessamyn at 3:18 PM on December 14, 2012 [20 favorites]

They say, Presidents must be pushed to be great. Let's push Obama to be great on this issue.
posted by angrycat at 3:18 PM on December 14, 2012 [25 favorites]

> Reporter on NPR just talked about how kids in the school "knew what 'lockdown' meant" and had practiced for the eventuality. I can't get past my initial response of sadness to get to that actually being good news.

We do lockdown drills twice a year at the high school where I teach. Same scenario as Newtown, just huddle with students in bathrooms, closets and behind bookshelves and wait quietly until we hear someone at the door give the code word or until we hear an all clear over the loudspeaker. What was the "duck and cover" drill for my generation is now the "lockdown drill" for this generation.
posted by NoraCharles at 3:19 PM on December 14, 2012 [19 favorites]

Aside from talking about a reasonable approach to gun control, I would also like to see some approach to changing the angry male culture. Why do certain men feel the need to kill their children and their wives before committing suicide? Why do certain men feel the need to go to their ex-wives work place and kill everyone inside, customers as well as colleagues? Why do certain men feel the need to kill not just their mother but also everyone at their mother's workplace? I know it has something to do with control but how does our society address this problem and is it even possible?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:19 PM on December 14, 2012 [79 favorites]

Okay so question, because I'm young and only started really paying attention to politics in 2006/2007, and I want to know how quickly I ought to squash my idealism:

This is the sort of the thing where, because it's Obama's second term, he gets to actually push for, right? Like, gun control, or mental health awareness, or generally trying to stop this shit from happening again? He can do that without meaningful political repercussion because he won't be voted in again? And he can, I dunno, use blackmail or scary faces or bribes to make the House stop being such lazy pieces of shit?

Because I vaguely remember Bush doing a lot of shit in the second term when he could get away with it, and it would be cool if Obama could try and make this country less shitty in a significant way, like with fewer kids getting shot to death and stuff. And I feel like the whole country is sad/pissed off enough about this that maybe we could get behind a president we don't 100% love who tries to make progress here? Or is it just shithead presidents who ignore process and break rules who get to do that? Fingers crossed!
posted by Rory Marinich at 3:19 PM on December 14, 2012 [13 favorites]

I suppose Fox News and the Right will gladly cut money from providing social services like mental health care, leaving that to prayer.
posted by reiichiroh at 3:20 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

It's humiliating that one bunch of assholes and their money get to short circuit a reasonable and intelligent approach to gun ownership. Especially as their actions ultimately serve up nightmares like these.

It's not that hard, doing it right. Look at, oh I don't know, most of the rest of the industrialized world.
posted by From Bklyn at 3:20 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

This is the sort of the thing where, because it's Obama's second term, he gets to actually push for, right? Like, gun control, or mental health awareness, or generally trying to stop this shit from happening again? He can do that without meaningful political repercussion because he won't be voted in again? And he can, I dunno, use blackmail or scary faces or bribes to make the House stop being such lazy pieces of shit?

No. There are other issues to deal with and having to fight this huge battle would be distracting and use up resources that might be better used elsewhere.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:21 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

! for my imminent action to donate to the Brady Center and any other organization dedicated to helping make sure this cannot occur again.

I heard Obama speak on the radio; if you read or heard it, you might find it worth watching too .

Made more poignant in that President Obama was speaking from the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room in the West Wing of the White House.
posted by ericb at 3:21 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

@Rory Marinich: Bush had political clout. Obama is best at staying out of the way.
posted by Ardiril at 3:22 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

flarbuse

What tremendous insight! The true solution is even simpler, however. It is an undeniable fact that if the school had distributed handguns to those kindergarteners and trained them in their use, much of this tragedy could have been averted.

But the fools insist on distributing textbooks and cheap plastic recorders instead.
posted by The Confessor at 3:23 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

Because I vaguely remember Bush doing a lot of shit in the second term when he could get away with it

He tried to, anyway. The Social Security reform gambit failed miserably, and aside from the Iraq surge and playing whack-a-mole with scandals, he didn't have a very ambitious second term at all.

Second terms are generally tough for Presidents in general, but it might be different since Obama was constrained throughout his first term in ways that others wasn't.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:23 PM on December 14, 2012

.

I was volunteering at my children's elementary school this morning (about 45 minutes from Newtown) when a teacher pulled me aside to let me know about the shooting. There were no details available at that point ( who the shooters were, motives, how many there were) so the school went into a kind of semi-lockdown and police were posted outside all of the elementary schools in town. It was very calm but you could tell everyone was shaken up. It wasn't until I got in the car a hour later and turned on NPR that I understood the full horror of what had happened. I had just had lunch with my son's entire kindergarten class...all those wonderful, vibrant, jubilant little people...and in another town, not an hour away and not more than two hours earlier...all that was snuffed out. Just gone. I was yelling at the radio and crying...just so senseless.
posted by victoriab at 3:23 PM on December 14, 2012 [20 favorites]

No. There are other issues to deal with and having to fight this huge battle would be distracting and use up resources that might be better used elsewhere.

I'm not actually worried that will happen, but I do relish the idea of creating more opportunities for certain scum to squirm under the glare of the immediate event.
posted by dhartung at 3:23 PM on December 14, 2012

Happened at the my high school graduation bush party.

Mass vehicular homicide just doesn't happen at the same rate as mass shootings. If you can provide some evidence that it does, I'd be interested in seeing it.
posted by malocchio at 3:24 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

Aside from talking about a reasonable approach to gun control, I would also like to see some approach to changing the angry male culture.

This quote from Byron Hurt, which I still have not successfully sourced, sums it up:

"Until we stop telling boys that they can not cry, or show emotion, or that they have to be tough and powerful, and in control of people and things; and until we stop sending men the message that we cannot show vulnerability, or express our anger, sadness, disappointment, fear, and rage in healthy way, we will continue to see this kind of hypermasculine aggression, which perplexes only those who do not make the connection between masculinity, violence, and guns."

posted by restless_nomad at 3:24 PM on December 14, 2012 [81 favorites]

Also, the Republicans in Congress are much better at being obstructionist assholes than the Democrats are.
posted by Phire at 3:24 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

They say, Presidents must be pushed to be great. Let's push Obama to be great on this issue.

He can cry if he wants to, but he needs to step up and be a leader on this. Let's hope he's up to it.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:25 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Pardon me if I am skeptical that any American politician, let alone Obama, can or will do anything to avoid future tragedies of this nature.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:25 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

@BorowitzReport tweets:

When the 2nd Amendment was written the most lethal gun available was the musket.

posted by spock at 3:26 PM on December 14, 2012 [26 favorites]

Secret Life of Gravy: Why do certain men feel the need to kill their children and their wives before committing suicide? Why do certain men feel the need to go to their ex-wives work place and kill everyone inside, customers as well as colleagues?

This was linked in chat this afternoon, I believe by restless_nomad.

Why Most Mass Murderers Are Privileged White Men, Hugo Schwyzer, Role Reboot, 23 July 2012
posted by ob1quixote at 3:26 PM on December 14, 2012 [14 favorites]

Christian Radio Host Bryan Fischer: God Didn’t Stop CT Shooting Because We Took Prayer Out Of Classroom.
posted by ericb at 3:26 PM on December 14, 2012

A cynical/strangely hopeful part of me imagines that the White House is going to allow the republicans to make public asses of themselves trying to spin this event, use the fall-out to handle the "fiscal cliff" and then hopefully move on to sensible gun control and mental health care.
posted by Navelgazer at 3:26 PM on December 14, 2012

This is the sort of the thing where, because it's Obama's second term, he gets to actually push for, right?

Because it's his second term, he's limited in the amount of armtwisting he can do of his own caucus, let alone the GOP. Gun control is a non-starter, just because of the house.
posted by empath at 3:26 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

I remember my father telling me that when Korea started on its current strict gun control regimen, my grandfather was proud to hand in his hunting rifle to the authorities. He used to love hunting, my grandfather.

According to the law then, he was still allowed to have his gun, but he was proud to hand in his gun. Because it meant that Korea was a more civilized place. It could be counted among other first-world countries which controlled these dangerous weapons. It meant that he trusted the police to protect him, which certainly wasn't the case during the occupation. It meant that he believed that other people would hand in their guns, too.

To a great extent, Korea has become that sort of civilized place. I've literally never known any civilian in Korea who has a gun, even for hunting. The doors of Korean schools are not reinforced to withstand bullets. Gun are scary and are bogeymen from the movies. Even criminals don't usually use guns.

I can't imagine the gun-owners of today's America handing in their weapons in the belief that it would make the country a better place.
posted by curuinor at 3:27 PM on December 14, 2012 [89 favorites]

See above. It's unclear exactly where the constitutional line lies in terms of reasonable gun control. But a blanket ban would unquestionably fail the test. Even just a handgun ban rather than an all-gun ban is on extremely shaky ground.

I understand that the majority consensus required to ban guns will likely never happen, I just don't understand why it will never happen. Because from where I'm standing, and from where a lot of other people are standing, any other course of action seems like utter insanity.
posted by anaximander at 3:27 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

Yeah the right have worked hard to put out there the meme that Michael Moore is a hack liberal hack who never says a non-hack non-liberal thing about anything and so you shouldn't listen to him and put your hands over your ears and go LA LA LA when he's in the room. But really, watch Bowling for Columbine. Everything I could say here, he already said there.
posted by JHarris at 3:27 PM on December 14, 2012 [8 favorites]

What is weird to me is that all of the kids they are interviewing seem so completely calm.

In 1995, a student pulled a gun in my high school's lunch room and ended up injuring two students after a chase through the school hallways. No one was killed.

I was in the lunch room when the gun was pulled. I saw that the doors were blocked by stampeding students, so I crouched behind a metal counter. There was one other person hiding behind the counter, one of the cafeteria workers. I don't really remember how long we stayed there or what happened next. After the shooter was captured, the school was "locked down" but a lot of students just left. Eventually we were all sent home early. Media and police were all over the campus.

This was before Columbine and other high-profile school shootings. There were no metal detectors or lockdown drills in schools. The media didn't really have a script for it yet, and it wasn't a scenario we had ever thought about. To me at age 14, it was something random and scary but also isolated and incomprehensible. I wasn't nearly as scared as I would be in the same situation today, because it just didn't... mean anything, I guess. I couldn't figure anything out about it. My parents were probably terrified, but I had no problem going back to school the next day.

I imagine that's about how some of the children at these schools feel. These days people in general are much more aware of school shootings, but hopefully most elementary kids at least have been somewhat sheltered from all that. Third-graders (with some exceptions, I know) haven't yet spent much time watching the evening news or playing M-rated video games or watching R-rated action movies, so they don't have an internal script for how to react to something like this. It will probably take a lot more time for them to figure out what to feel or do about it.
posted by mbrubeck at 3:28 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States

“long-term trends suggest that we are in fact currently experiencing a waning culture of guns and violence in the United States. “
posted by bonefish at 3:29 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

.

Shortly before learning of the attack, my boss and I were having the usual political back-and-forth. It gets heated most days. One of my coworkers said it would be cool if we could dig up Reagan and have him be president. I said that I'd prefer to put Reagan's head on a pike. We're desecrating the body anyway, was my idea. Here my boss withdrew to his office, joking that the liberal was the angry one in this conversation.

He saw the news when he sat down at his computer and opened his browser.

I'm regretting the violence of my remark right now.

Jesus God, those poor children. Their parents and siblings. Jesus.

.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:29 PM on December 14, 2012

Well, Hugo Schwyzer should know, having attempted murder himself. Jesus wept.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:29 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

America has a Violent Culture problem not a lack of gun control problem.

If this is the case, what is the solution? Because Ireland arguably has a comparatively violent culture problem, and yet the amount of gun deaths in the country is minimal (1.28 gun deaths of any sort per 100,00) and compared to the United States (2.98 gun deaths per 100,000 from homicides; 5.75 gun suicides per 100,000, and 0.27 per 100,000 deaths by accidental shootings).

What is it about the American character that makes it uniquely violent, what is it about that uniquely violent character that leads to so much gun violence, and what can be done to stem this? Aside from the fact the the U.S. has 88 guns for every hundred people, and Ireland has 5.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 3:29 PM on December 14, 2012 [22 favorites]

NBC BREAKING NEWS: Guns in massacre belonged to shooter's mother.
posted by ericb at 3:29 PM on December 14, 2012

The Republicans have 234 in the House; they only need 218. They have 45 in the Senate; they only need 41 (because cowardly Democrats have unnecessarily conceded that you need 60 votes to pass as much as fart in that body, not the 50 that the Constitution suggests). Nothing will happen. Except more shootings, of course.

On the other hand that petition just got over the hump. I wonder if it's the fastest ever to do that.
posted by Fnarf at 3:30 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

NBC BREAKING NEWS: Guns in massacre belonged to shooter's mother.

If I wasn't sick to my stomach before, I am now.

It's "responsible gun owners" who are to blame.
posted by Fnarf at 3:30 PM on December 14, 2012 [10 favorites]

because cowardly Democrats have unnecessarily conceded that you need 60 votes to pass as much as fart in that body, not the 50 that the Constitution suggests

They're in the process of trying to change that, and they nearly have the votes.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:32 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

"Don't own guns because your son might kill you and steal them and use them to kill children" is not really the foundation of any kind of rational public policy.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:33 PM on December 14, 2012 [31 favorites]

Unspeakably sad. I'm so sorry.

As it happens, I'm just about out the door this morning to do the annual "Kurisumasu-kai" (Christmas presentation) at the kindergartens (3 of them) that I teach English and music at. There are about 20 to 30 kids, aged 2 to 5, that I teach once a week at each of the schools. I love those kids. Their parents (and many grandparents) will be there to hear the kids sing Christmas (and other) songs.

You can't imagine how thankful I am to live in a nation where gun control is very, very strict, and, conversely, my great sadness at the horrible state of affairs regarding guns and "gun rights" in the US. You couldn't find two more different societies in the world, in this particular regard. God, I hope the US at least begins the move toward a sane gun policy soon.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 3:33 PM on December 14, 2012 [11 favorites]

Christian Radio Host Bryan Fischer: God Didn’t Stop CT Shooting Because We Took Prayer Out Of Classroom.

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
posted by Ratio at 3:34 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

Huckabee: Schools ‘A Place Of Carnage’ Because We ‘Systematically Removed God’

Christian Radio Host Bryan Fischer: God Didn’t Stop CT Shooting Because We Took Prayer Out Of Classroom.

@dpleasant: So, @GovMikeHuckabee and @BryanJFischer, explain to us Dr. George Tiller's assassination in his church during a service?
posted by zombieflanders at 3:34 PM on December 14, 2012 [23 favorites]

Gun control doesn't have to be a non-starter unless you let it... says this could-be-married gay dude who remembers 2004. The quickest way to allow something not to get done is to continue to let your elected representatives off the hook because it's "too hard."
posted by MCMikeNamara at 3:34 PM on December 14, 2012 [17 favorites]

Guns are not ever going to be banned in the US. Many people rely on hunting for a significant part of their food, even today. Farmers and ranchers need guns to put down injured animals and to hunt predators.

That's true, but I have legally owned a rifle and several shotguns in European countries with strict gun control regulations. More or less anyone over the age of 16 can get a shotgun in the UK. These weapons are designed for hunting and they are available. Less available are weapons designed for shooting people.

Happened at the my high school graduation bush party.

I don't doubt it, but I'm guessing the number of fatalities was relatively small.

Why do certain men feel the need to kill their children and their wives before committing suicide? Why do certain men feel the need to go to their ex-wives work place and kill everyone inside, customers as well as colleagues? Why do certain men feel the need to kill not just their mother but also everyone at their mother's workplace? I know it has something to do with control but how does our society address this problem and is it even possible?

It seems that it's often men who are raised with the culture of middle-class male entitlement but who have not been able to take advantage of that to actually succeed in life. They feel that the universe owes them certain things, often see their peers achieve those things and just end up totally unhinged with inchoate rage.

Well, Hugo Schwyzer should know, having attempted murder himself. Jesus wept.

Oh yeah, he's a massive creeper and I wouldn't care to meet him in a dark alley, but if I wanted to know what Al Qaeda thought, I'd ask a former terrorist, you know?
posted by atrazine at 3:35 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

"Don't own guns because your son might kill you and steal them and use them to kill children" is not really the foundation of any kind of rational public policy.

How about "don't own assault weapons because they are very dangerous and 100% unnecessary"?
posted by Ratio at 3:35 PM on December 14, 2012 [49 favorites]

> ban guns will likely never happen

We had an assault weapons ban. It was a weird law, covering aesthetics more than potential harm, but it was a step. I recently learned of Australia's gun laws which could be a model for the US-- they've taken a lot more steps which is probably expensive to administrate, but so is the DMV, eh?
posted by morganw at 3:36 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Sidhedevil: Well, Hugo Schwyzer should know, having attempted murder himself. Jesus wept.

I thought the article was interesting. I had no idea about his controversial status until just now when you wrote that.
posted by ob1quixote at 3:36 PM on December 14, 2012

I've got about three conservative types on my facebook feed out of 150 or so, and yet there's almost never a time that I can't scorll down and find a load of pro-gun jizz sprayed all over my feed (hasn't happened yet today for some reason, but give them time). Given that our news distribution systems favor a vocal minority and almost never question faulty logic or made up statistics, I think Obama or anyone else's chance of accomplishing much on this issue are, saddly, nil.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 3:37 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

To everyone complaining about Facebook & Twitter, I'll say this: some people make jokes, some people disappear, some will pray, some will say fuck it, there is no RIGHT way. There just IS.
posted by Fizz at 3:38 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

Why Most Mass Murderers Are Privileged White Men

His argument is a little unconvincing, to me. He argues that white men expect to be welcomed in public spaces (true) and that this is why they are more likely¹ to commit the sorts of mass killings that take place in such spaces.

But I find it hard to believe that the reasoning goes in that order—first the decision is made to commit your crime in a public place because you feel comfortable there, and subsequently it becomes a mass killing. Surely, first the decision is made to kill a lot of people, and subsequently the choice is made to do so in a public place because that is where you find large groups of people.

I think the question is a very interesting one, but his answer is unsatisfying.

1. He doesn't actually cite any data on the relative incidence of mass killing by race of perpetrator, and I am wary of assuming that we get a reasonably representative picture of mass killings and their perpetrators in media coverage, but it seems plausible enough.
posted by enn at 3:38 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

atrazine, I was trying to distinguish between "gun control" and "gun ban". I advocate stricter gun control in the US. The post to which I was responding discussed "gun ban".
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:39 PM on December 14, 2012

Gun control doesn't have to be a non-starter unless you let it... says this could-be-married gay dude who remembers 2004. The quickest way to get something not done is to continue to let your elected representatives off the hook.

It's just a matter of priorities. I'm not going to ask democrats to self-immolate over an issue that's maybe in my top 20, when I'm more concerned about a dozen other issues more than this. Realistically, the chances of you or your kids being a victim of a shooting are statistically insignificant, even at the rate random mass murders have been happening this year.
posted by empath at 3:40 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

the chances of you or your kids being a victim of a shooting are statistically insignificant, even at the rate random mass murders have been happening this year.

I suppose my concern is that I simply consider mass shootings to be the vanguard of all sorts of gun violence. I don't simply want a resolution to spree killings, which would probably involve turning our schools into prison-like complexes with armed guards and metal detectors. Because as soon as the kids left school, they would be back on the streets, and back to their homes, where gun violence still is a fact of life.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 3:45 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

I've got about three conservative types on my facebook feed out of 150 or so, and yet there's almost never a time that I can't scorll down and find a load of pro-gun jizz sprayed all over my feed (hasn't happened yet today for some reason, but give them time).

I have three American friends who are pro-gun. Two are libertarian (on the socially progressive side) and one is a Dem - they're no Tea Partiers, just people who hold different political opinions than I do.

They're all pretty quiet today.

I know at least one of the three will post at some point in the future how gun owners are a maligned minority, and that's it's gun-wielding responsible "sheep dogs" like him that are protecting sheep like me.
posted by KokuRyu at 3:45 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

The Onion article is tactless, insincere and too soon, for these reasons.

1. The Onion is an entertainment source that profits from pageviews. They are treating this event the exact same way that they would treat Mitt Romney slipping on a banana peel. Even CNN doesn't run ads on stories like this.
2. The thought that anyone's first reaction to this event is "Quick, how can we spin this into parody" is dismaying. Treating this like every other news story trivializes and normalizes the event.
3. The apathetic "fuck everything" sentiment is exactly what is not needed, either to help people grieve or to prevent these sorts of events from happening. "Fuck everything" is an utterly insincere sentiment that roughly equals "it's not my responsibility" or "there's nothing I can do about this so why even think about it." It is an expression of giving up.
posted by oulipian at 3:45 PM on December 14, 2012 [11 favorites]

.
posted by Buckley at 3:46 PM on December 14, 2012

The Media is an Accomplice in Public Shootings

This is known. What we're doing now? That's why this happens.
posted by cmoj at 3:46 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

I feel like mental health is once again the elephant in the room few want to talk about. I get it is easier to control guns than it is to discuss the wide range of mental health topics, but the longer we ignore it the more we're going to have problems.
posted by evening at 3:46 PM on December 14, 2012 [20 favorites]

NBC is reporting the reason for the ID confusion was that Adam Lanza was carrying his brother's ID, and that he was diagnosed mentally ill.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:48 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

The Onion's story was not a parody. It doesn't mock anything. Not even us.

What the Onion's story came from was the despair that comes from dead optimism.
posted by curuinor at 3:49 PM on December 14, 2012 [55 favorites]

The Media is an Accomplice in Public Shootings

So we should limit the First Amendment because of shootings but not the Second... ummm, sorry "Forbes" blogger, but no.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 3:49 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

When my son, Sean, died at the age of 20, it was accidental. Yes, someone made a mistake, but it wasn't intentional, they didn't want anyone to die. 22 years later I'm still angry with a God I'm not sure I even believe in, because there really is nobody else to blame.

Having experienced the accidental death of a child, and nearly not surviving it emotionally, I can not imagine the pain and grief these parents are feeling, and the anger, the all consuming anger, because there are people to blame for this, beyond the individual who pulled the trigger, whom I suspect was very, very disturbed, are those forces in this country that advocate for making it so very easy to bring this death to children...

The fear, pain, anger, grief, outrage, and sadness we are all feeling now needs to be focused on facilitating a change in our gun laws.... When you're done typing here on Metafilter, contact your representatives, your senators, your president, and then contact your friends, and ask them to do the same....
posted by HuronBob at 3:49 PM on December 14, 2012 [110 favorites]

That it's a constitutional issue is strangely irrelevant in a lot of ways. While Heller won in the SCOTUS case, the majority opinion (written by J. SCALIA) was long and unexpectedly sympathetic to gun control interests. He basically spent a long time explaining that, yes, a total gun ban, in a federal district, is contrary to the 2nd Amendment, here's how you can constitutionally get effectively the same results.

So while Heller was seen as a loss for gun-control advocates, it actually opened the door for constitutionally allowing even very strict gun control, as long as it wasn't an outright "ban."
posted by Navelgazer at 3:49 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

Regardless of everything else, I hope Ryan Lanza sues the fuck out of CNN and Fox news for splashing his name and facebook picture across their everything.
posted by Blasdelb at 3:50 PM on December 14, 2012 [33 favorites]

Good move.

I would love to see significantly more of this restraint in the news media honestly.

ESPN, my employer is headquartered in Bristol CT, about 30 minutes away, so this literally hits close to home for us. It was a shitty shitty day on campus.
posted by butterstick at 3:50 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'll post this here too, because I think it's a pointed look at the mental health side of things: The Insanity Defense. (This is a friend of mine who I link all the time because she says many smart things.)
posted by restless_nomad at 3:50 PM on December 14, 2012 [9 favorites]

I will not link to it because I am not totally clear on the self-linking policy (I hope that recapping someone's post is okay), but my husband (progressive/former soldier/gun enthusiast/law student with an academic interest in this topic) posted a thing to his blog that made me fall completely silent about all of this.

Basically he says: whenever something horrible like this school shooting happens, his fellow liberals get outraged and demand that we finally have a serious national conversation about gun control. And of course this is natural. But then he systematically debunks all the gun-control notions liberals come up with at these times (and these are all the things I myself come up with) as essentially beside the point. It's not that they're bad ideas, it's just that they wouldn't matter. Because there are just too many guns in America for any of these ideas to have any impact at all. There are 90 guns for every 100 Americans, and, well-maintained, a gun will last for many decades. It does not matter what you ban - "assault" rifles*, certain types of ammunition, purchases at gun shows, etc. - the sheer number of guns already out there in the wild means that it just won't make a dent. If a dude who's interested in shooting up a school, or a movie theater, or a temple, or his workplace wants a gun, he will absolutely, 100%, be able to get a gun.

So to reduce the amount of gun violence in the US, you would have to start from scratch. Round up all the guns. Make it completely illegal to own them. Then one by one, start letting people maybe re-register individual types of guns after a lengthy background process. Then maybe the ideas we always come up with ("Why is it legal for civilians to buy automatic weapons????"**) would have some impact. And how likely is that? We are prepared to go to war over raising taxes on the very richest Americans by a smidge. How likely is it that America will be able to agree that we have to round up all the guns and start over?

It is an informative, grimly logical train of thought. Every time I wanted to argue - "But but but! Why do we let people buy these huge 100-round magazines? Clearly that would help!" - his post would knock my idea down. ("No 100-round magazine, no problem, you just tape magazines together.") It makes me feel like we have painted ourselves into a corner we are never going to get out of without massive, massive overhauls of a type we are really unlikely to see.

Anyway. I am sad for the families and the community. I, too, drew an outsize measure of comfort from Fred Rogers today.

*He also points out that liberal civilians tend to not understand anything about guns, and think that "assault rifles", which are black and scary and look like a video game, are somehow functionally different than "hunting rifles", which have nice walnut stocks and look like an LL Bean catalog. I thought this until the exact moment I read that, so.

**I have said this so many times. I did not understand what I was saying. I know almost nothing about guns. I just know that I'm afraid of them.
posted by thehmsbeagle at 3:50 PM on December 14, 2012 [44 favorites]

I'm so sad for the parents, the teachers, America.

The Ezra Klein link provides essential context for anyone offering a view about gun control etc. Public attitudes about stricter gun laws are not easy or clear cut. Events like this mostly seem to reinforce the views of both sides. Even though it seems obvious to many of us, any discussion on the issue needs about as much nuance as any politician can muster.

But fuck. Dead children. Tell me it's not worth it to try.
posted by dry white toast at 3:50 PM on December 14, 2012

While Heller won in the SCOTUS case, the majority opinion (written by J. SCALIA) was long and unexpectedly sympathetic to gun control interests. He basically spent a long time explaining that, yes, a total gun ban, in a federal district, is contrary to the 2nd Amendment, here's how you can constitutionally get effectively the same results.

How?
posted by Flunkie at 3:52 PM on December 14, 2012

Regardless of everything else, I hope Ryan Lanza sues the fuck out of CNN and Fox news for splashing his name and facebook picture across their everything.

The media were incorrectly told by police that the deceased shooter was Ryan. I think it's too early to find the media at fault for this particular thing.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 3:53 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

What we're doing now? That's why this happens.

Did you not even read the article you linked to? What we're doing--discussing roots, culture, addressing the problems directly--is exactly the opposite of what the media is doing. We're wondering why this isn't being politicized more and why more action isn't being taken by the people in charge, while they're interested only in pictures and statistics. The media will complain about politics and present both sides as being equally complicit in What Went Wrong. Gun supporters will be given the same (if not more) time to express how they're an oppressed minority constantly under attack and how this is all the fault of Godlessness and moral decay.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:53 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

The media were also told this initial information by police sources that requested anonymity, because they weren't authorized to comment on the case. So yes, the media aren't the only ones responsible for the wrong information, but they certainly didn't help matters by rushing ahead.
posted by CancerMan at 3:55 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

@ThatSusanBurke: There are 58,000 places to buy a gun in America. How many places are there to get low cost mental health care?
posted by zombieflanders at 3:56 PM on December 14, 2012 [21 favorites]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
posted by learnsome at 3:56 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Many of these crimes are committed with already illegal weapons

This is a lie.

More than three quarters of mass murderers use legal weapons. Most of the rest were eligible for all the necessary permits in their states, they just didn't bother to get them because the seller didn't check.

The weapons used in the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, the Sikh temple shooting, the Aurora movie theater shooting, and this one were all perfectly legal.
posted by miyabo at 3:57 PM on December 14, 2012 [35 favorites]

*He also points out that liberal civilians tend to not understand anything about guns, and think that "assault rifles", which are black and scary and look like a video game, are somehow functionally different than "hunting rifles", which have nice walnut stocks and look like an LL Bean catalog. I thought this until the exact moment I read that, so.

They always say that, it doesn't matter how much the person they are talking with does actually understand guns. It's condescending and annoying stereotyping.

You can hunt without semi-auto, you can ban semi-auto hunting rifles if that is what you want to do.

I'm not entirely sympathetic to the idea gun bans/control can't work. (even as I'll scream it at the top of my lungs for drugs and alcohol) Fully auto weapons have been effectively banned and never seem to be used in these incidents. You could do the same with semi-auto if you think it's good policy, it would indeed take decades, but it can be done.

Many of these crimes are committed with already illegal weapons

I can't think of any where the guns were not easily available in gun stores. Maybe it was illegal for this guy to possess his mother's weapons if that is what happened, but take them away from his mother and now he has a much harder road.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:57 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

Thehmsbeagle, I am 100% on the opposite side as your husband -- I am virulently anti-gun in every way possible. But I agree with him. With the vast numbers of guns floating around this country, it's going to be impossible to have any kind of meaningful restriction on them with the piddly little laws that people always talk about when they're trying to be "reasonable".

And, of course, even the smallest, least effective gun control measure has no chance of passing anywhere. In fact, the opposite is the case; in most states, what few controls exist are being rolled back constantly. YESTERDAY, both Ohio and Wisconsin legislatures loosened their concealed-carry regulations.
posted by Fnarf at 3:58 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

1. The Onion is an entertainment source that profits from pageviews. They are treating this event the exact same way that they would treat Mitt Romney slipping on a banana peel. Even CNN doesn't run ads on stories like this.

You might want to tell CNN that. I'm seeing an AT&T ad on their live blog and a Subway ad on their front page right next to the headline, in addition to an ING Mortgage ad on the bottom of the page.
posted by vibrotronica at 3:58 PM on December 14, 2012 [10 favorites]

Time to hang this crap all over the NRA. I'm sorry but they use events like these and gang related shootings all the time to advocate for looser gun regulation. All while being propped up by a bloated gun industry.

This is what they want! They feed off of events like these to stoke paranoia to boost gun sales. It's not about self defense it is all about gun sales.

And then you have self centered VAIN has beens like Nugent who equate their entire self worth with how many guns they own speaking up about "freedoms" they don't even understand.

THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT this is exactly what they promote. Every time the NRA and ALEC push for easing gun regulation, and why the fuck does ALEC have a seat at the table in this anyways, THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT.

Gun sales are going to go through the roof. Another win for the NRA.
posted by Max Power at 3:59 PM on December 14, 2012 [10 favorites]

Many of these crimes are committed with already illegal weapons

Every illegal weapon was a legal weapon once, before it was stolen, or "borrowed", or driven across a state line. The legal gun trade supplies the illegal one.
posted by Fnarf at 3:59 PM on December 14, 2012 [27 favorites]

What's fascinating to me is how there's apparently a constitutional right to own a handgun because somehow that falls into the 'arms' class that's constitutionally protected. Yet somehow a tactical cruise missile doesn't apply? Aren't arms arms?
posted by mullingitover at 3:59 PM on December 14, 2012 [12 favorites]

the sheer number of guns already out there in the wild means that it just won't make a dent.

While I get what he's going for, many of the large massacre-type shootings were not made with "Oh I just had this gun lying around and..." weapons but were done with guns specially procured for the events. Today's horrible instance seems to be an exception to that.

He also points out that liberal civilians tend to not understand anything about guns

I'm aware that Vermont is more like Canada than it is like the rest of the US but up here most people know a lot of things about guns no matter what their political persuasions are or whether they are gun owners. Guns are super legal up here (less so in Canada, but still legal) and the gun violence is very very minimal, so I just point out that it's not the legality per se that is at issue, it goes deeper than that into the culture. I'm really not in the mood to discuss ins and outs of this more than that, and I'm not against more legislation, just saying that it's complicated, and all too easy to parody the people on whatever the other side of your argument is.
posted by jessamyn at 4:00 PM on December 14, 2012 [13 favorites]

We make laws that are intended to have consequences over long time frames rather than short ones all the time.
posted by Flunkie at 4:00 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

There are at least three elementary schools in Newtown, maybe four. Head-o-Meadow, Hawley and of course Sandy Hook are the ones I remember. I went to Head-o-Meadow when it was new. All of us ended up in the Newtown Middle School and Newtown High School. The high school is maybe five minutes away from Sandy Hook Elementary. You take a right out of it, after passing Bruce Jenner "stadium," and then another right after you go under the highway and you're pretty much there.

Its a red brick school will some trees and a brook behind it. I don't know that I'd put it on a postcard, but it looks like New England. I mean, if you saw it, you would say "Oh yeah, that looks like New England."

Newtown has three prominent landmarks that every kid knows about. The flagpole in the center of town - which is smack in the middle of Main Street, creating a safety hazard and a traffic obstacle. The rooster weather vane on the top of the meeting house. The bee weather vane on the top of The Newtown Bee building - a little red building that looks more like a shoe store than the home of a newspaper.

There are others, but those are the three that I think we all remember most. Silly small town stuff, but there you go.

In elementary school, at this time of year, we did pretty much what you probably did if you grew up in a place that has winter. We arrived at school all bundled up, left our wet boots and coats by our cubby holes, made snowflakes out of construction paper to decorate the classroom and wrote very important theme papers on our families or pets or favorite sports teams.

I'm 45 now. My nephews and nieces are 4, 8 and 10 and go to school in Bethel - one of Newtown's neighbors. They were on lockdown today. All of the local schools were on lockdown today. My mother volunteers at the Newtown library. She was on lockdown today. They told her only three people had been injured - because that's what everyone believed - and it wasn't until she got home and turned on the news that she - and everyone who'd been locked down - heard the news. She's inconsolable.

My brother drove a co-worker whose kid goes to Sandy Hook to the firehouse. The co-workers' child was ok, though there was a period of frantic time where he and his wife couldn't find their kid. All around them were other failies playing out similar scenes and awful, awful scenes.

You could walk right into any school in Newtown and go straight to the office or anywhere without anyone stopping you when I was growing up. Why would anyone need to stop you? My understanding is that security hasn't gotten much tighter since then. Why should it?

The Newtown Flagpole is, of course, at half mast today. I imagine it will be for a very long time. There are vigils and memorials. My fellow Newtown High alumni are posting an image of the town's Rooster weather vane with a black ribbon next to it on Facebook.

My town - my silly, sometimes backwords, beautiful, boring hometown - is going to be synonymous with unthinkable tragedy for a generation. Newtown has always been in my heart and it feels like that's where this tragedy took place. That's a little selfish of me, though, because I was lucky and didn't lose anyone today.

There are some things now that I'm starting to understand that I didn't understand before this morning. I don't know that I'm ready to write about those things yet, but I bet other people have - people who had similar things happen in their communities.

I hate that I'm living somewhere else right now. I want to go to that stupid, dangerous flagpole that everyone in Newtown knows and hold every person I see.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:00 PM on December 14, 2012 [126 favorites]

But then he systematically debunks all the gun-control notions liberals come up with at these times (and these are all the things I myself come up with) as essentially beside the point.

"Debunking" is refuting. If he says they're beside the point they haven't been debunked, they've been ignored. And really, this just seems like the Next Argument the right is using in their strategy to make sure that everyone can have all the guns forever. Fuck them, and fuck that.
posted by JHarris at 4:01 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

thehmsbeagle: my retort would be that we are, in these recent, tragically numerous incidents, talking about madmen. Not generally people with a grand scheme.

Look at suicide data. People who are prevented through one method or another from killing themselves are hearteningly less likely to attempt it again. And these shootings are a particularly horrific form of suicide, have no doubt.

Just a smidge tougher access to assault rifles and the like is enough to curb a lot of this shit. Yes, the beltway snipers would have still found a way. And likely anything one did would have had Tim McVeigh and his cronies find a way to blow up a building full of innocents. But most incodents aren't like that.

A twenty-year-old wanted to kill his mother and so decided the best way to do so was to shoot up a kindergarten classroom. That doesn't happen without guns and access to them. Someone might say that he could have bombed the school, but that's difficult to pull off, involves knowledge and strategy and a lot more planning. NRA activists and the like often like to say that a determined murderer wouldn't need a gun, as if that means anything. No, a determined murderer wouldn't. Most murderers, I'm guessing, aren't determined.
posted by Navelgazer at 4:01 PM on December 14, 2012 [14 favorites]

NBC BREAKING NEWS: Guns in massacre belonged to shooter's mother.

Gunman's mother owned weapons used in Connecticut school massacre.
posted by ericb at 4:02 PM on December 14, 2012

Because there are just too many guns in America for any of these ideas to have any impact at all.

Waah public policy is hard and I can't possibly think of any other incentive-based approaches to getting people to hand over their guns voluntarily and if we can't solve it in the short term let's not bother doing anything at all PS herp derp liberal civilians I'm tots in teh army?

Got it.

Tell your husband he lost me at 'yeah, some kids are dead, but'.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 4:06 PM on December 14, 2012 [66 favorites]

Why is it legal for civilians to buy automatic weapons?

The 2nd Amendment was put in place for the following reasons:

deterring tyrannical government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.

You can't exactly defend yourself very effectively from, say, a government official with an automatic weapon if all you have is a single shot rifle.

That's not to say that what happened here today wasn't devastating, it was. And I completely agree with you. One of the issues with gun control is just how deeply embedded guns are in our society. It would be impossible to round up even a tiny fraction of them all, and you can bet that only a few would voluntarily give them up.

Maybe there's something else that can be done.
posted by Malice at 4:06 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

>So to reduce the amount of gun violence in the US, you would have to start from scratch. Round up all the guns. Make it completely illegal to own them.

This is a total straw man and a false dichotomy to boot.

Now I realise that the US will not allow itself to learn on this issue, but Australia's managed to put quite a dent in mass shooting stats with some sensible gun control legislation.
posted by pompomtom at 4:06 PM on December 14, 2012 [12 favorites]

Perhaps American children should be armed. I figure if you are old enough to hold a doll, blocks, or a crayon, you have enough motor skills to wield a pistol. Effective arms control in the USA is a pipe dream. The Renoroc proposal involves arming everyone at all times, practically from cradle to grave. An armed society is a polite society, after all.

God Bless You, and God Bless the United States of America!
posted by Renoroc at 4:07 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

I wonder if it would be easier politically to limit coverage of these incidents and restrict the naming of killers and publishing if their photos over restricting access to guns.
posted by humanfont at 4:07 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

"Don't own guns because your son might kill you and steal them and use them to kill children" is not really the foundation of any kind of rational public policy.

No, but how about don't own guns because it increases the risk of members of your household dying in a gun-related homicide or suicide?
posted by naoko at 4:09 PM on December 14, 2012 [29 favorites]

You can't exactly defend yourself very effectively from, say, a government official with an automatic weapon if all you have is a single shot rifle.

You would probably need nukes to protect yourself from US tyranny.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:10 PM on December 14, 2012 [34 favorites]

I wonder if it would be easier politically to limit coverage of these incidents and restrict the naming of killers and publishing if their photos over restricting access to guns.

Security through obscurity is not a valid approach. Information stifling is not more effective or desirable than working towards fixing the actual problem via any of the myriad gun control solutions that pretty much every other first world country on the planet has figured out some time ago. You can't make the first amendment fight the second, that's just silly.
posted by FatherDagon at 4:10 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

You can't exactly defend yourself very effectively from, say, a government official with an automatic weapon if all you have is a single shot rifle.

Nor can you defend yourself from a bomb dropped by a government drone with an AK-47. Or a government official driving a tank -- you might have a shot with an RPG.

Your argument appears to favor leveling the playing field of armament between government and citizen. How about a tactical nuke?
posted by chimaera at 4:11 PM on December 14, 2012 [13 favorites]

People caricaturing other people's stances is not helping in this thread.
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:11 PM on December 14, 2012 [19 favorites]

To put things in another way, the percentage of law-abiding gun enthusiasts who will be "determined" to hold onto their guns no matter what legal hoops or waiting periods that involves will be much greater than the percentage of potential killers who will wait and seek other means for mass destruction.
posted by Navelgazer at 4:12 PM on December 14, 2012

Security through obscurity is not a valid approach.

It's not security so much as defusing the copycat effect, which is fairly well-proven. I find it reprehensible that the media take no responsibility for this, personally.
posted by restless_nomad at 4:12 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

The 2nd Amendment was put in place for the following reasons

The 2nd Amendment says none of that.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:13 PM on December 14, 2012 [14 favorites]

What's fascinating to me is how there's apparently a constitutional right to own a handgun because somehow that falls into the 'arms' class that's constitutionally protected. Yet somehow a tactical cruise missile doesn't apply? Aren't arms arms?

Not really. The spirit of the second amendment pertains to arms readily available and supplied by the individual soldier in a militia during callout. This would mean personal weapons that each soldier is expected to know how to use, maintain and be proficient in without special training. The kind of thing you are talking about is artillery and is supplied by the larger army organization. Handguns, Rifles, swords, axes and so on are what the members of a militia are supposed to have ready and a sufficient supply of ammunition for.

BTW the definition of militia (at the time of the writing) was every able bodied man of military age willing to serve to defend his community/nation when called. (the founders were actually pretty big on the idea of conscientiousness objector).

And Fuck, why the kids? I am a pretty pro gun guy but if there is some way to keep guns out of the hands of the crazy without denying them to the non crazy I am all for it. I just don't see it.
posted by bartonlong at 4:13 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

You would probably need nukes to protect yourself from US tyranny.

This is true. I think that's a whole other discussion that could be brought up in the gun control debate. "Can we even defend ourselves from the government if it came to that with the weapons we have now, and if not, then why have them at all?" might be an interesting question to raise.
posted by Malice at 4:14 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

The 2nd Amendment says none of that.

These were the viewpoints at the time.

From Wikipedia.

(And actually, it does on some points.)
posted by Malice at 4:15 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

The 2nd Amendment says none of that.

The thing is, you can't just ignore the second amendment because you don't like the policy implications. You either have to repeal it or pass laws which are consistent with historical interpretations of the amendment.

But as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, the Supreme Court has indicated those laws can actually be quite broad depending on how they are worded. They just can't be a blanket ban.
posted by Justinian at 4:15 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

"Can we even defend ourselves from the government if it came to that with the weapons we have now, and if not, then why have them at all?"

To cosplay someone who might be able to, as near as I can work out.
posted by Artw at 4:16 PM on December 14, 2012 [35 favorites]

It would be impossible to round up even a tiny fraction of them all, and you can bet that only a few would voluntarily give them up.

i know that's right - the simple truth is much of america would rebel if we tried to get rid of the guns

but here's one positive thought - why couldn't we require firearms to have gps style locators in them - yes, people have the right to own guns, but WE (and our government) should have the right to know where they are and who they legally belong to

if a gun's stolen, it could be located

if it was used in a crime, we could know which gun was used and identify it and the owner

if it was brought into a place where it really doesn't belong at all, such as an elementary school, alarms could go off, warning everyone

there may be technological problems with this, but it certainly seems to be worth a look
posted by pyramid termite at 4:16 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

To me, the Second Amendment is about as relevant as slavery. There are 20 pairs of parents who may have to wait days to recover the bodies of their children who were gunned down this morning.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:17 PM on December 14, 2012 [17 favorites]

These were the viewpoints at the time.

Need I remind you of the many viewpoints of the time that no longer apply?
posted by zombieflanders at 4:17 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

But as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, the Supreme Court has indicated those laws can actually be quite broad depending on how they are worded.

I'll ask again: How?
posted by Flunkie at 4:17 PM on December 14, 2012

'Mass Effect' Facebook Page Attacked Because Misidentified Shooting Suspect Liked It
posted by brundlefly at 4:17 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

I am in favor of much stricter gun control in the US. I am in favor of sweeping policy reform on health care access, including access to mental health care.

It is not clear if these crimes could have been prevented even if I got all my wishes, policy-wise. The suspect in this case appears to have used legally registered firearms; he seems to have been from a prosperous family, was still young enough to be covered by a parent's health insurance, and was near some of the country's top mental health treatment facilities.

More will come out in the days and weeks ahead, but making the assumption that he killed people because he didn't have access to mental health care on the basis that obviously he couldn't have had access to mental health care seeing as he killed people doesn't seem to help advance discussion.
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:18 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

I fail to understand how people can misunderstand the purpose of the Second Amendment; it's the only Amendment that lists its purpose in the same sentence.

The 2nd dates from the period between the dissolution of the Continental Army and the establishment of the United States Army, when it was considered a serious possibility that the nation might be defended by regional militia. Essentially, it guarantees a right to take a weapon and serve the common defense of your community.

The establishment of a proper, centralized army, of course, made the point somewhat moot. Now, in its place, we have a historical dinosaur that people seem to believe guarantees their right to collect rifles and vaporize groundhogs.

God Bless America.
posted by fifthrider at 4:18 PM on December 14, 2012 [30 favorites]

I've been ruminating on school shootings lately because of Dec. 6th memorials for the Montreal Massacre, so when I heard this as a breaking news bulletin, it was like a punch in the gut. So many tiny children and their teachers. I actually said "Oh nooooooo" out loud as they reported the (then unconfirmed) numbers. Just overwhelmingly sad and heartbreaking. Perhaps it's a vain hope, but would that this kind of thing didn't happen anywhere, ever.

.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 4:18 PM on December 14, 2012

These were the viewpoints at the time.

Need I remind you of the many viewpoints of the time that no longer apply?

This true but also the viewpoints about the 4th amendment, the first amendment and the fifth amendment are also irrevelant because the technology has changed?

I think not.
posted by bartonlong at 4:19 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

The thing is, you can't just ignore the second amendment because you don't like the policy implications. You either have to repeal it or pass laws which are consistent with historical interpretations of the amendment.

Then let's do it. Everybody who wants to do something should quit trying to be reasonable and talk about amending the Constitution to overturn the 2nd Amendment. Then maybe an actual compromise would be possible.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 4:19 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

"gps style locators" - Confiscating them all would be easier.
posted by Ardiril at 4:20 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

I don't have kids but I can't stop crying every time I think of the Christmas trees in those homes, and the presents underneath that those parents will have to face. I imagine there may be single parents who feel like they have nothing left to live for anymore. What is more horrible than the pre-meditated murder of children as young as five? Nothing. Nothing.
posted by Glinn at 4:20 PM on December 14, 2012 [23 favorites]

It's not security so much as defusing the copycat effect, which is fairly well-proven. I find it reprehensible that the media take no responsibility for this, personally.

It's when the shitbag leaves some kind of manifesto behind and they treat it like it might contain some kind of deep and meaningful message that pisses me off.
posted by Artw at 4:20 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

"Can we even defend ourselves from the government if it came to that with the weapons we have now, and if not, then why have them at all?"

I'm also thinking along those lines. When the second amendment was written, how powerful were 'arms', and how powerful will 'arms' be in 20 years, 50 years, 100 years?

The second amendment references technology in a vague way ('arms'), and technology changes.
posted by memebake at 4:20 PM on December 14, 2012

Flunkie, here is District of Columbia v. Heller. Here are the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence's resources on it.

The CSGV is an organization I support strongly.
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:21 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

I really wish I could go back in time and leave in a final paragraph in my above comment about how my husband is not Ron Swanson or someone who thinks we should all own lots of guns, but instead someone who occasionally likes to go target shooting (with a gun he rents from the range, because he does not own one and is unlikely to do so in the future).

Anyway, I tried to be clear that my husband was not saying "We should all have guns! Guns are awesome!" but instead was going through the way some people talk about gun violence and pointing out the reasons why, barring massive change, we are unlikely to see a significant drop in the amount of gun violence in this country. As one of the people who talks about gun violence in exactly those ways, I found it illuminating. (And I was not trying to be rude about gun-control arguments, because, again, I am that person. Those are my arguments.)

(He also concluded with a lengthy critique of pro-gun arguments, but I was trying not to post the longest comment in the world.)

For people arguing that Australia was able to move toward gun control and so I should stop "playing that game", I just- I don't understand what you thought I was writing? Do you think I am opposed to gun control? I am terrified of guns. I think they should all go away. I think my husband wishes most guns would go away.

But I still find value in attempting to understand why guns repeatedly do not go away, even after horrible events like this, and also in attempting to understand what a real solution would look like in American culture.
posted by thehmsbeagle at 4:22 PM on December 14, 2012 [19 favorites]

My cousin had her first baby two days ago, but I didn't find out until just this morning when another cousin posted her happy "Look I'm a new auntie" picture on facebook. For a couple hours this morning I was a little miffed that no one in the family thought to tell me sooner.

Then I learned that the world was saving that news for me so I'd have something else to dwell on today instead. And oh, it has helped.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:22 PM on December 14, 2012 [9 favorites]

thehmsbeagle, you are allowed to self-link within a post if it contributes to the conversation.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 4:23 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

why couldn't we require firearms to have gps style locators in them

The government is already surveilling me enough to keep me safe, thanks.
posted by Egg Shen at 4:24 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

There's pretty strict gun control in courthouses and government offices, isn't there? Public safety is more important in some places than others.
posted by ceribus peribus at 4:25 PM on December 14, 2012

thehmsbeagle, if you say anything even remotely toward the idea that you or someone you know might not like the idea of a total gun ban you'll be faced with snarky comments like the one above. Don't take it to heart, it's just knee-jerk when someone's passionate about something to attack like that.
posted by Malice at 4:26 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

The reality is simple: every country struggles with madmen and ideologues with guns, and every country—Canada, Norway, Britain—has had a gun massacre once, or twice. Then people act to stop them, and they do—as over the past few years has happened in Australia. Only in America are gun massacres of this kind routine, expectable, and certain to continue.

Someone on Facebook suggested the President should keep that speech in his pocket — he'll likely need it again before his second term is up.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:26 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

I just- I don't understand what you thought I was writing? Do you think I am opposed to gun control?

I thought you considered that a reasonable argument against attempting to reduce the number of firearms in the community - which it is not.

(and Malice: your 'total gun ban' stuff is also a silly false dichotomy).
posted by pompomtom at 4:27 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

You can't exactly defend yourself very effectively from, say, a government official with an automatic weapon if all you have is a single shot rifle.

I'm sympathetic to feeling threatened by the government, but the facts as far as I can see them are that if you're threatened by a LEO, soldier, or national security agent, your problem is not that you have a less powerful firearm. It is that you're now in a conflict with a well-funded, socially legitimized, state agency that has massively more manpower and funding than you do, unless you're with another state agency and/or a Bond villain.

Even if you have an automatic weapon, if you use it to successfully injure or kill a cop/soldier/agent, your problems are most likely to get bigger. Unless you are lucky plus connected or skilled in disappearing, you will either be captured, tried, and sent to prison, or you will be killed. And if you are those things, you've got better odds of getting out of whatever situation you've landed in OK *without* shooting somebody first.

Our law enforcement orgs, military, and national security apparatus are all big and powerful enough at this point that individual 2nd amendment rights don't and can't protect us. If anything does protect us from oppression on these fronts, it's (a) the commitment of individual members of these organizations to respecting civil/human rights and maybe to some degree (b) separation of military power into somewhat compartmental branches (I might believe a state guard organization could serve as a check on federal oppression in a pinch).

Individual 2nd amendment rights are really only good for defending against other ordinary citizens at this point.
posted by weston at 4:27 PM on December 14, 2012 [34 favorites]

Thanks, Sidhedevil, but is there a summary of the specific question? That is, in what ways could a gun control law be formed such that it would satisfy Antonin Scalia as being constitutional? As opposed to a link to the opinion and a link to a bunch of stuff which may or may not be directly related to the question.

I don't mean to seem ungrateful for the links, and I hope I don't seem that way; I'm just hoping for a summary of the answer to that particular question.
posted by Flunkie at 4:27 PM on December 14, 2012

(and Malice: your 'total gun ban' stuff is also a silly false dichotomy).

My comment was referencing this quote:

Waah public policy is hard and I can't possibly think of any other incentive-based approaches to getting people to hand over their guns voluntarily and if we can't solve it in the short term let's not bother doing anything at all PS herp derp liberal civilians I'm tots in teh army?

Which I think falls in line with what I said.
posted by Malice at 4:29 PM on December 14, 2012

There are 90 guns for every 100 Americans

This is a bit of a straw man in terms of the practicality of controlling guns. While possibly numerically accurate, putting it this way makes it seem like 90% of the American population own guns. Which is not the case.

From a CNN story in July 2012 ("Fewer U.S. gun owners own more guns."):

"A study published in the Injury Prevention Journal, based on a 2004 National Firearms Survey, found that 20% of the gun owners with the most firearms possessed about 65% of the nation's guns."

So controlling the existing supply of firearms does not mean having to keep track of virtually all Americans.
posted by soundguy99 at 4:31 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

Flunkie, I don't know what Justinian and whoever else were referring to, so I can't tell you. The CSGV is in my opinion the best gun control advocacy organization in the US. Sorry you didn't find their resources helpful.
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:32 PM on December 14, 2012

thehmsbeagle:

But I still find value in attempting to understand why guns repeatedly do not go away, even after horrible events like this, and also in attempting to understand what a real solution would look like in American culture.

Could it be that the reason is that no one in the position to do so is doing anything to make guns go away? Seems more plausible to me than mere speculation about the effects of possible policies.
posted by simen at 4:32 PM on December 14, 2012

The whole "hunting rifles" this is sad to me because while there are hunting rifles that are like assault weapons, they are unnecessary and not used by all hunters. Scandinavia manages to still have hunting without having the type of weapons we have in the US. Living part-time in a rural area, I understand a lot of ruralites have been deceived and think that if we had gun laws like northern Europe's they would not be able to defend themselves from coyotes raiding their hen houses or wouldn't be able to hunt. I guess the NRA has done a good job scaring them.

But I agree with Mr. thehmsbeagle that the saturation of guns in this country lessens the impact of gun control. Where I live in Chicago is a perfect example. The gun laws here are very strict, but gun violence is endemic. People go outside the city to buy guns and bring them here.
posted by melissam at 4:32 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

The government is already surveilling me enough to keep me safe, thanks.

they wouldn't be surveilling you - they would be surveilling guns
posted by pyramid termite at 4:32 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

fifthrider: "I fail to understand how people can misunderstand the purpose of the Second Amendment; it's the only Amendment that lists its purpose in the same sentence."

A gun aficionado once told me that the bit before the comma is a reason not to limit "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" and isn't the only reason or context in which it's true.

To be clear, I don't support that interpretation and I don't know if it's just what one guy thinks.
posted by brundlefly at 4:33 PM on December 14, 2012

We're not going to have a rational conversation about any of this. Ever.
There is a very powerful voting bloc that has already decided that their hobby and their childish fantasy of standing down the 101st Airborne with an assault rifle is more important than the lives of those 18 children.
Think about that for a second. Like really let it sink in.
Beyond the semantics, beyond the obfuscation, beyond all the word games and constitutional conjuring it really is that simple: my hobby, and my underdog Red Dawn fantasy are more important and more worthy than those dead children's lives.
You dont even have to figure in any of our other many, many gun tragedies. And god knows we have enough to choose from this year alone.
So when people tell you they are against gun control, understand what they are really saying.
posted by Senor Cardgage at 4:34 PM on December 14, 2012 [88 favorites]

What is weird to me is that all of the kids they are interviewing seem so completely calm. I watched an interview of a third grade girl earlier, and she was almost eerily serene throughout. Are these kids just in shock, or what?

Kids process these things differently. Oddly enough I think the interviewing might be empowering for them.

I AM concerned for the kindergardeners. How awful to associate school with such horror. Parents and teachers are going to have their hands full nationwide, I think.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 4:34 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

So beyond horrible. And yet I bet nothing changes in the States after this, not the way mental illness is treated, not the way guns are regulated, not the way media covers events. America has become the Titanic of countries, a political entity too cumbersome, too set in its ways, too much a victim of its own excesses to avoid danger or react to disaster in anything like a timely and wise fashion.

I hope I'm wrong.
posted by orange swan at 4:36 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

Oh, and like one of the posters above I too have noticed a troubling uptick in gunviolence the past month or so in Fayetteville. And I am not the only one who has noticed it.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 4:36 PM on December 14, 2012

Oh, FFS, Huckabee and all those like you. This horrifying tragedy did not occur because God was taken out of schools. It occurred because guns were taken into them.
posted by ilana at 4:36 PM on December 14, 2012 [44 favorites]

This true but also the viewpoints about the 4th amendment, the first amendment and the fifth amendment are also irrevelant because the technology has changed?

I think not.

Given that there are automated systems reading all my E-mail and listening to all my phone calls, I think you're way off base here.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 4:36 PM on December 14, 2012

Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) statement:

Recent media reports have suggested that the perpetrator of this violence, Adam Lanza, may have been diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, a diagnosis on the autism spectrum, or with another psychiatric disability. In either event, it is imperative that as we mourn the victims of this horrific tragedy that commentators and the media avoid drawing inappropriate and unfounded links between autism or other disabilities and violence.
posted by Wuggie Norple at 4:37 PM on December 14, 2012 [11 favorites]

.
posted by The Michael The at 4:38 PM on December 14, 2012

I think much of the credit for calm children goes to the teachers who acted so quickly. It heartens me how many of them had the children leave the school with their eyes tightly closed.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:40 PM on December 14, 2012 [11 favorites]

Oh, FFS, Huckabee and all those like you. This horrifying tragedy did not occur because God was taken out of schools. It occurred because guns were taken into them.

As I saw pointed elsewhere, other things that didn't exist before "God was taken out of schools": Desegregation, Bryan Fischer, Mike Huckabee.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:40 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

We don't know whether the suspect was diagnosed with mental illness, if so what his diagnosis or diagnoses were, and what kind of treatment, if any, he was receiving. We don't know.
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:41 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Sidhedevil, I believe we do know for a fact that the shooter was mentally ill.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:42 PM on December 14, 2012

Show of hands: Who wrote to one of their Representatives or Senators today asking them to initiate a Constitutional gun control amendment?

/raises hand

Anyone else? Bueller?
posted by Ardiril at 4:43 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

This is the fourth time that I have re-posted this quote in the past five years. It is depressing:

"Amok is a Malay word for the homicidal sprees occasionally undertaken by lonely, Indochinese men who have suffered a loss of love, a loss of money, or a loss of face. The syndrome has been described in a culture even more remote from the West: the stone-age foragers of Papua New Guinea.

The amok man is patently out of his mind, an automaton oblivious to his surroundings and unreachable by appeals or threats. But his rampage is preceded by lengthy brooding over failure, and is carefully planned as a means of deliverance from an unbearable situation. The amok state is chillingly cognitive. It is triggered not by a stimulus, not by a tumor, not by a random spurt of brain chemicals, but by an idea. The idea is so standard that the following summary of the amok mind-set, composed in 1968 by a psychiatrist who had interviewed seven hospitalized amoks in Papua New Guinea, is an apt description of the the thoughts of mass murderers continents and decades away:

"I am not an important man... I possess only my personal sense of dignity. My life has been reduced to nothing by an intolerable insult. Therefore, I have nothing to lose except my life, which is nothing, so I trade my life for yours, as your life is favoured. The exchange is in my favour, so I shall not only kill you, but I shall kill many of you, and at the same time rehabilitate myself in the eyes of the group of which I am a member, even though I might be killed in the process."

The amok syndrome is an extreme instance of the puzzle of human emotions. Exotic at first glance, upon scrutiny they turn out to be universal; quintessentially irrational, they are tightly interwoven with abstract thought and have a cold logic of their own.

From How The Mind Works by Steven Pinker"
posted by AceRock at 4:46 PM on December 14, 2012 [126 favorites]

Ardiril, I did last time around (Aurora shooting) and the responses I got from my elected officials -- the ones who bothered to write back -- were utterly vacuous. I'm not going to bother this time.
posted by Wordwoman at 4:46 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Good idea, Ardiril.

(goes off to do just that.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:47 PM on December 14, 2012

Start here.

Let's make the next 100 comments here a show of hands.
posted by Ardiril at 4:48 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

Obama ordered all federal American flags to be flown at half-staff until sunset on Tuesday.
posted by argonauta at 4:48 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

roomthreeseventeen, even granting the "no mentally well person would have done this" argument, my point is that he may have been diagnosed and under treatment at the highest standards of care and still have committed this crime.

And I don't grant the "no mentally well person would have committed this crime" as someone who is living with mental illness. But that's an argument I'm not having in this thread at this time.
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:51 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

for my imminent action to donate to the Brady Center and any other organization dedicated to helping make sure this cannot occur again.

All of today's online donations to the Brady Campaign will be matched 100%.
posted by ceribus peribus at 4:52 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

My boss and his kid are in America right now. He decided his son would be better off claiming his US citizenship by turning 18 in the States.

I'm guessing he might be coming back on Monday and I couldn't blame him.

America is fucking insane.
posted by bardic at 4:53 PM on December 14, 2012

.

Newtown, Conn. Happy Valley, Ore. Oak Creek, Wisc. Aurora, Colo. Those, and at least 12 other mass shootings so far this year in the U.S. So damn sad and unnecessary.
posted by limeonaire at 4:55 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Just sent to all my congresscritters:

Currently I am one of your constituents in New York, but I grew up in the state of Connecticut. As you can imagine, I was shocked and horrified to hear of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School this morning; I have long referred to Connecticut as a nearly idyllically safe place to grow up, and it is heartbreaking that these other children have lost the ability to make that claim.

Towards that end, I urge you to ensure that no other child in my home state will ever lose that right; I urge you to take action against the gun lobby in this country and tighten gun control. It's time to tell the gun lobby that the abuses of the 2nd Amendment they've been claiming are NOT more important than the lives of the 18 children who were lost.

posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:55 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

When you write to your representative, be sure to ask them about any NRA money they might be the beneficiary of as well. How much would they care about their precious 2nd amendment if there wasn't some money on the table for them for their fealty.
posted by marylynn at 4:55 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Sorry if this was posted before upthread, but the quote from this Tom Tomorrow/This Modern World cartoon comes to mind:

Barring some seismic realignment in this country, the gun control debate is all but settled and your side won. The occasional horrific civilian massacre is just the price the rest of us have to pay.

Over and over again, apparently.

posted by jazon at 4:56 PM on December 14, 2012 [20 favorites]

Ardiril, why bother?

Neither of my (liberal Democratic) Senators even has "gun control" on their list of approved contact topics. Neither does the President. Amendment? Most Americans oppose it, even when it's their own kids getting shot in the head. We love our guns too much. We love our guns more than we love our kids.

But yeah, I wrote all four today, and signed the petition.
posted by Fnarf at 4:56 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

they wouldn't be surveilling you - they would be surveilling guns

By this reasoning, if the government mandated GPS trackers in shoes - and why not? shoes are used in violent crimes even more frequently than guns - they wouldn't be surveilling you; they would be surveilling your shoes.

But this is all moot. What difference would it have made to today's killings if a cop sitting at a monitor somewhere had been alerted by GPS tracker that a gun had been brought onto school property?
posted by Egg Shen at 4:57 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Restless_nomad: This quote from Byron Hurt, which I still have not successfully sourced, sums it up:

"Until we stop telling boys that they can not cry, or show emotion, or that they have to be tough and powerful, and in control of people and things; and until we stop sending men the message that we cannot show vulnerability, or express our anger, sadness, disappointment, fear, and rage in healthy way, we will continue to see this kind of hypermasculine aggression, which perplexes only those who do not make the connection between masculinity, violence, and guns."

It's a good quote for a good amount of male culture, but does not really address the problem of psychopaths, and the ease at which they can obtain deadly weapons. For a psychopath, they would simply lack the ability to feel empathy. A lot of the quote above would not make much of a difference in their world...as they would simply absorb thoughts of violence from our media and other parts of culture and play it out like a video game or movie. There are tests for this sort of thing, but nothing that is generally accepted as a catch-all for all psychopaths, otherwise we would be using them in prisons all the time to determine whether someone was safe to return to society. The implications of using such tests for obtaining fire-arms is also a very likely debate, and not all psychopaths are driven to murder. But we've seen more and more, that with mass shootings, it's more often a factor (besides the guns) than not.

(Also we kind of went down this road with the Aurora shootings: Let's not loosely use the phrase "mentally ill" to describe mass murderers...sociopath or psychopath would be more direct. "Mental illness" is too broad in definition and is off-putting to those who have diagnosed mental illnesses much more benign, like eating disorders. I know that sounds silly and I realize it's not done with that intent of course....just wanted to mention it because I was called out before on it too...so more of a friendly PSA here)
posted by samsara at 4:58 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

The argument that "there are too many guns, we can't control them now" is, as far as I'm concerned, not so much an argument as capitulation.

I, for my part, refuse to capitulate.
posted by Archelaus at 4:58 PM on December 14, 2012 [10 favorites]

America is fucking insane.

America is Popolac, from Clive Barker's short story In the Hills, the Cities. We have become the mad aggregate giant, and we are rampaging the hills in our grief and our madness. Eventually we will die of exhaustion, but at what price?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:00 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

By this reasoning, if the government mandated GPS trackers in shoes - and why not? shoes are used in violent crimes even more frequently than guns - they wouldn't be surveilling you; they would be surveilling your shoes.

It's as if you know nothing of RFID.
posted by Max Power at 5:00 PM on December 14, 2012

It would certainly be very gratifying to see the NRA reminded that they lost the election and told to STFU.
posted by Artw at 5:01 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

GPS trackers for guns? Yes, nothing could possibly go wrong with that.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:02 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

"why bother?" - Voices. Multiple voices. Repeating. Berating.

This is how pot got legalized and same-sex marriages recognized. One state at a time.
posted by Ardiril at 5:03 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

I AM concerned for the kindergardeners. How awful to associate school with such horror. Parents and teachers are going to have their hands full nationwide, I think.

A parent of an older (living) kid at the Newtown school was interviewed and said it was just a week ago that he had to have the conversation about the Oregon shooting and reassure his child that they'd be safe, that this wouldn't happen at their school, etc. I don't know what the hell he's going to say now.
posted by FelliniBlank at 5:03 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

Neither of my (liberal Democratic) Senators even has "gun control" on their list of approved contact topics.

Ah, but they most likely have "children". That's what I did with one of my senators.

Yeah, it literally turns you into one of those "think of the children" types, but this time it's used for good.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:04 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

Why the hell can't people who leave guns where mentally unstable people can get them be charged with negligent homicide?

I am opposed to an all out gun ban, but I agree with this. If you bought the gun, you're the one responsible for it.
posted by Malice at 5:05 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Secret Life of Gravy: Yeah I don't know if it is just bias confirmation but yesterday my husband and I noticed independently that here in Raleigh we seem to have seen a spike in the number of firearm murders just in the last couple of weeks. A mom and two kids. A husband and wife. An Indian restaurant owner. A young man. On and on. Nothing ties them together, just guns and death.

My husband and I attended the vigil last night for the restaurant owner in Durham, Mohammed Arfan Sundal. He was a beloved figure in this neighborhood; a truly decent, giving, and endearing man. His teenage son spoke at the vigil, and had some raw, heartbreaking things to say about guns, in the wake of his father's murder.

It's so hard for me to deal with the gun true believers even outside horrible events like these, but I cannot freaking speak to them in the midst. I just want for once, when someone like this happens, for a bunch of people to not immediately squirm out of the woodwork in the defense of the proliferation of guns. It's like, that's the first thing they give a shit about.

If you ask the world, "HOW does this happen, how can we prevent this from happening so damned often?", people respond, "The shooters were rogue crazy people who were total aberrations! Never mind how often this kind of thing happens, they're all rare deviant lunatics and that's that, totally unpredictable, no need to think about it any harder. Yay for free access to guns, fuck access to affordable and useful mental health care!"

(Keep in mind that the fact that someone theoretically has the ability to obtain mental health care, does not mean they will, due to the shame and stigma and the godawful experiences you go through in mental health care until you find a therapist or psychiatrist who's not a fuck-up. IF you find them. IF you hold out that long. Also keep in mind that "crazy" is just a lazy label to put on a complex situation, and that you don't have to be mentally ill to go on a shooting spree.)

I don't know why we're so uninterested, as a nation, in doing anything of consequence to stop this shit. We're interested in reciting sad words like "tragedy", "condolences", "unbelievable", etc, and then moving on to the next reason to mouth platitudes. I'm an idiot and have only the foggiest ideas of what should be done, but the fact that so few people appear interested makes me want to go to bed and not get back out.
posted by Coatlicue at 5:05 PM on December 14, 2012 [9 favorites]

HuronBob, I am so sorry to hear about your loss -- thank you for sharing your experience. And also your call to action.
posted by madamjujujive at 5:08 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

Ah, but they most likely have "children".

Ah, good thinking. I went with "Terrorism". This is terrorism, and the gun lobby is doing the real heavy lifting for the terrorists. I know I'm terrified. Until today I had never heard of Newtown, Connecticut, which tells me that tomorrow it could be right next door. With 250 million guns to go around, it's not like there's anything stopping anybody.
posted by Fnarf at 5:08 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

What difference would it have made to today's killings if a cop sitting at a monitor somewhere had been alerted by GPS tracker that a gun had been brought onto school property?

you forget that i had already proposed that an alarm would be set off - and by that, i mean something just like a fire alarm that could be heard by everyone

i'm not aware of shoe killings being a national problem

you should pay better attention to what i say and try not to be so disingenuous if you want to continue this conversation with me
posted by pyramid termite at 5:08 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Seeing as the person who bought the guns in this case (as far as we know to date) was killed with one of her own guns, I don't see the relevance of penalties in other hypothetical cases?
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:09 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

This is just making me so sad. I think of parents who have Christmas gifts hidden on a high shelf for a child who believesd in Santa, or who have 2 more nights' of Hannukkah gifts for a child who has been killed by someone who watches too much tv, has guns, and is mentally ill. The American love affair with guns and violence isn't uncommon, we export our violent movies worldwide to eager audiences. I believe there's ample evidence that seeing the news of mass killings makes more mass killings more likely. Much as I think we have far too many guns, a culture of disrespect, a culture that tolerates violence, we have little in the way of resources for the mentally ill, and we've let our sense of community be fractured. The answer is for Americans to choose to create community, and stop letting entertainment producers create our value systems. And mental health care, and common decency.

I can just barely begin to imagine the pain of these families; this is nightmare stuff. Parents fear car accidents, cancer, and other horrors, but I never thought to fear that my child would be gunned down at school. Every loss diminishes us, but this is loss and pain on an enormous scale.

I'm not a believer, but the only thing I can imagine doing right now is praying.
posted by theora55 at 5:09 PM on December 14, 2012 [9 favorites]

Elementary principal and counselor ran towards the sound of gunfire.
posted by ColdChef at 5:12 PM on December 14, 2012 [16 favorites]

killed by someone who watches too much tv

Oh, let's not.
posted by tzikeh at 5:14 PM on December 14, 2012 [10 favorites]

"A study published in the Injury Prevention Journal, based on a 2004 National Firearms Survey, found that 20% of the gun owners with the most firearms possessed about 65% of the nation's guns."

I was suprised to note over Thanksgiving that my cousin had gotten a man-sized safe in which to keep his guns in. I refrained from making Dick Cheney jokes.
posted by JHarris at 5:16 PM on December 14, 2012

Mental illness does not de facto make you violent. You do not have to be mentally ill to kill others.

Can we please fucking stop with this assumption. Lots of people dealing with their mental illness and not being violent would certainly appreciate it.
posted by emjaybee at 5:19 PM on December 14, 2012 [46 favorites]

Thanks, ColdChef. Brave ladies. Ms. Hochsprung's Twitter was linked in a bunch of places, and it made me cry. She did her best to protect those children.
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:19 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

The American love affair with guns and violence isn't uncommon, we export our violent movies worldwide to eager audiences.

I don't think violence in movies is the cause of the problem.

I heard just a few minutes ago that a local elementary school is planning on putting card-activated door locks on classroom doors in the near future. This is in Brunswick, GA, which is like one step above rural.

Neither of my (liberal Democratic) Senators even has "gun control" on their list of approved contact topics. Neither does the President.

APPROVED CONTACT TOPICS?!
posted by JHarris at 5:21 PM on December 14, 2012

Has anyone actually said that anyone who is mentally ill is necessarily violent? I've seen people say things that I've interpreted to mean that carrying out a murder like this implies mental illness, but that's a totally different thing.

A implies B does not mean that B implies A, and I seriously doubt that anyone who said that this particular A implies this particular B additionally meant that this particular B implies this particular A.
posted by Flunkie at 5:23 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

I just made a donation to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
posted by HotToddy at 5:23 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

Mental illness does not de facto make you violent. You do not have to be mentally ill to kill others.

and it is also true that being in treatment for mental health issues does not necessarily make you non-violent. I desperately want to see better funding for mental health care, but I doubt it is the answer.
posted by Wordwoman at 5:25 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

snickerdoodle, I agree with everything you've said, and yet none of that seems like it would have stopped this from happening.
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:26 PM on December 14, 2012

I want to mention that Principal Hochspring had recently implemented stricter security measures at Sandy Hook Elementary than those I grew up with.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:27 PM on December 14, 2012

We do need a more international perspective. Frequent mass killing is a relatively solved problem in many places comparable enough to the US.

My friend posted:

there is no reasonable way for us to regulate the fragile and often unpredictable mechanism that is the mind. What we can do is limit the weaponry that people have access to.

I want us to have much better mental health services, because that's a very good thing. But I am under no illusion that having access to those services can prevent this sort of thing. They are typically voluntary-participation. They are not universally effective. And even they cannot control people's actions - not with talk, not with drugs. Mental health care is a basic necessity that we should certanily have. But it is not enough.

We gotta wise up. No, it won't be easy. But because we have no stomach for the difficult discussion, we tolerate the situation. And because we tolerate it, we are complicit.

Enough.
posted by Miko at 5:27 PM on December 14, 2012 [15 favorites]

I don't think violence in movies is the cause of the problem.

So my Facebook friend the gun enthusiast just posted a link where some idiotic pundit posits that movie violence and reporting is a prime cause for these sorts of shootings. No mention of the ready availability of assault weapons etc etc.

So suggest tweaking the First Amendment, but geez, we had better refrain from discussing the Second Amendment - not even relevant, people!

As Kurt Vonnegut said:

"I have never seen a more sublime demonstration of the totalitarian mind, a mind which might be likened to a system of gears whose teeth had been filed off at random. Such a snaggle-toothed thought machine, driven by a standard or even by a substandard libido, whirls with the jerky, noisy, gaudy, pointlessness of a cuckoo clock in Hell."
posted by KokuRyu at 5:36 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

zombieflanders:

The Second Amendment of the Constitution reads as follows:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
There are already a good number of public figures and organizations today (nevermind internet commentors like us) who have made it publicly known that they don't seem to notice or care about the first three words.

You know, I've never heard an argument that makes sense to me for why the second part of that sentence isn't dependent upon the first part.

Thinking about it, I'd be perfectly okay with tying that whole sentence together instead of ignoring the first bit - if someone wants to own something other than a rifle or shotgun suited to hunting, and they pass whatever legal checks are in place to own it, they must become a member of a well regulated militia, as in: you're in a special "citizen militia" tier of the Army Reserve now and must qualify with your weapon every year, and you can be drummed out for anything a regular service member can be, forfeiting your right to own those special weapons. You can also be called to action in times of domestic emergency, etc, as a militia would.
posted by jason_steakums at 5:37 PM on December 14, 2012 [24 favorites]

I have a number of mentally ill relatives, and I teach a number of mentally ill children. None of them kills people.
posted by Peach at 5:38 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

this is nightmare stuff

It is. Oddly enough, I felt compelled to pick up my 2nd grader from school today about the same time this all happened. We'd had a rough morning and I was feeling bad about it. I didn't see the news until later. I'll take a battle before school every morning over what the families of these children are having to endure.
posted by PuppyCat at 5:39 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Thinking about it, I'd be perfectly okay with tying that whole sentence together instead of ignoring the first bit

As I've said before; if you can conveniently interpret one of the amendments to come out with your preferred policy solution, someone else can conveniently interpret a different amendment (such as the 1st, 4th, or 14th) to come out with their preferred policy solutions. And they might not have your restraint and good intention.
posted by Justinian at 5:40 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

.
posted by luciernaga at 5:41 PM on December 14, 2012

It's already being conveniently interpreted by ignoring the well-regulated militia bit.
posted by jason_steakums at 5:42 PM on December 14, 2012 [12 favorites]

barring massive change,

Yes, that was also a strong argument against Civil Rights, if I've read my history textbooks correctly. Nobody wants massive change! Could also work against abolition and women's suffrage and gay marriage.
posted by jacalata at 5:45 PM on December 14, 2012

i'm not aware of shoe killings being a national problem.

That is changing the subject.

You have not countered my point that surveilling someone's possessions is tantamount to surveilling them. You have only argued - as best I can tell - that guns are so dangerous that we should tolerate being surveilled to be kept safe from them.

I've heard the same arguments about terrorists. And despite the fact that I'm (slightly) more at risk from a mass shooting than I am from a terrorist attack, I'm still not interested.
posted by Egg Shen at 5:47 PM on December 14, 2012 [8 favorites]

APPROVED CONTACT TOPICS?!

JHarris, to give some credit to our congresscritters, I think this is more a matter of "making it easier for their staff to sort emails." Most times I've written to mine, they have a list of "Subject Topics" you can pick from which are usually related to pending bills or the ConressCritter's pet projects or of particular relevance to their constituents (i.e. "Jobs" here in Ohio.)

I think there's usually an "Other" option, or you can use a creative interpretation ala EmpressCallipygos.
posted by soundguy99 at 5:47 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Yeah, I'm not sure why I have to get my driving license renewed every X many years, get my vision checked, take the test, etc. but you don't have to have gun license refreshers.
posted by FelliniBlank at 5:54 PM on December 14, 2012 [14 favorites]

Sure, I'm all for stricter gun control. But there will be a civil war if you ban guns. That is not hyperbole.

I just really wish we could talk more about how difficult it is to get mental health in this country. Even severe and physically painful mental conditions take months to treat because it usually takes months to see a psychiatrist, who may or may not actually give a shit about you for your $50 per hour (with insurance).

The availability of guns is a problem, but for fucks sake if this "change" the president mentioned in his speech doesn't focus on revamping our mental health care system and treating like an actually illness rather than a bitchy annoyance stemming from hypochondriacs, we would prevent a hell of a lot of these shootings.

Tim McVeigh didn't need a gun to kill 600 people in broad daylight.
posted by WhitenoisE at 5:57 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

Words seem vain but necessary. It is impossible for me to understand what happened today. It is unreal. I felt nothing except bewilderment and a toxic resignation. Lying in bed I had to think about even how to think about this, and for a moment my thoughts were with the killer. How he must have imagined the reporting on his deed. "They will not understand," he must have thought. He must have fantasized about the confusion, the wantonness, the strange elation of surrendering to compulsion. The brand names of the weaponry, with their weird aura of cool ("Glock"), his bulletproof vest, the flailing attempts to establish a rickety framework of understanding... Better to be a cipher, a mysterious agent of darkness, than a nobody, better to replace the stories of humiliation and rejection and failure by a mindless river of blood. The reporters and news crews, bless they hearts, but their familiar faces and finely honed formats can't contain the reality of this event. Thank you, Joey Michaels, HuronBob. It took your words, the remembered detail, the grit of memory and conscience, to make this real for me.
posted by deo rei at 5:59 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

FelliniBlank...you do have to take gun "refreshers" about every five years in my state.
posted by WhitenoisE at 5:59 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

You do realize the the right is screaming about how this wouldn't have happened if teachers had been armed?
posted by telstar at 6:05 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

Fucking guns have been fetish-ised in American culture to point that they have become, to many, nearly religious symbols of self-reliance, freedom, virility, patriotism and personal power. The result is that any impetus towards gun control will inevitably be subject to arguments that are emotional, partisan, dogmatic and damn near impossible to resolve rationally. But if today's horrific events aren't enough to justify the effort to seek a resolution, I shudder to think what it will take.
posted by islander at 6:05 PM on December 14, 2012 [11 favorites]

snickerdoodle, we don't know if the late Ms. Lanza kept her guns in a gun safe. Maybe she did. Her son killed her. Maybe she left the guns lying around. Maybe she locked them up. We don't know.

Gun safes are important. Gun safety is important. Gun safety training is important. None of that may have been able to help here.

One of the guns the suspect is reported to have taken from the mother was a deer rifle. This was not a gun he is reported to have used, but it suggests that even a total handgun ban wouldn't have stopped this tragedy.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:06 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

This study linking antidepressants and gun violence is making the rounds on Facebook.
posted by KokuRyu at 6:06 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

If 30,000 people would be killed by bombs annually if we had reasonable gun control, I wold consider a Timothy McVeigh argument today.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 6:08 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

As I write this, I am beside myself with grief and sorrow, as well as shock and disbelief over today's events.

I feel thin-skinned and hollow, trying together with my wife unsuccessfully to parse what happened and all the while thinking about our son who is the same age as the children who were killed this morning. While we delight in his innocence, we're struck by how completely unprepared these children were to understand what was happening, to react to the assault, to defend themselves.

We think about last week's tour of our local elementary school, in a neighboring Connecticut town, and our deliberations about which kindergarten he will attend next year. I can see the darkened classroom we visited filled with children, and imagine how it might have tragically unfolded.

We think about our close friends, residents of Newtown, whose daughter is a friend of our son. They had asked the Sandy Hook school if she could attend this year, even if she just missed the cutoff for kindergarten. Had the school not refused, she would have been in the classroom today.

We think about the chain of children holding each other's hands, eyes squeezed tight as they struggled to leave the building, and the memories that will haunt them.

We think about my former colleague and his wife who lost their only daughter this morning to a senseless act of violence. A little girl now collateral damage in a struggle that really didn't concern her. Her Christmas presents tucked away in a closet, her toys strewn throughout the house, her laundry waiting in a hamper. How will they manage to get out of bed tomorrow morning?

The gun control debate is important stuff, and I've been inspired by all of you to donate to www.bradycampaign.org today. Still, I can't stop thinking about the wide community of people who will live with this for the rest of their lives.

.
posted by Otherwise at 6:11 PM on December 14, 2012 [40 favorites]

One of the guns the suspect is reported to have taken from the mother was a deer rifle.

Sidhedevil, where are you seeing this? So far all I've seen or heard about a rifle is a Bushmaster .223, which I'd hardly call a "deer rifle" - it's a civilian version of the military's M-16.
posted by soundguy99 at 6:13 PM on December 14, 2012

We don't know that the son had "access" to his mother's guns. He may well have attacked her with something else, taken the guns by force, then shot her (presuming the reports describing the crime scene at the home to date are accurate).

I seriously don't see where this argument is going given the limited information we have. If what people are arguing is that public policy should be that no guns can be allowed in a home where anyone diagnosed with a mental illness (which we don't even know the suspect had been at this point) resides, that's going to be a hard battle to fight.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:13 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Aside from the event itself, the thing that upsets me most about these shootings is the inevitable response from some NRA rep or supporter that it could have been prevented if someone else present had been packing.

I can't concisely explain why this upsets me so much, but it has the feeling of a reductio ad absurdum, "the solution to guns is more guns". It's never fewer guns, always more guns.

Personally, I don't think we need to get rid of all guns, so much as we need to stop loving them so much.
posted by hwestiii at 6:14 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

I know people who use the Bushmaster for hunting deer. And moose, but I don't suppose they get moose in Connecticut.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:14 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

An argument that I thought was settled since about the dawn of the Meiji Restoration.

Having seen a number of don't blame the tool, blame the person arguments (as if blaming the tool is actually what is happening, which isn't) I was reminded of this little chat between Lee and Braithwaite in Enter the Dragon.
posted by juiceCake at 6:14 PM on December 14, 2012

You do realize the the right is screaming about how this wouldn't have happened if teachers had been armed?
posted by telstar at 6:05 PM on December 14

Where are you getting this from?
posted by space_cookie at 6:16 PM on December 14, 2012

I have a friend who moderates comments for one of the biggest news sites on the planet and she has been seeing a lot of people ranting about idea of arming teachers. It's a real thing.
posted by something something at 6:18 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

What could possibly go wrong?
posted by space_cookie at 6:18 PM on December 14, 2012

The 2nd Amendment was put in place for the following reasons:

So my favourite bit of Second Amendment trivia is that a draft version included a right to conscientious objection. It was dropped, on the grounds that, in the absence of a standing army, conscription was absurd, so surely one didn't need a right to object. (That such a right was even considered probably speakers to how much larger a percentage of the population Quakers were at the time.) That ablative absolute at the beginning? It's all about not having a freaking army. Funnily enough, the situation has changed a wee bit since then. It's really not relevant what the people who wrote the Second Amendment were thinking, particularly because they were operating from a totally different set of assumptions.
posted by hoyland at 6:18 PM on December 14, 2012 [12 favorites]

Earlier today a news anchor commented "this has become the worst elementary school shooting in history".

And I thought to myself my god, I live in a country where elementary school shootings can be ranked.
posted by Conductor71 at 6:20 PM on December 14, 2012 [57 favorites]

I know people who use the Bushmaster for hunting deer.

Well, people fish with dynamite, too, but I would say it's disingenuous to call a stick of dynamite "my fishing rod."

This is not what most people would think of when you say "deer rifle."
posted by soundguy99 at 6:20 PM on December 14, 2012 [10 favorites]

The majority of people with mental illness are in need of people to talk to who aren't frightened by the way their mental illness presents.

So linking up mental illness with rampage murder is exactly the kind of thing which increases that isolation by implying that any behaviour you don't understand might be a precursor to a murder rampage. As far as I can tell, violent nihilism is the strongest predictor of this kind of crime.
posted by ambrosen at 6:21 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

If people want to read about public figures responding to this with calls to arm teachers, you can do so here and here and here.

My own opinion is that it's so far from what's needed as to be ludicrous, but it is absolutely being called for in all seriousness.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:25 PM on December 14, 2012

You have not countered my point that surveilling someone's possessions is tantamount to surveilling them.

such as putting a license plate on a car so it and its owner can be identified by the police?

such as superfast license plate readers that can read hundreds of plates in a minute?

such as traffic cameras at every light and cameras at many businesses?

you're already being surveilled plenty these days

You have only argued - as best I can tell - that guns are so dangerous that we should tolerate being surveilled to be kept safe from them.

no, i'm arguing that if you own a gun we should have the right to know where it is, especially when it's in public - this is something that is already done with gun registration - the government knows what guns you have and where you live - i'm merely proposing better technology and broader access to that knowledge

you're already being surveilled plenty - why shouldn't we know if you're packing, too?
posted by pyramid termite at 6:25 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

soundguy99, the people I know who hunt deer with a Bushmaster 223 aren't the kind of people who fish with dynamite. If anything, the .223 is underpowered to hunt deer, but a lot of short, slight people use it because it has less recoil than a .450.

My point was that Ms. Lanza needed a permit to buy the Glock and the Sig Sauer, but likely not to buy the Bushmaster under CT gun laws.<
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:27 PM on December 14, 2012

America has a Violent Culture problem not a lack of gun control problem.

This is simply factually incorrect. Human nature is the same everywhere and a tendency to violence is part of that. But countries with greater access to firearms people who are having that violent moment are able to inflict far, far more and greater damage. This is clearly reflected in higher violent crime and murder rates in these countries.
posted by flug at 6:27 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

I work at a school, and work with kids from age 2 to 11. When I went to work, all I knew was that there was a school shooting, and a couple of adults were feared dead. I checked the news during the day, and especially after a text from my husband indicating that the death toll was 20 (at the time).

I was numb, and shaking, and only not crying because I needed to be around the kids. Every one of my kids willing to be hugged got many many hugs today.

Two 1st graders were playing with Legos, and building ships, and saying things like "Bang! Gotcha! I killed you!" and we told them "No guns, no shooting, no killing." Some of my afterschool program kids (one 5, one 3.5) were playing a game with a bad guy that they kept killing. The 3.5 year old would say "We killed him, he's dead." I said "How else could you stop him? Could you talk to him?" They said "No, he doesn't understand us." I told them "Well, we could hug him, that doesn't have words." I suggested they change him into a good guy. They tried that, but changed him back. I didn't tell them to stop playing, but I offered other suggestions. How do we do a better job of teaching non-violence, of peaceful solutions?

There's going to be a lot of squirmy kids tonight, wondering why their parents are hugging them so hard.

I don't even know if I'm making sense, I've got no comprehension of this shooting, I can't imagine what makes somebody walk into a classroom of 5 year olds and start shooting.
posted by booksherpa at 6:28 PM on December 14, 2012 [27 favorites]

Every gun should be treated as a weapon. There should be standards on gun storage and handling. Want a gun? Fine. Here is what you have to do to get one. Here's how you have to store it. Here are gun safety standards that have to be followed.

This is pretty much the British system, post-Dunblane. It seems to work well.
posted by Pallas Athena at 6:30 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

This is not what most people would think of when you say "deer rifle."

Peoples mental image of a hunting rifle is not really relevant. One Bushmaster .223 for instance is explicitly marketed as the "Bushmaster Varminter" for varmint hunting.
posted by Jahaza at 6:30 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

"Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands." This does NOT reflect the views of the person providing the link.

You have to admit the mother would probably have been one of the first teachers to be carrying a gun. Now, whether she would've been able or even willing to shoot her own son before he shot her... more than highly unlikely.

Also, about shooters doing it to become famous. This one in particular killed himself before the police arrived, let alone the media. He was wearing a bullet-proof vest and he killed himself. We have no idea what was motivating him, but it is likely to be something you could never pass a law to deter (the motive that is... the means is another issue).
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:31 PM on December 14, 2012

someone just linked me to this in chat: Battle of Blair Mountain

I mean, I'm sure any kind of American disarmament program would focus firstly on private security companies and mercenaries, though, so there's really no need to worry
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 6:33 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Many people rely on hunting for a significant part of their food, even today.

How many people are actually subsistence hunting? There are certainly some, but how many of them are not in Alaska? And is it really inconceivable that gun ownership could be severely curtailed while still allowing subsistence hunting?
posted by hoyland at 6:34 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

When the wife and I went to our new doctor today the receptionist was perky and cheerful. That was until she got a phone call from relatives about the shooting. It seems that her niece and nephew go to that school. They were okay, but she was in shock thinking about the whole incident. As were we. My heart goes out to all the people involved. I can't help but think how that phone call could have been so much worse.

.
posted by Splunge at 6:34 PM on December 14, 2012

oneswellfoop: "You have to admit the mother would probably have been one of the first teachers to be carrying a gun."

I don't actually think we can assert that with any degree of confidence, at all.
posted by Superplin at 6:35 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Ignoring whether or not someone should use a Bushmaster for hunting, I can't wrap my head around why someone would choose one - I haven't hunted since my early teens and I could care less about the hunting anymore, but I can still rattle off a list of guns much better suited to it and much cheaper. And it just so happens that most are bolt action, so a hell of a lot less effective at causing the same kind of carnage in active shooter situations.
posted by jason_steakums at 6:39 PM on December 14, 2012

"Don't own guns because your son might kill you and steal them and use them to kill children" is not really the foundation of any kind of rational public policy.

Actually "Create extremely strict controls on and strictly limit ownership of hugely dangerous things that can be stolen or mis-used resulting in massive harm to numerous innocent people" is a pretty good foundation for rational public policy.
posted by flug at 6:39 PM on December 14, 2012 [11 favorites]

Just saying that if ANY kindergarten teachers would be bringing guns to their schools, it'd be those who already owned more than one.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:39 PM on December 14, 2012

Do you know what varmint hunting is? There's a reason they use semi-automatics.
posted by Jahaza at 6:40 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

oneswellfoop: you're either being really intellectually dishonest about your original assertion or you don't know what "probably" means.
posted by absalom at 6:41 PM on December 14, 2012

It does not matter what you ban - "assault" rifles*, certain types of ammunition, purchases at gun shows, etc. - the sheer number of guns already out there in the wild means that it just won't make a dent.

That's the most ridiculously defeatist line of bullshit I've ever heard.

The number of guns in America is finite. There's a really, really, really easy way to keep it that way: Just stop adding more guns.
posted by Sys Rq at 6:41 PM on December 14, 2012 [15 favorites]

My last comment in reply to jason_steakums.
posted by Jahaza at 6:41 PM on December 14, 2012

Can we agree, at least, that guns should be regulated as much as fertilizer? Is that too much to ask?
posted by Cash4Lead at 6:42 PM on December 14, 2012 [12 favorites]

you're already being surveilled plenty - why shouldn't we know if you're packing, too?

Franklin... liberty... security... etc.
posted by Egg Shen at 6:42 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

If anything, the .223 is underpowered to hunt deer

But just powerful enough to hunt children, and you can buy one without a permit. Incredible.
posted by robcorr at 6:42 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

hoyland, in my high school in rural Massachusetts, more than half of the people I knew ate mostly deer meat in the winter. Just a little more than an hour from Boston.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:43 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

I'm from Canada where our gun culture is almost non-existent, so I honestly don't understand the reasons why any mention of gun control in America is instantly shut down as "wrong". I've heard some of the arguments for guns, but they all seem really weak when you consider incidents like this. I don't really get the "self-defense" argument because even if someone did break into your house, shooting them seems too excessive to be "self-defense", and if they didn't have a gun, you wouldn't be in as much danger either. I don't get the hunting argument either, because just because one can get guns for recreation doesn't mean that you need to have such lenient controls on guns (such as in Canada). I sort of get the "right to bear arms" argument, but the constitution is being amended and argued over all the time, so tradition barely seems like a proper reason why.

So my honest question is (and I would really appreciate it if someone could answer me honestly, even though I know it's stupid), why is there so much resistance to not even greater regulatory controls over guns in America, but the mere discussion of greater regulatory controls? I don't want to just automatically chalk it all up to "well republicans are stupid", because I know there has to be some underlying reason for them to have such horribly strong opposition. So what is the driving motivation?
posted by Conspire at 6:43 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

How many people are actually subsistence hunting? There are certainly some, but how many of them are not in Alaska? And is it really inconceivable that gun ownership could be severely curtailed while still allowing subsistence hunting?

No, it's not, as I've noted, Sweden and Norway still have hunting and have fairly strict gun laws. I would note that hunting there is serious business, you need to take a 30-40 hour class (to contrast I took a 3 hour class for mine) and pass a test. Through that process you may obtain a specific hunting rifle.

Unfortunately it was true that Breivik had managed to get gun through a hunting license. But he was very very determined. Imagine how many disturbed people jumping through all those hoops must filter out? Sure, one got through, but still leaving Norway with a tiny amount of gun crime per capita.
posted by melissam at 6:43 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

Cash4Lead: "Can we agree, at least, that guns should be regulated as much as fertilizer? Is that too much to ask?"

And bullets should be as hard (or harder) to get than pseudoephedrine.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:44 PM on December 14, 2012 [24 favorites]

you're already being surveilled plenty - why shouldn't we know if you're packing, too?

Franklin... liberty... security... etc.

The semantic web is alive and well. You have already lost this battle.
posted by Max Power at 6:44 PM on December 14, 2012

.
posted by pixie at 6:45 PM on December 14, 2012

Peoples mental image of a hunting rifle is not really relevant.

Well, actually it is. If you ask people "do you oppose gubmint bans on hunting rifles" you get a particular response. I'd bet you get a different response if you showed them some examples of the weapons that are covered by that innocuous-sounding term.
posted by robcorr at 6:46 PM on December 14, 2012 [14 favorites]

I know, how about we send kids to school in body armor? That should do the fucking trick.

Bulletproof Backpacks
posted by M Edward at 6:46 PM on December 14, 2012

Do you know what varmint hunting is? There's a reason they use semi-automatics.

I know it, and I've done it, for farm pest control purposes - and the reason is nothing more than simple convenience and plenty of wishful thinking: if you're faced with enough pest animals that you need that much speed and magazine capacity... you're still not going to get a lot of them, because they'll scatter before you can.
posted by jason_steakums at 6:47 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

My point was that Ms. Lanza needed a permit to buy the Glock and the Sig Sauer, but likely not to buy the Bushmaster under CT gun laws.

Ok, fair enough.

Peoples mental image of a hunting rifle is not really relevant.

Sure it is. If most people's mental image of "hunting rifle" is a bolt-action with a 4-round capacity, of course then most people ~~could be~~ have been convinced that all "hunting rifles" are (relatively) harmless and should be readily available & unlicensed.

When that "hunting rifle" or "Varminter" can, to quote the review you linked to, "accept any AR-15 type magazine, including my personal favorite: the 20 round military magazine" - yeah, that changes the terms of the debate, and not in favor of the NRA.

or (on preview) what robcorr said.
posted by soundguy99 at 6:47 PM on December 14, 2012 [8 favorites]

Conspire, my sense has always been that most objections to gun control are a combination of toxic machismo, and anti-government paranoia. I personally don't think there is any correct, reasoned opposition to gun control (leading with my chin here, I know), but that it is almost entirely emotionally driven. That is with respect to "gun control", mind you, not "gun prohibition"
posted by hwestiii at 6:48 PM on December 14, 2012

"probably" was likely a bad word to use, considering I would assume the total number of concealed-weapon-carrying teachers would be VERY low if they ever were encouraged to do so, making the whole scenario unlikely, but if anyone would, it would be most likely those who were already gun owners.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:48 PM on December 14, 2012

Well, actually it is. If you ask people "do you oppose gubmint bans on hunting rifles" you get a particular response. I'd bet you get a different response if you showed them some examples of the weapons that are covered by that innocuous-sounding term.

It's not legislatively relevant. It's like using any other kind of fearmongering to move legislation or public opinion. You may be able to influence public opinion that way, but its unethical. Legislation should be based on relevant criteria, not the appearance of weapons.
posted by Jahaza at 6:48 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

So my honest question is (and I would really appreciate it if someone could answer me honestly, even though I know it's stupid), why is there so much resistance to not even greater regulatory controls over guns in America, but the mere discussion of greater regulatory controls?

The NRA is fighting a war, they aren't going to give an inch to the enemy. Every attempt to regulate guns is seen as the government overstepping their bounds and attempting to control the individual. They and their members will never give ground on this, because they don't believe that guns are the problem.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:48 PM on December 14, 2012 [11 favorites]

Franklin... liberty... security... etc.

how is your liberty or security impeded by the fact that people would know you have a gun in your possession, in public?

you are still free to carry it - you still own it
posted by pyramid termite at 6:49 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Myth of the Hero Gunslinger
posted by M Edward at 6:49 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Massachusetts, where I live, has to the best of my knowledge the US's strictest laws on rifle ownership. And a lot of people for whom hunting is an important annual source of food. So in addition to knowing how things can work in other countries, we know gun control and hunting can coexist in the US.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:49 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

Franklin... liberty... security... etc.

Here, Franklin refers to the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights, but it is the same:

I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.

posted by Celsius1414 at 6:51 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

robcorr's point is a good one. I think of the Bushmasters as hunting rifles because I know people who use them to hunt. I would also not oppose a ban, or stricter limitations, on them based on their style of action being too potentially lethal to human targets. The way these questions are framed make a lot of difference in how policies are made.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:53 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

I ask because he's lost his brother and mother today, yet the tv footage (which, yes, is edited) shows him with a completely blank, emotionless expression.

I can't imagine anyone with more right to be in shock right now. Tied with the parents who lost their kids today, yeah, but Ryan Lanza is probably feeling pretty overwhelmed at the moment, to say the least.
posted by vytae at 6:53 PM on December 14, 2012 [22 favorites]

...his brother just killed his mother and a couple dozen children and adults... and nothing from him except a few "screw you CNN" facebook posts?
Just seems very odd to me.

There is no manual for how a human being should deal with their sibling killing their mother, then 26 people and then himself.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:54 PM on December 14, 2012 [78 favorites]

yet the tv footage (which, yes, is edited) shows him with a completely blank, emotionless expression. I don't know what to make of this - his brother just killed his mother and a couple dozen children and adults... and nothing from him except a few "screw you CNN" facebook posts?

I am pretty sure that no one, no one at all, has an adequate way to respond to news like this. It's not like there's some sort of training for how to react to finding out that your brother not only killed your mother but 20 small children.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 6:55 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

Blaney, people do not necessarily respond to events like these according to any of our expectations. To me, it indicates that our expectations are likely wrong, not that there is something wrong with the people that defy them.
posted by Wordwoman at 6:55 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

It's not legislatively relevant. … You may be able to influence public opinion that way, but its unethical.

You're quite right; using the popular perception of "deer rifle" to generate opposition to restrictions on a much broader category of weapons is unethical and misleading.
posted by robcorr at 6:55 PM on December 14, 2012 [14 favorites]

I don't know what to make of this - his brother just killed his mother and a couple dozen children and adults... and nothing from him except a few "screw you CNN" facebook posts?
Just seems very odd to me.

I'm sure that if he knew who you were, he'd be sorry his grief is not public enough for your satisfaction.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:57 PM on December 14, 2012 [30 favorites]

It would come to civil war if we ever tried to take the guns away. It would be like banning the bible or going to church on Sunday. People worship their guns. When you ask them to point out what good a semi-auto handgun could possibly bring other than the death of another human they rear back and say but it's for protection!

I have a handgun. I enjoy shooting at paper target circles, it's soothing for whatever reason. But if giving up my right to have that gun saves just 1 life that's a win for me. Other people feel it's a total loss.

Gun control and climate change are the same damn thing. Powerful corporate interests have embedded themselves so deeply in our culture that we are completely and utterly fucked as a society. But hey, at least I look cool standing next to my H2 with my AR15.
posted by M Edward at 6:57 PM on December 14, 2012 [11 favorites]

The NRA is fighting a war, they aren't going to give an inch to the enemy.

To follow up on your answer: The NRA is considered by many the most powerful lobbying group in the country.
posted by Amanojaku at 6:58 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

...his brother just killed his mother and a couple dozen children and adults... and nothing from him except a few "screw you CNN" facebook posts?
Just seems very odd to me.

Most of our ideas about how people should respond to extreme events comes from tv and movies and has very little relationship to how things work in the real world.
posted by billyfleetwood at 6:58 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

I ask because he's lost his brother and mother today, yet the tv footage (which, yes, is edited) shows him with a completely blank, emotionless expression.

first of all, he must be in shock - second, he probably doesn't want to share his innermost feelings with anybody who happens to own a tv, which is damn near everyone - third, he hasn't processed this and won't for a damned long time

we seem to expect people to react and talk the "right way" when thrust in the public eye when they've had no experience of being there and no idea they were going to be put there - he's probably just shut down emotionally in the glare of the cameras and hasn't a clue as to what he should do or say
posted by pyramid termite at 6:58 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

The NRA is fighting a war, they aren't going to give an inch to the enemy.

Too bad the defenders of the rest of the First Ten Amendments aren't nearly as determined. And it must be noted that the Second Amendment Defenders are not different because they have guns, but because they have a the financial support of an entire industry totally dependent on keeping that "right". The Communications Media may be much bigger but is in no way dependent upon Absolute Freedom of Speech... in fact, they are in a position to benefit from more restrictions, therefore their support of SOPA, etc.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:59 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

fourth, he was initially exposed to this situation in the worst way possible, thank you, CNN.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:00 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

- fifth, he may still be in police custody.
posted by Ardiril at 7:01 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Thanks, hwestiii. I suspected as much, and that really disappoints me that you agree with my original judgment because I was hoping that there was something I wasn't seeing. How can the majority of a country buy into such a toxic, paternalistic and ultimately, fatal myth like that? I really don't like believing the majority of citizens in a country as if not bad, extremely naive to the point that they put their children in the way of open harm. I sincerely hope that some good will come out of this incident, and discussion will finally open.
posted by Conspire at 7:02 PM on December 14, 2012

Here's why Ryan Lanza might be a tad bitter right now.
posted by NoMich at 7:07 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

.
posted by getawaysticks at 7:07 PM on December 14, 2012

and nothing from him except a few "screw you CNN" facebook posts?
Just seems very odd to me.

Are you sure you've got the right guy? Apparently the press jumped all over a different guy with the same name's Facebook profile and he's been fending off media and public attention all day.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:08 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

It's already being conveniently interpreted by ignoring the well-regulated militia bit.
posted by jason_steakums at 8:42 PM on December 14 [4 favorites +] [!]

Yes, and conservatives would retort that the other side conveniently and inconsistently contrues "the people" in this amendment alone to mean "the State." Who's "right?"
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:09 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

When you ask them to point out what good a semi-auto handgun could possibly bring other than the death of another human they rear back and say but it's for protection!

Fairly weak argument there. I could do the same thing this guy did with a baseball bat, or a revolver, or my hands for that matter. At an elementary school who is there that is really going to stop you?

I own guns, both handguns (semi) and rifles and shotguns. I shoot quite a bit at the range, used to hunt, carry when I am in Afghanistan under the premise of self protection. This will bring up the same arguments that get hashed and re-hashed every time there is an incident. Is the gun evil, or the person...
My question has to do with his mother. Everything I have read so far says the weapons were hers. What is her background? Interesting assortment she has. And I assume no gunsafe?

Too bad this asshole didn't start with himself. Would have spared a lot of families a whole lot of sorrow. The children that survived are going to need some help after all this too.
posted by a3matrix at 7:10 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Because there are just too many guns in America for any of these ideas to have any impact at all.

This idea comes up every time this discussion comes up. With apologies to your husband, it is both wrong and wrong-headed in these particular ways:

1. Guns last a long time but they don't last forever. Like everything mechanical, eventually any particular gun will fall into dis-use or into the ownership of someone who doesn't care about or like guns. With the general U.S. population becoming far, far less likely to need or want to use guns on a regular basis, this is only going to accelerate in the future. We're playing the long game here. We're not going to totally fix this problem by tomorrow morning, but we could take steps that would dramatically improve the situation pretty much immediately and with good follow through we could reduce gun injuries and fatalities several-fold in the lifetimes of your children and grandchildren.

2. Once guns are banned or severely limited, there are lots and lots of things you can do to work on reducing the number of guns out there--buy-back programs, gun turn-in programs, and that type of thing. If you cut off the supply of new weapons on the front end and then work, even slowly and gradually, to reduce the number of existing weapons it does indeed have an effect over the long term. Gun advocates like to argue that the only way to get guns out of circulation is the FBI doing house-to-house gun searches but the fact is in between doing nothing at all and heavy-handed FBI searches of every home in the country there many, many productive ways to reduce the number of firearms in circulation.

3. To effect any major type of societal change like this, you almost always have to do it step by step. Each step you'll have people crying "That didn't do anything! Waste of time!" But take 5 and 10 and 20 and 50 steps, all in the same direction, each of which didn't do much of anything by itself, but the cumulative effect does add up. Cf gay rights, civil rights, reduction in drunk driving, reduction in smoking, and many, many other similar long-term campaigns. Step by step you complete a long journey and chip-by-chip you break down a huge wall.

There is no magic instant solution, but there are real and realistic long term solutions.

But we'll never get there if we give up before we even start.
posted by flug at 7:10 PM on December 14, 2012 [67 favorites]

robcorr, if you thought I was trying to rally opposition to a handgun ban by talking about how a Bushmaster is considered a deer rifle by many, including to the best of my knowledge the Connecticut government, I am either not being clear in my posts or you're not reading them carefully (which would be completely understandable in a thread moving this quickly, and on such a sensitive and upsetting topic).

If I misunderstood your post and it wasn't referring to me, my apologies.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:10 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'll now be promoting a strict construction of the Second Amendment that will allow people to own as many muzzle-loading flintlock rifles as they wish.

If the dinosaurs on the Supreme Court are going to ignore the first clause of the amendment, they should at lest be held to the original intent as to the type of arms that the founders intended to be borne.
posted by mygoditsbob at 7:11 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

The NRA is fighting a war, they aren't going to give an inch to the enemy.

This is Sparta!
posted by homunculus at 7:11 PM on December 14, 2012

a3matrix, we can't assume Ms. Lanza didn't have a gunsafe. Her son is reported to have killed her; overpowering her and forcing a key to a gunsafe away from her could also have happened.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:13 PM on December 14, 2012

Is it just the cynic in me that says that if you go deep enough, the strength of the pro-gun forces in the U.S. must be about money? Not to say that there aren't millions who would attest that theirs is purely a Constitutional concern, but haven't we seen how the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelsons and the the like, who simply want to get government out of *their* gajillion dollar businesses (e.g., eliminate taxes and regulation), have gained traction and political support for those ends by crafting messages to appeal to the fears and prejudices of--and therefore getting the votes of--the masses, by any means necessary: xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, abhorrence of anything Not Christian^TM enough, etc.?
posted by argonauta at 7:14 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

George Szirtes, the English poet and fine translator of Hungarian literature tweeted these lines.

There are moments the heart stops,
and the temperature drops
to that icy pain.
Again.
Not again?
Again.
posted by vac2003 at 7:14 PM on December 14, 2012 [25 favorites]

hoyland, in my high school in rural Massachusetts, more than half of the people I knew ate mostly deer meat in the winter. Just a little more than an hour from Boston.

So we're clear, they're almost certainly not actually subsistence hunting, in the sense of hunting as a necessary means of obtaining food.
posted by hoyland at 7:16 PM on December 14, 2012

a3matrix: "Fairly weak argument there. I could do the same thing this guy did with a baseball bat, or a revolver, or my hands for that matter. At an elementary school who is there that is really going to stop you? "

Maybe one, two, or six of the adults that were killed? Maybe a bunch of the other adults that were there who might have run toward the scene had the madman with firearms been replaced with a madman with a baseball bat or his bare hands?

Come on. Try harder.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:16 PM on December 14, 2012 [22 favorites]

"[T]he strength of the pro-gun forces in the U.S." lies solidly in the intermittent and weak response from the anti-gun forces.
posted by Ardiril at 7:17 PM on December 14, 2012

Yes, and conservatives would retort that the other side conveniently and inconsistently contrues "the people" in this amendment alone to mean "the State." Who's "right?"

See, I don't get that at all. The people, to me, certainly means the citizenry. But "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," to me, can't possibly construed as "[a bunch of word salad] the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." How does it not at the very least strongly imply that the citizens keeping and bearing arms are supposed to be a part of this well regulated militia?
posted by jason_steakums at 7:18 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

hoyland, I am saying that these people relied on hunting as a source of a significant proportion of their annual calories, one they could not easily replace.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:20 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

I'm sure that if he knew who you were, he'd be sorry his grief is not public enough for your satisfaction.
posted by EmpressCallipygos

Thanks for your snide commentary to my honest questions.... I'm not looking for an argument in what I asked I simply expected to see something different from someone who's experienced such a loss. I've seen it in person - on 9/11 for example and in my work as an EMT. But yes, as those of you who pointed out that there's no standard for this are correct - its just not been my experience.
posted by blaneyphoto at 7:20 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

These were people who were on food stamps and who received government cheese, powdered milk, etc. Not gourmets who dug venison. People who couldn't afford to buy meat.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:21 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

Noting that both the Aurora and Newtown shooters were reportedly armored, is there any serious debate over the legality of body armor? I had assumed it was illegal, but cursory googling suggests I can get kevlar off the internet right now for about $400. I see no situation calling for kevlar outside of those in which you expect to be shot at; one such situation might be defending your home, and assuming there's a pro-kevlar argument I'm guessing that scenario is at its center, but every other application I can conceive of would be very illegal. I would also think law enforcement would vastly prefer not to be going up against privately armored individuals. I don't recall ever seeing it talked about though in these kinds of discussions. Am I just wrong about its legality here or is it not seen as a big issue relative to the main gun control debate?
posted by passerby at 7:21 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

"[T]he strength of the pro-gun forces in the U.S." lies solidly in the intermittent and weak response from the anti-gun forces.

And billions of dollars.

_{I'm not anti-gun, but honesty is due where it's due.}
posted by Malice at 7:21 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Knowing quite a few gun rights people, I have to tell you that they-at least the ones I know well-see the second amendment as almost a religious requirement. And that any attempt whatsoever to control or restrain gun ownership is a direct attack on their freedoms as Americans.

I don't expect most folk here to understand that or to understand how deeply ingrained it is but to expect any of the things I have seen commented on here to make one iota of difference to people who feel the way that they do? I don't see it happening. It is a mental mindset that brooks no tampering.

I just don't know what else to tell you.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 7:23 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

every other application I can conceive of would be very illegal.
You are complaining about injustices in your country or at your place of employment and being shot at because of that.
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 7:23 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Thank you Joey Michaels, I grew up less than a mile from Newtown in Brookfield, this is hitting very close to home.
posted by splatta at 7:23 PM on December 14, 2012

"[T]he strength of the pro-gun forces in the U.S." lies solidly in the intermittent and weak response from the anti-gun forces.

Okay, make that "the relative strength," then. The "intermittent and weak" response from the anti-gun forces might still be explained by the Follow The Money precept, no?
posted by argonauta at 7:23 PM on December 14, 2012

(my own views are so complicated that not even I understand them. Fwiw.)
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 7:23 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

My country is insane.
posted by bitterpants at 7:25 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

well-maintained, a gun will last for many decades

Not to keep piling on here, but those words "well-maintained" are a huge, huge caveat.

If you haven't noticed, most things in the universe are not well maintained at all. That's because it takes a lot of work and attention to keep something well maintained.

Guns that are continually used and maintained by their owners will last a long time. But most people most of the time eventually lose interest and when that happens the fact that a well maintained gun will last many decades is irrelevant, because this actual gun is rusting unused in a damp basement.
posted by flug at 7:25 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

These were people who were on food stamps and who received government cheese, powdered milk, etc. Not gourmets who dug venison. People who couldn't afford to buy meat.

Yeah there are a lot of people doing this where I live in Vermont as well. It's not that unusual in rural New England, in addition to rural Alaska and I'm sure other places as well. I'm not saying "Oh gosh they'll starve if they can't have guns" just answering your honest question that you asked above. Yes, there are a lot of people who hunt to put food on the table whose other options are, basically, less food.
posted by jessamyn at 7:26 PM on December 14, 2012 [12 favorites]

Agree with Malice and argonauta that the power and money of the gun industry and its lobbies (at state levels as well as federal levels) are a huge confounding factor in making a difficult public policy conversation impossible. It shouldn't be impossible, but the blankets of gun money smother discussion.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:26 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

"And billions of dollars." - Without doubt. To change the gun culture in the US will require matching funds, dollar for dollar. As guns are a hobby for some, the fight against guns must become a hobby for a like number of activists.

Write your senators weekly. Establish automatic donations to the Tom Brady fund.

Lather, rinse, repeat.
posted by Ardiril at 7:26 PM on December 14, 2012

Long thread, lots of anger and hurt. Not a lot of solutions about actual, effective gun control. I don't think I read a single viable idea that would have prevented this awful tragedy. Please, spare me the dramatic angry response. But the ideas are just not there. For all the clamor over more gun control, name some real, effective gun control that would have worked here, and might work in the future. No magical solutions, please.
posted by 2N2222 at 7:28 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Noting that both the Aurora and Newtown shooters were reportedly armored, is there any serious debate over the legality of body armor?

I wouldn't bat an eye if they made body armor illegal for civilian use, but is there any evidence that body armor increased the number of deaths in either event? For these sort of mass shootings it seems like as soon as the attacker is dealing with the police, the event is basically over. In both cases, it seems like the body armor was more posturing that it was anything that had a practical impact on the event.

So we're clear, they're almost certainly not actually subsistence hunting, in the sense of hunting as a necessary means of obtaining food.

Given where the gun laws are in the US, I think we can make them significantly more restrictive before we have to start worrying about people who hunt for sport, much less have to care about whether or not people are genuine subsistence hunters or not.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 7:28 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

St. Alia, are the "gun rights people" you know are a perfectly-representative sample of everyone in America who opposes gun control? Every major policy position has its zealots and its more casual supporters, its orthodox members and some who are more ambivalent or open to change. You're essentially saying that because the people you know are religious about it, we should all give up on having a rational discussion of the issue. That's an absurd, concern troll-ish statement to make.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:29 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Not the Tom Brady fund! The Brady Center. And/or The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:29 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

St. Alia, with respect, it's not about who gets whose "heart broken", it's about who gets their policy agenda through the relevant legislative bodies. I don't give a fuck about winning the hearts and minds of Second Amendment absolutists.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:35 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

This, of course, alludes to you , you need to stop "kind of obliquely" referring to stuff and actually take part in the conversation, or find a different conversation to snark in.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:38 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Fairly weak argument there. I could do the same thing this guy did with a baseball bat, or a revolver, or my hands for that matter. At an elementary school who is there that is really going to stop you?

Are you kidding me? A dude slashed 22 kids at a school with a knife and guess what, NO ONE DIED. (the fact that this happened on the same day is so unreal)

See the disconnect? We've already lost because that thought process runs so deep in people.

You can swing a baseball bat, slash at them with a knife, do tons of damage but they still get to go home and be held by their parents. You do that with a gun and they are all dead, no recovery, no healing, just dead.
posted by M Edward at 7:38 PM on December 14, 2012 [14 favorites]

The sad but true FACT is that a gun is a pathetically poor tool for self-defense 90+% of the time, unless you, like Han Solo, shoot first. It IS the most effective tool a person can have for killing another person (but again, less so if the other person shoots first or has a bigger gun).

Which is why (and I've stated this before in "gun threads" here) the only reason I would EVER purchase a gun myself would be for the express and specific purpose of killing some other person. And I have mixed emotions over the fact that there is nothing in our system of laws and regulations preventing me from doing so.

But no, this will never be accepted by anyone who thinks a gun is a Magic God Device, no matter how much practical gun training they may ever get.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:40 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

St. Alia, I'm good friends with, and family of, many of people who view gun control as you describe. I don't see their minds changing, but as much as I love these particular people, I'm absolutely of the opinion that they can go ahead and have their sensibilities offended. Their offense at any form of gun control is not worth protecting at the cost of horrible things like this. And honestly, the only response I'll have if any of them try to talk to me about gun control in the near future will be: is it worth this? And if they say it is, well, that conversation's going to end right there and it's time for me to take a break from them for a while.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:40 PM on December 14, 2012 [16 favorites]

Tragedies will always occur in this world. It is our duty as human beings to do everything we can to make them as least awful as possible.
posted by M Edward at 7:40 PM on December 14, 2012

Well, with all due respect, I'm reading all the arguments here and imagining how...well, certain individuals I know would react. Let's just say this is a topic I am being very careful not to bring up in real life today because I don't want to hear what I would hear.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 7:40 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

"Religious" is a pretty good descriptor of a whole slew of gun owners.

The problem here is the rational debate. I'm not even seeing much here, let alone by gun nuts.
posted by 2N2222 at 7:40 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Anyone here read the latest Atlantic? There is an article in it about what to do about this very issue. What if the teachers had been armed, and had been able to defend themselves and their students? Atlantic article by Jeffrey Goldberg
posted by jenh526 at 7:40 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

The pro-gun people I know best, the ones who would start a shooting war to protect their right to own guns, are all Democrats.
posted by Ardiril at 7:42 PM on December 14, 2012

.
posted by Kibby at 7:42 PM on December 14, 2012

And if that aside was directed at me I don't appreciate it. None of what I have said is snark or disingenuous. It is the dead dog truth.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 7:43 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

If trained police officers can't hit their target without doing damage what can we expect from a tired, overworked, underpaid teacher?

Bystanders Shot at Empire State Building Were Hit by Police

It's like we expect things to be like in the movies. Maybe violent movies are the problem but not in the way we expected them to be.
posted by M Edward at 7:45 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

second amendment, militia, blah blah… wasn't it Tunisia who, with the lowest gun ownership rate in the world, overthrew their government in 2011?
posted by whyareyouatriangle at 7:45 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

Maybe we should leave interpretation of the Second Amendment to the pros:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER 478 F. 3d 370 (2008)

And with different people on the bench, or a different political climate, or in the wake of a string of tragedies, or in a different time period, or, or, or... there would be a different outcome. It's certainly a decided matter for now, but it's far from set in stone. It was a 5-4 decision.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:46 PM on December 14, 2012 [12 favorites]

I was just thinking about today's events when I started writing my thoughts down, and then I decided to share them here.

A few years ago I quit studying journalism because I didn't want to get killed for any of the reasons journalists seem to lose their lives. I had seen too many "Journalist Killed" headlines in their various contexts and decided one day that that possibility, however remote, made me uncomfortable. It had less to do with the fact that the industry was contracting than I always said it did. So I zoomed out to study topics along a broader theme with the thought that I could maybe hone in on something else someday. I began to casually entertain teaching.

I decided to seriously pursue teaching after considering a morsel of oft-shared career advice on the green: "What would you do for a living if you weren't getting paid?" Rose-colored glasses aside, I can't think of anything that'd be as wholly satisfying as teaching. Just a moment ago I came to the realization that several of my friends are teachers. For some of them, this is a very recent development. For others, it's defined the bulk of their decades on Earth. And though these people don't know each other, they're united in their passion for their work. These are obviously things I'd have known about these people if asked, but I've never been prompted to think of such a disparate group of my friends all at once before. I've certainly never thought that they, by virtue of their profession, were even remotely liable to vanish from my life. That possibility struck me like lightning.
posted by Chutzler at 7:47 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

The problem here is the rational debate. I'm not even seeing much here, let alone by gun nuts.

Well, all due respect, but we're less than 24 hours past the tragedy - I don't think a high level of rational debate is something you should, ah, rationally expect.
posted by soundguy99 at 7:48 PM on December 14, 2012

I fully admit to being irrational about this. My level of thought is pretty much stuck at "your bit of metal is more important than these children's lives".

I am aware this is unhelpful though and would like to pursue a workable compromise with the ultimate result being fewer gun deaths. Problem is, I don't trust the "other side" to give an inch.
posted by gaspode at 7:51 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

Well, all due respect, but we're less than 24 hours past the tragedy - I don't think a high level of rational debate is something you should, ah, rationally expect.

While that's understandable, I wonder, if rational debate cannot be had, is there any reason for this thread to go on? Seriously. What possible good can come out of it?
posted by 2N2222 at 7:52 PM on December 14, 2012

This idea on the right, of armed teachers - so, you don't trust them to do something as simple as collectively bargain, but you'll give them the means to kill your children?
posted by jason_steakums at 7:52 PM on December 14, 2012 [55 favorites]

Folks, there is already a MetaTalk thread if you want to debate the existence of this one. Do not do it here.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:53 PM on December 14, 2012

Is there a vaguely Germanic term for being so numb to something that you can't even compose a response to Metafilter without it being FUCK FUCK FUCK? Because there should be.
posted by Keith Talent at 7:56 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

Bloomberg to Obama: Calling For 'Meaningful Action' Is Not Enough

“With all the carnage from gun violence in our country, it’s still almost impossible to believe that a mass shooting in a kindergarten class could happen. It has come to that. Not even kindergarteners learning their A,B,Cs are safe. We heard after Columbine that it was too soon to talk about gun laws. We heard it after Virginia Tech. After Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek. And now we are hearing it again. For every day we wait, 34 more people are murdered with guns. Today, many of them were five-year olds. President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown. But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem. Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough. We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership – not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today. This is a national tragedy and it demands a national response. My deepest sympathies are with the families of all those affected, and my determination to stop this madness is stronger than ever.”

I've never been much of a Bloomberg fan, but he's one of the few elected officials refusing to let Obama off the hook with a few tears and another emotional speech. Bloomberg is clearly pointing out that what Obama has been doing on this issue is absolutely nothing. Even if Obama bothers to send a minimal gun control bill to Congress (doubtful), it seems obvious he won't actively fight for it.

"Meaningful action." Yeah, let's see it, Obama.
posted by mediareport at 7:57 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

Arming teachers might well strengthen their collective bargaining... there are no unions more accepted by the Right than the Police Unions.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:57 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

M Edward, The NYPD officers were hampered by their own anti-gun police department. NYPD police firearms are required to have a 12-pound trigger-pull, compared to the usual 3-6 pound range for the same handguns off-the-shelf. That makes the guns difficult to fire, and when you're tugging on that heavy trigger, your aim will naturally drift. NYPD are outliers on this, and most probably meet the bare minimum proficiency for firearms-- most PDs want to save on ammunition and keep the practice requirements and qualification standards down accordingly. Next time the NYPD murders an innocent civilian, listen for the bullet count, and the hit-count. NYPD are, by and large, terrible shooters in general.
posted by Sunburnt at 7:58 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

why is there so much resistance to not even greater regulatory controls over guns in America, but the mere discussion of greater regulatory controls

There is a lot of resistance but we often neglect to mention that there is a lot of support for regulatory control of guns as well. Numerous measures have been passed in various states and cities--some mentioned on this thread. DC passed a ban on guns (overturned), Illinois passed a ban on concealed carry (recently overturned), NYC has very strict gun controls, the Massachusetts restrictions are mentioned upthread, etc etc etc.

It's always a bit disheartening for gun control supporters because many of the strongest laws have been struck down by supreme court rulings. But many such laws have been passed--which indicates there is more support for gun control than we generally give credit. Some parts of the country are extremely pro-gun but there are also large swaths of the country where firearms restrictions have a very high level of support.

Also IMHO as part of the great demographic trends in the U.S. this century we're going to see support for gun control continue to increase--because of the same general demographic pressures that are leading to increased urbanization, changing racial make-up of U.S. society, growth of the 'nones', and other related demographic trends.

If the attitude of society in general towards guns changes, we can expect to see the Supreme Court's views slowly but surely change as well--even absent a constitutional amendment. And IMHO every single one of these horrible mass tragedies--as well as every individual gun crime and suicide--is gradually inching the general public's attitude in the direction of stronger gun control.

Just expect it to take years to decades to implement real change, not days to weeks. The determined rear-guard action by the gun lobby will slow things down, for certain. But they are on the wrong side of history. In the long run they will lose and strong restrictions on firearms will become the norm, even in the U.S.
posted by flug at 7:58 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

I don't trust the "other side" to give an inch.

Nor will they. This is a debate that can only be settled in Congress and the bulk of all 50 state legislatures, with follow-through by the respective executives. The settlement will require strict laws and regulations as well as national and state police forces ready to fight other americans to the death to enforce those laws and regulations.

This could easily span generations.
posted by Ardiril at 7:59 PM on December 14, 2012

weltschmerz
posted by telstar at 7:59 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

This thread is growing rather long, so I may have missed it but does anyone have any thoughts on the original, mistaken suspect Ryan Lanza? I ask because he's lost his brother and mother today, yet the tv footage (which, yes, is edited) shows him with a completely blank, emotionless expression. I don't know what to make of this - his brother just killed his mother and a couple dozen children and adults... and nothing from him except a few "screw you CNN" facebook posts?
Just seems very odd to me.

1) His name and image are plastered all over the news and internet, and thousands of people share his picture on facebook and twitter with hateful comments, in assumption of his killing children at a school.

2) He learns of the death of his own mother through the news agencies.

3) His own brother IS the killer of children (and adults) at a school as well as his mother.

4) His computer and phone are confiscated from his job and from his home.

5) He is taken from his home in handcuffs to be questioned at the Police Station.

6) Everyone in the world (who watches news) now associates his name and face with this tragedy, even though he is (probably) fully innocent.

I think I would be stone faced, numb and in total shock if my normal benign day turned out like this. The poor guy. What a nightmare.
posted by batikrose at 8:00 PM on December 14, 2012 [37 favorites]

Massachusetts, where I live, has to the best of my knowledge the US's strictest laws on rifle ownership.

In Massachusetts, you need a license to own any type of modern firearm. We have three types of licenses. In simplified terms, they allow you:

to own a rifles, but not handguns
to own both rifles and/or handguns, but not to carry a firearm
to own both rifles and/or handguns, and to carry a firearm if concealed

[We also have a fourth that allows you to own only pepper spray, no firearms. This exists because Massachusetts law classifies pepper spray as ammunition. This license costs less than the others, and some police departments don't know it exists.]

You apply at your local police department, which has considerable discretion. You must complete a safety class prior to applying, which is the same regardless of which license you are applying for. In legal terms, assuming that you are a fit candidate (class completed, no violent-crime convictions, etc.) you will definitely be able to obtain the first type of license, allowing you to own a rifle. However, your local police department may refuse to allow you to own handguns, or allow you to own handguns but not to carry them, or revoke your issued handgun license, if they decide you are "not a suitable person."

How is "suitability" determined? That's hard to answer. It varies from one town to the next. In some towns the police chief conducts personal interviews with all applicants. In other towns those interviews may be done by a sergeant or detective, or not done at all. Some towns require applicants to submit letters of reference from personal acquaintances, or a letter from a physician confirming the applicant's suitability to own firearms. You can appeal a determination of unsuitability to a court, but again, the police have considerable discretion and that discretion will probably be upheld if they can articulate a basis for the decision.

All licenses need to be renewed every six years. This is currently a source of controversy. Basically, state budgets in Massachusetts have been slashed in recent years and every agency is understaffed, and deadlines aren't being met. That newspaper article cites one person who waited more than a year for his license. That's unusual, but I would say it's typical right now to wait about two months. So if you applied for a gun license right now, you could reasonably expect to receive it by February or March.
posted by cribcage at 8:01 PM on December 14, 2012 [9 favorites]

Are you sure you've got the right guy? Apparently the press jumped all over a different guy with the same name's Facebook profile and he's been fending off media and public attention all day.

From everything I can piece together, it was the "right" Ryan Lanza; they were just mistaken because his name was found at the scene. (It sort of trumps coincidence that there was a Ryan Lanza with residences in Newtown AND Hoboken who was NOT the same Ryan Lanza.)

Lanza and his father, Peter Lanza, both work at Ernst & Young in NYC. [ABC][WSJ]

I find it completely possible that a guy with a public Facebook profile suddenly started getting hate texts because he had his Facebook tied to his phone. Can you imagine working in the tax department at a Big Six (do they still call them that?) accounting firm and your phone blowing up like that? Anyway, then he had to bus it out to Hoboken, where he met law enforcement. At some point he was able to make his wall private (that's when I saw it) and then take it down completely.

So he was the Ryan Lanza in the story, just not the guy who was responsible. I think the media need to eat some major crow on this one, just not in the exact way, and if anything even more contritely as he turned out to be a victim as surely as the other families back in Newtown. Somehow, though, I doubt that -- they'll claim it was justified by sources and all that, just as they did with Richard Jewell.
posted by dhartung at 8:02 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

NYPD are outliers on this, and most probably meet the bare minimum proficiency for firearms-- most PDs want to save on ammunition and keep the practice requirements and qualification standards down accordingly

And teachers would get more training? What exactly is your argument? I was stating that "trained" people had difficulty not hurting bystanders but somehow private citizens are going to do better? Because of trigger pull and more time and money to spend on practice ammo? Really?

I purchased a weapon with a 10lb trigger pull, after researching I found it was safer, less chance of accidental discharge.
posted by M Edward at 8:03 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

"And with different people on the bench, or a different political climate, or in the wake of a string of tragedies, or in a different time period, or, or, or... there would be a different outcome. It's certainly a decided matter for now, but it's far from set in stone. It was a 5-4 decision."

Or a different country, one I wouldn't be so proud to live in.
posted by Sunburnt at 8:05 PM on December 14, 2012

The chance of accidental discharge is already quite small, hollywood notwithstanding. Furthermore, the NYPD is using weapons they were designed for optimal use with much lighter pulls.
posted by Sunburnt at 8:07 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

I hope you're right flug.

It seems that so many people consider this kind of event to be the price of freedom, a worthwhile trade off, like the inevitable few that die in car accidents.

.

Damn it.
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 8:08 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

refusing to let Obama off the hook

Look, it's tough. It's almost too Shakespearean that this happens on his watch...a few times. There are already paranoid wingnuts buying up whole gun shows because they've been irrationally convinced, irrespective of evidence, that he's going to spearhead a project to take people's guns away. And now that's exactly what we're pressuring him to do. You'll see. Once he's a lame duck he's going to take away our guns

Yes, it's the right thing to do. Yes, it's what fixed the situation in Australia after Port Arthur. But I can't quite imagine how this would go down if it happened as an Obama-led effort. I'd frankly be a little nervous about the whole scenario.

This isn't Obama's job. He didn't write these state laws and he didn't repeal the regulations. Yes, he needs to lead. But let's stop passing the buck. I want to know what people plan to do about this. I'll accept "It's complicated." I'll accept "we need to compromise." I'll accept "this is going to be tough."

But what I don't think I'm going to accept any longer is "There's just nothing we can do."

And this isn't the President's job, alone, to do. Way to set somebody up. How many people here talked about the pro-gun nuts in their Facebook feed? IT needs to start with you. Yes, you. If you haven't started talking to people, looking up actual facts, and writing your representatives about what you're going to do about it and what you want them to do about it, you're deciding to stay part of the problem. Really.
posted by Miko at 8:09 PM on December 14, 2012 [23 favorites]

And teachers would get more training? What exactly is your argument? I was stating that "trained" people had difficulty not hurting bystanders but somehow private citizens are going to do better? Because of trigger pull and more time and money to spend on practice ammo? Really?

Point is that NYPD is not a good metric against to measure handgun proficiency, nor are they a good standard for "trained" personnel.

I'm not advocating for arming teachers-- I haven't yet met a teacher who seemed like the sort who could destroy another life. And a gun in the hands of someone unwilling to use it is a drawback.
posted by Sunburnt at 8:11 PM on December 14, 2012

Connecticut law requires that the owner of a gun be 21 or over and bans assault weapons. Purchase of a handgun requires a 14 day waiting period, a permit from the state and a background check. The killer was 20 years old, used two handguns and an AR-15 (one of the specially banned models). It will be interesting to see where he obtained the weapons.
posted by humanfont at 8:12 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

It will be interesting to see where he obtained the weapons.

ARe you not reading the news? This is known.
posted by Miko at 8:13 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Any thoughts about the fact that the most recent mass shootings have been occurring in states that would be considered much more blue than red. I live in the heart of the red states (TN with multiple connections to MS and LA) and we have NUMEROUS one on one killings perpetrated with hand guns but we don't get the mass killings. I'm not trying to set up a red vs blue controversy but I think we in the southeast probably have a higher percentage of gun ownership than you would find in MN, CO or CT but the minority of mass killings.

As much as gun control may be part of the solution it seems other things influence the behavior. Feelings of helplessness maybe
posted by Carbolic at 8:13 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

"Don't own guns because your son might kill you and steal them and use them to kill children" is not really the foundation of any kind of rational public policy.

I'd agree with this position but for two words: the words "not really". But those two words, stricken from your comment, result in a statement that pretty much accurately reflects my own sentiment:

"Don't own guns because your son might kill you and steal them and use them to kill children" is the foundation of a rational public policy.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:13 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

humanfont: The news has already established that the guns he used belonged to his mother.
posted by Ardiril at 8:13 PM on December 14, 2012

we don't get the mass killings

Don't worry, you'll get your turn! Don't all rush at once.
posted by Miko at 8:14 PM on December 14, 2012

In most discussions about gun control, the pro-gun advocates like to pretend a technical superiority, which they believe entitles them to decide the issue. They know the jargon, they understand the mechanical design, they're really into ballistics and product specifications, and they believe this somehow makes their opinion more informed, and therefore correct.

Hi. I'm a gun nerd, from a time when "nerd" meant something. I'm intensely interested in the history, design, and application of firearms. I spend an inordinate amount of my time going through formal and informal studies of various small arms and munitions. That includes their effects on society. I now firmly, irrevocably, believe in gun control.

These are some ideas for effective regulation and legislation based on technical and practical and psychological criteria, and refutations for common pro-gun arguments:

The most stupid pro-gun argument is that the press and gun control advocates mistake "automatic" with "semi-automatic." In gun-enthusiast jargon, "automatic" means the firearm will fire for as long as the trigger is pulled, like a machine gun, and "semi-automatic" means the gun will fie as fast as the trigger is pulled. So, when people describe a Glock as an automatic, the gun-nuts will scoff, as "automatic" firearms are already illegal save for those with very specialized licenses.

Well, they're wrong - the technical term for any self-loading weapon, that is, a weapon that ejects the spent round and loads a new round from a magazine or clip using energy from firing the weapon, is "automatic." Full automatic or semi automatic weapons are both automatic. Take this simple test - ask them if a Glock is a revolver or automatic. They will instinctually, without hesitation, tell you that a Glock is an automatic pistol… regardless of whether or not it has a full-auto mode or not. (It doesn't in the US.)

More, the real problem is semi-automatic weapons. You can't hit shit with a pistol or assault rifle set to full automatic.

The technology that enables mass murder, more than anything else, are high-capacity magazines. It allows the murderer to keep shooting and shooting and shooting and shooting. You can purchase a 33 round magazine for a 9mm Glock autopistol. You can point-and-shoot 33 times before needing to reload… and you reload by ejecting the spent magazine with a single button, and sliding in another 33 round magazine. Under heavy stress, maybe a 10 second operation, if you fumble a bit.

So. Here's a 5 point proposal that is simple, incremental, and respectful of hobbyists who spent thousands of dollars on murder/suicide machines instead of a bass boat or cruise on the Mediterranean or something.

1) Ban on the sale or manufacture of any magazine or clip larger than 6 rounds, for rifles and pistols. You can own them, you just can't buy or sell them anymore. This is enough, as the Amok in America prefer to buy new equipment at retail prices.

2) Ban the manufacture or sale of any other repeating firearm with a capacity larger than four rounds. If you can't take the turkey with four rounds, it wasn't meant to be.

3) Limit the sale of ammunition. You can buy four rounds a week, heavily taxed, and after a month, can only buy more when you bring back the brass. For those who like to load their own ammo, this means they're limited to 16 casings. This restriction is completely lifted for those shooting at registered and licensed gun ranges… shoot as much as you like. No taxes, either! Load as much as you like… so long as it stays at the range.

4) If you want to keep a gun at home, even a .22LR bolt action, a police officer will come to inspect how you're keeping it twice a year, and you will pay the police for this service. If you're being stupid about gun safety, you will be fined, and your license to own a gun revoked. If you want to keep a M2 heavy machine gun or any other firearm at the range… this is permitted, and cheaply. No tax, and the range deals with all of the inspections. Also, you need to pay a tax on the guns at home that covers the social cost of gun ownership in your community... no tax if you keep the gun at the range. The range needs to immediately report to the police if someone takes a gun off-site for any reason, legal or not.

5) Private gun sales need to be registered, just like auto sales. If you sell your gun to someone, and you don't register the sale after a background check, you get to keep paying the gun tax on it, and when the cops show up to see how you're storing it, and it's not there, you will go to jail. If your gun was stolen and used in a crime, and you were negligent in its storage, you will go to jail, and be on the hook for civil damages.

These points allow enthusiasts to keep shooting and hunting, and the living to keep breathing.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:19 PM on December 14, 2012 [340 favorites]

Here's the thing. I think I'm over "Why is it" and "should we/shouldn't we" have gun control sorts of arguments.

The question to ask the people in your lives - and your reps - is not what they think. Not what their ideology is. Not about how they feel about the 2nd Amendment, guns, crime, or whatever.

The question to ask is this: "What are you willing to do about this?"

What are you willing to do about this?

If we kept asking each other this, we might start to get somewhere.

I suppose a lot of people will shrug and say "nothing." I submit those people are incapable of ethical reasoning, so we can set them aside as not being participants in building a different future. Work with the people who are willing to do something.
posted by Miko at 8:20 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

Actually "Create extremely strict controls on and strictly limit ownership of hugely dangerous things that can be stolen or mis-used resulting in massive harm to numerous innocent people" is a pretty good foundation for rational public policy.

Shall we start with the newspapers, or television?
posted by Sunburnt at 8:23 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

3) Limit the sale of ammunition. You can buy four rounds a week, heavily taxed

Slap*Happy, that's the Chris Rock plan!
posted by Miko at 8:23 PM on December 14, 2012

Shall we start with the newspapers, or television?

Ha ha! And yet, they never shot at me. So I'll take them!

I have watched some shit ass television, even at age 5, and it might have poisoned my little mind but I got to wake up and go to school the next day anyway.
posted by Miko at 8:23 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

The New Yorker: THE RIGHT DAY TO TALK ABOUT GUNS.
posted by ericb at 8:24 PM on December 14, 2012

this isn't the President's job, alone, to do.

So true. I doubt Obama has the political impetus to even keep the ball rolling. This will require coordinated, relentless and sustained pressure from the public on elected officials. A good many more people will have to make this issue their life's career.

The NRA uses a subscription model (among other devices) to maintain their cash flow, and anti-gun forces will need to establish something equivalent. Anything less is admitting to failure.
posted by Ardiril at 8:26 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

How about appointing Bloomberg head of an advisory commission on gun violence? I'm not a fan of many of his policies, but I think he would provide leadership on this issue.
posted by Wordwoman at 8:27 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Ha ha! And yet, they never shot at me. I have watched some shit ass television, even at age 5, and I got to go to school the next day anyway.

Survivorship bias.
posted by Sunburnt at 8:27 PM on December 14, 2012

The Chris Rock plan is also the Daniel Patrick Moynihan plan. Has there been a high ranking gun control advocate in the Senate since?
posted by troika at 8:29 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

How about appointing Bloomberg head of an advisory commission on gun violence? I'm not a fan of many of his policies, but I think he would provide leadership on this issue.

I guess we know one of his policies on which you agree.
posted by Sunburnt at 8:32 PM on December 14, 2012

Look, it's tough...And now that's exactly what we're pressuring him to do. You'll see. Once he's a lame duck he's going to take away our guns

Sure, Miko, we both know the political calculus here; it's been obvious for years, through all the mass killings on Obama's watch. Remember that Republican poll from earlier in the year where a large majority of voters, including 69% of NRA members, support sensible changes like closing the gun show loophole? Why is that not just as important a part of the calculus here? Sorry, but I'm no longer willing to cut him any slack at all. It's way past time for him to show leadership, and we should stop letting him off the hook because he emotes well from a podium.
posted by mediareport at 8:33 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

I don't endorse 10,000% markup. Ten bucks per round oughta do it, and no tax at the range.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:35 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

For the past year and change I've been working on clearing immigration hurdles with my foreign-born fiancee so she can come back to New York and we can get hitched and start a family. She's dead set on coming here. She loves being in America.

She's from a country where people don't have guns, where violent crime is thus very low, but she really dislikes certain social aspects of the place, especially as they affect a woman who marries a foreigner. She's really excited to be sorting out her move here, getting a green card and raising American kids who don't get hammered down for sticking out.

I've been willing to swallow my reasons for dissatisfaction with my country -- the lack of social programs, decent affordable healthcare, humane safety nets, the larcenous corporatism, deep-down racism, uninspired economy -- because I know that she'll be happier here, and me by extension. I've been able to suck up living in a shitty country; after all, it's the shitty country where I grew up.

But I really worry about raising kids in a place so sick with guns. This news is so horrible, I feel so terrible about these children (and adults, too) and their families, and all the people in these other recent shootings, and I don't talk to my fiancee about these things because I don't want to destroy her dream. I don't want to disappoint her by saying we should raise our kids where they'll be safer, but at the same time I want what's best for us, and I'm really afraid that might mean getting the fuck out of Dodge.

I feel like this should end with an AskMe question, but I think it fails the "answerable" test. Why do we destroy our dreams? Can we ever stop?
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 8:36 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

humanfont does make a point, though - AFAICT the Bushmaster rifle is illegal in Connecticut unless it was purchased before 1993 and subsequently registered.

Wikipedia article and pdf link to the actual code section.
posted by soundguy99 at 8:36 PM on December 14, 2012

troika: "Has there been a high ranking gun control advocate in the Senate since?"

There are some (Schumer authored the assault weapons ban, for instance) but it doesn't matter, because there aren't sixty of them. There aren't even fifty, really, but I think if they do abolish the filibuster in January, the Dems could probably make 50 votes plus Joe Biden happen for some incremental changes. Not the ones we'd need, mind you, but something.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:37 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

If you're a good shot you can drop a moose with one shot from a .223 from a good distance.

And if you're a millionaire who looks like Tom Brady, you can date a supermodel, too.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:37 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

There will be no new gun control legislation. The U.S. civilian market is huge. We couldn't stop two wars because it would have stepped on the toes of the arms industry. You think we're ever going to let a little indoor shoot 'em up cut into their sales? Please.
posted by clarknova at 8:37 PM on December 14, 2012

Cough

posted by Miko at 8:38 PM on December 14, 2012 [21 favorites]

Slap*Happy - one thing I wonder about with your ideas is how to give people in rural areas a fair alternative to the licensed ranges thing. It's pretty common in rural areas for a hunter to burn a fair number of rounds on their own property doing things like zeroing in scopes or finding the optimal mix of powder to bullet grains for their reloaded hunting rifle ammo, and in many places there's low enough population density that a centralized shooting range for everyone to use isn't a good idea. Which is not to say that I don't like your ideas! And it would probably be fairly easy to work out something sensible for that situation. Just something it made me think of, is all.
posted by jason_steakums at 8:41 PM on December 14, 2012 [8 favorites]

Just to remind folks of Republican pollster Frank Luntz's survey of gun owners and NRA members, which got a lot of coverage after Aurora this summer: Gun owners vs. NRA leadership.
posted by mediareport at 8:41 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

I would have my daughter hang out in the park with the homeless drug addicts before I send her to a school where the teachers are armed.
posted by Rock Steady at 8:41 PM on December 14, 2012 [14 favorites]

dhartung: If this was the guy the original commenter I was responding to was talking about when he remarked about the eerily "expressionless" Ryan Lanza making posts to the effect of "Screw you CNN!" after his mother and brother died, then it was the wrong guy. Jesus, what a nightmarish clusterfuck the future is turning out to be. Can't we do better than this?
posted by saulgoodman at 8:41 PM on December 14, 2012

Just to remind folks of Republican pollster Frank Luntz's survey of gun owners and NRA members...

I would not take anything Frank Luntz says seriously, even if it agreed with my preconceptions.
posted by clarknova at 8:43 PM on December 14, 2012

There will be no new gun control legislation. - Raise a couple 100 million dollars over the next two Presidential terms and I'll bet you could see some major changes happen starting in 2020. You just need to fight money with more money. If you are not willing to raise the cash, then move along.
posted by Ardiril at 8:44 PM on December 14, 2012

Wordwoman : How about appointing Bloomberg head of an advisory commission on gun violence? I'm not a fan of many of his policies, but I think he would provide leadership on this issue.

You mean, you want to ask the guy running the place with the highest levels of gun violence within 500 miles of me, how to deal with gun violence?

Yeah, he's done well for a major city. You and I apparently take different lessons from that.
posted by pla at 8:44 PM on December 14, 2012

Yes, there are a lot of people who hunt to put food on the table whose other options are, basically, less food.

I kind of call bullshit on this.

A deer is not free. There is a permit, there is time spent hunting it, gas used to drive to where it is, money and time spent butchering it, money spent storing it, ammunition, equipment (rifle, clothes, all the stupid geegaws associated with it, even amortized), on and on.

It would be one thing if you're normally processing meat from other animals and add a deer into the mix, but that's not an argument that says taking rifles is starving people.

I don't have a problem with hunting (bow hunting, go for it!), but to suggest this is only possible with a rifle or that rifles are the key to avoiding starvation is problematic at best, propaganda at worst.
posted by maxwelton at 8:46 PM on December 14, 2012 [9 favorites]

If you aren't a good enough shot to drop a deer with a .223 you have no business hunting animals with a gun.

Seconded, thirded, and fourthed. If you killing a large animal with one or two shots from a .233 is impossible you've never been a skilled hunter, or hunted with anyone who is. Or you've never been hunting and you imagine it's impossible because you can't imagine it.
posted by clarknova at 8:46 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

From a friend in Australia. Our Strict Gun Laws Have Saved Thousands of Australian Lives.

Goes a long way against the canard that we must just throw up our hands and live with it. Can we stamp out every insane istance of violent rage? No. Can we make a serious, order-of-magnitude impact on the metrics and save untold waste and grief? Yes, unquestionably.
posted by Miko at 8:47 PM on December 14, 2012 [9 favorites]

Yes, seconding the anti-depressant link, because this shit didn't happen when I was growing up, and it makes sense to figure out why the fuck people are doing this.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:47 PM on December 14, 2012

Ardiril : Raise a couple 100 million dollars over the next two Presidential terms and I'll bet you could see some major changes happen starting in 2020.

A few hundred million? That won't even buy you a president today, much less a constitutional amendment.

And keep in mind, when you open a constitutional convention, you may well get amendments introduced you don't favor quite so much. Not so much a double-edges sword, as a swimming-pool full of razor-wire.
posted by pla at 8:47 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

maxwelton : A deer is not free. There is a permit, there is time spent hunting it, gas used to drive to where it is, money and time spent butchering it, money spent storing it, ammunition, equipment (rifle, clothes, all the stupid geegaws associated with it, even amortized), on and on.

Look, I don't often agree with Jess (especially on issues like this one), but put bluntly, you have no fucking clue what you talk about.

Even game wardens will look the other way when you hunt to keep your family alive. Drive? Butcher? Hello, you shoot the damned things in your back yard, gut it and butcher it on site, and hopefully have a big enough freezer for the meat.
posted by pla at 8:49 PM on December 14, 2012 [12 favorites]

Miko - Except we have ALWAYS had a high level of gun ownership. I have a large extended family (50) and although many don't actively shoot and the gun may be in a safety deposit box almost all (90+%) own at least on firearm. It is to the point that we feel a duty to own a firearm but many of us store them outside our homes. I have approximately 10 of 9 are in distant offsite storage. I have a carry permit (cultural obligation???) but I NEVER carry. Makes me wonder if the national gun ownership numbers are heavily skewed by people like me. The only gun I have at home is a SIG 380 that resides in the top of a closet in a mini-safe opened by combination or finger prints.

I'm not saying it won't happen here but if gun controls are the issue why isn't it happening here more than anywhere else? My opinion is that a lack of respect for the fellowman and the firearm is problem #1. If we have that respect there would be no need to control guns. The likelihood of achieving that respect is next ti nil.

Soooooooooooo.. I have no answer but I'm pretty sure severe gun control isn't it. For one reason, as an example probably 50% of the guns my extended family owns are not required to be legally unregistered. I personally have a 1940-1944 Whinchester model 62 and a High Standard automatic pistol my father bought when he was about ten years old. No registration on those

Actually, my theory is that these acts are only performed by extremely self absorbed people. We need to "no fly list" all the self absorbed.When people do these things it is all about them and nothing else.
posted by Carbolic at 8:50 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

this shit didn't happen when I was growing up

To me, this reasoning is every bit as strong and scientific as that of the people in my Facebook feed noting that this shit didn't happen when they had prayer in school, two-parent households, and spanking growing up.
posted by Miko at 8:50 PM on December 14, 2012 [14 favorites]

How much of the NRA's operating budget comes from members and how much comes from gun manufacturers. I'm under the impression that most of the money is from the gun makers.
posted by humanfont at 8:50 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

I have no answer

OK, how about you get one that we can discuss before arbitarily concluding "gun control isn't it"? Because you are standing on absolutely no ground at all for making that claim.

these acts are only performed by extremely self absorbed people.

Great! Let's pass a law against self-absorption.

??!

Look, my family owns guns. I like guns. I shoot guns. But we have a complex problem here. What are you willing to do about it?
posted by Miko at 8:51 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Yes, there are a lot of people who hunt to put food on the table whose other options are, basically, less food.

I kind of call bullshit on this.

And I call bullshit on that. Do you have any idea how much meat comes out of a deer? You can keep a family of four in venison steaks for half a winter with an adult buck or doe. Try saving your license, tag, and gas money up to buy meat of similar quality at the supermarket. It's definitely worth the price.

Some states even have license exceptions for people below the poverty line.
posted by clarknova at 8:52 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

If you aren't a good enough shot to drop a deer with a .223 you have no business hunting animals with a gun. Gut shooting them to pieces with a cannon is not hunting.

.223 apologists are so funny... guy, it's a varmint round they shoe-horned into an assault rifle. It was designed for coyotes and prairie dogs. Everyone who shoots it at anything other than paper hates it.

.306 rules the universe in bolt action, military and civ, for a reason.

But this leads to the M1A vs. M16 debate, and there aren't enough hours in a single day for me to cover all that territory. I gotta get up in the morning.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:53 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Carbolic, according to BRFSS survey data, MN (41.7%), TN (43.9%), & LA (44.1%) are in the same neighborhood when it comes to percent of households with guns on the premises.

CO is a bit lower at 34.7%, and CT comes in towards the bottom at 16.7%. MS is ranked sixth with 55.3%.
posted by superna at 8:57 PM on December 14, 2012

Just to remind folks of Republican pollster Frank Luntz's survey of gun owners and NRA members...

I would not take anything Frank Luntz says seriously, even if it agreed with my preconceptions.

Maybe not, but the book "Saturday Night Special" by Robert Sherrill from all the way back in 1973 devotes quite a few pages to the conflicts between the ideologues who came to control the NRA and the rank-and-file members.

I think the book is out of print, but it's well worth a read if it's in your local library, or you could possibly find it on ebay or Amazon.
posted by soundguy99 at 8:57 PM on December 14, 2012

And I call bullshit on that

Look, I think it's a red herring. People who subsistence-hunt for deer are not going to need to be the focus of effort in reducing mass killing. They tend to also be the last people who are going to do mass killings. Can we just set it aside? Let's not talk about people hunting deer and bear to survive. Let's assume they'll be able to continue that with some form of firearm technology, because no actual contingent of real-life people with any vestige of political power wants to take that right away.

Red herring.
posted by Miko at 8:57 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

Earlier today a news anchor commented "this has become the worst elementary school shooting in history".

But not the worst mass murder - 45 people, 38 of them children, died in the largely forgotten 1927 Bath School massacre.

Its Wikipedia page has already been updated to mention Sandy Hook, though.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:00 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

Let's say I'm wrong about feeding a family on deer, what with all the officials looking the other way and free rifles falling from the sky.

Guns are a necessary part of that hunt?
posted by maxwelton at 9:02 PM on December 14, 2012

Are you suggesting pit traps and spears?
posted by clarknova at 9:04 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

You know, this may be an unpopular sentiment, but the mass grief over this makes me halfway angry. 1,400+ children have been killed in Palestine in the past decade, which is more than 100 per year, in a country with a population close to that of Connecticut. It's as if this shooting would happen there more than three times per year for a decade. Probably everyone there knows someone whose children have been killed.

In the Rwandan genocide in recent decades, 300 THOUSAND children were killed. And, almost all children witnessed horrors and a lot of them were raped. A lot of them saw their parents killed.

What happened in Connecticut is heartbreaking. But, it's angering that there is such strong sympathy and empathy for these American families, without acknowledgement of others across the world who are experiencing unspeakable horrors at the very same time. My thought is, a lot of these families will have only one dead child. A lot of people in, e.g., the DR Congo today have multiple dead children and relatives.

20+ children is a lot. We feel that viscerally. 1000+ women are raped in the Congo each day. 10% of those are estimated to be girls under 10 years old. That is 100 per day. 20+% of them get HIV and many die of other complications.

I just hope people will take this opportunity to notice the outrage they feel over this tragedy, and extend that empathy to people outside of our borders, who might wish for only 20 dead children in their area. Maybe people will become more compassionate day to day with that sort of empathy, or even try to help more directly.

(Not to minimize this tragedy. Just a reminder that in the US we are lucky to not experience tragedies like this except rarely.)
posted by kellybird at 9:04 PM on December 14, 2012 [11 favorites]

To me, this reasoning is every bit as strong and scientific as that of the people in my Facebook feed noting that this shit didn't happen when they had prayer in school, two-parent households, and spanking growing up.

If you bring the science that solves this problem or even disproves the link between antidepressants and violence, I'd be happy to listen.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 9:05 PM on December 14, 2012

I would not take anything Frank Luntz says seriously, even if it agreed with my preconceptions.

I don't like the guy either, though I'm having trouble imagining why he'd skew a poll of gun owners against the NRA. Worth noting that he apparently sat on the results for months, only releasing them after the Aurora shootings.

Other polls consistently show large majorities of the public supporting sensible steps like closing the gun show loophole on background checks. There are clearly winnable fights in the gun control area, but they won't get won nationally if all the president does about mass shootings is cry on TV.

Is he gonna shed a tear on camera the next time, too? Will that be enough for you then?
posted by mediareport at 9:05 PM on December 14, 2012

Well, people who know me around here also know just how many representative progun people I am around. I am simply sharing a perspective that just because some of you think that these people can be persuaded with words from people they disdain as liberals? Good luck with that. Because the people I know are also the most politically active people I know.

I've lived my entire life in the South, mostly the southern Alabama area. There's no bigger gun nut area than right here. I'm very familiar with the type people you're referring to, and I'd be shocked if many 'liberals' believe they can be reasoned with.

Of course they can't, because they're simply fucking crazy. They will not only make no concessions, they will fight all discussion. The way to deal with these idiots is to go around them, not through them. It's going to be ugly, but you don't deal with people that can't be dealt with.
posted by justgary at 9:05 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

US Gun Ownership Rates compared with the rest of the world
posted by Miko at 9:06 PM on December 14, 2012

If you bring the science that solves this problem or even disproves the link between antidepressants and violence, I'd be happy to listen.

Yeah, the science is correlation is not causation.

That shit is lazy.

BUt sure, man, let's say this is about pharmaceuticals, not guns.

What are you willing to do about it? What have you already done about it?
posted by Miko at 9:07 PM on December 14, 2012

I just hope people will take this opportunity to notice the outrage they feel over this tragedy, and extend that empathy to people outside of our borders

These people are closer, and more like us. You also feel more empathy and outrage if something happens to a family member or neighbor than if it happens to a stranger in another town. It's just human nature.
posted by clarknova at 9:08 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

(.308 rules the universe, I meant to say. It's important we get the details right on this stuff from here out. We need to own the technical as well as political high ground.)
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:09 PM on December 14, 2012

and more like us

Only superficially
posted by kellybird at 9:09 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

I am not certain how a sensible gun-control policy goes against the second amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I can understand the desire and support for the right of the people to keep and bear arms (to some degree based on need) but when do we get to the well regulated part?

At the same time I am the Chris Rock/Moynehan camp that we can and should really tax the crap out of bullets. If the second amendment proponents want to play princess with their M4s they was welcome to it as long as they don't get to do it with live rounds.
posted by ding-dong at 9:11 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm pretty sure severe gun control isn't it

Again, the winnable fights are all very mild and moderate steps, with the added bonus of breaking the myth that the NRA is an unbeatable foe. A rhetorician with Obama's skills could fairly easily frame the discussion with poll after poll showing massive support for reasonable, moderate gun control steps, pointing out how marginal the NRA execs' opinions really are in America.

Totally do-able.
posted by mediareport at 9:11 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

Slap*Happy, dude, this is probably not the time or place for a discussion about calibers, y'know?
posted by soundguy99 at 9:12 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

Looking into this "antidepressants cause mass shootings" website, the Citizens Commission on HUman Rights, it's important to note that the group promoting this idea has been deemed a Scientology front group.
posted by Miko at 9:12 PM on December 14, 2012 [20 favorites]

maxwelton : Guns are a necessary part of that hunt?

Nope. But have you ever taken down a deer with a bow?

I can't claim I have myself. But I've come across them while hiking - Not dead, but dead-tired and in agony from running with a fiberglass rod through their shoulder.

And every... single... time, I've wished I had a side-arm on me to put the poor bastards down.
posted by pla at 9:12 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

Carbolic: "Any thoughts about the fact that the most recent mass shootings have been occurring in states that would be considered much more blue than red."

I don't know what time window you're using for "the most recent mass shootings", but this map of shootings since 1982 shows a healthy number of them in red states in recent years. Limiting the discussion just to 2012, I see three solid blue states (CA, WA, CT), three what I would call "purple" states (MN, WI, CO), and one red state (GA.)*

In other words, I really don't think you can draw any kind of conclusions about red/blue states. This looks like a pretty evenly distributed problem.

* The Oregon mall incident earlier this week doesn't meet the somewhat arbitrary criteria for inclusion in the Mother Jones article, but go ahead and add that to the blue column if you like.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:13 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

A well regulated militia,

Regulated: it's right there in the thing!
posted by Miko at 9:13 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

Thanks to the people who have hunted with .223 for giving more details about your experiences. As I said, I know people who do use them in hunting deer, but haven't used one myself.

Those of you who are all "nobody hunts because they need food" and "nobody buys a .223 to hunt deer" need to understand that what you're saying comes across as ignorance at best to people who know otherwise. It's not helping.

Saying "Even though people hunt deer with these weapons, the risks of them being used to kill people outweigh those possible benefits, so we need to talk about regulating or outlawing them" is an argument. Saying "Nobody hunts deer with those weapons" is not. I say this as someone who lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts, owns zero guns, and who has been giving to the CSGV for years.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:14 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

But sure, man, let's say this is about pharmaceuticals, not guns.

Americans are paranoids living in fantasyland. Blaming antidepressants is one talking point away from "MKULTRA did it". Anyone who brings it up knows it too.

(.308 rules the universe, I meant to say.)

Please. I've seen a deer taken from a moving car with two rounds from a .22LR. If you think bigger is better my earlier statement stands.
posted by clarknova at 9:14 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Miko - I agee, it is a bit frustrating or puzzeling to see people blame violence on gun ownership when you know a bevv of people who are armed to the teeth who manage not to commit crimes. And on top of it these people are in the state s with the most lax gun control.

Gun control may eventually be necessary but the big problem these days has to do with the insane or entitled attitude of the shooters and gun control will do almost nothing to control that. We have deeper problems and at this time gun control will be akin to a band aid.

This is a mental health issue not a gun issue.

(Miko - All said with respect. I have been aware of your presence long enough tp have an impression about the quality of your post/comments and I believe that impression has always been good)
posted by Carbolic at 9:14 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Slap*Happy, dude, this is probably not the time or place for a discussion about calibers, y'know?

Agreed. I was trying to make a point on how gun "experts" who do their damnedest to talk down to those who don't agree on gun rights... usually aren't all that expert. I'll pack up the technical nit-picking now.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:17 PM on December 14, 2012

gun control will do almost nothing to control that.

It may seem that way, and yet the example of every other Western democracy says otherwise.

We will never be able to control insanity or the human mind. We can, however, control the circulation, licensing, and ownership of objects.

This is a mental health issue AND a gun issue.
posted by Miko at 9:17 PM on December 14, 2012 [24 favorites]

ding-dong: "well regulated"

The well-regulated part is there because we had no standing army in this country until 1791, so we needed well-trained "irregular" troops to be ready at any time. Now that we have the biggest military ever seen, I think we can dispense with the notion that gun ownership is central to our continued existence as a nation.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:17 PM on December 14, 2012 [11 favorites]

And now we're back to mental illness. The US needs better mental health systems and better gun control, but it is not clear that either could have prevented this tragedy.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:18 PM on December 14, 2012

It's likely that a more serious effort toward both would reduce the incidence of tragedy.

Which issue are you willing to work on? Both? One or the other?

Or neither?

There is no statistical, inevitable reason for this to continue. We can exert some control over this.

Unless you don't want to bother.
posted by Miko at 9:20 PM on December 14, 2012

I don't think a better mental illness system would prevent all of these tragedies. At least some of the recent mass shootings have been from people who had just went schizophrenic, and some of them are due to narcissists wanting to be famous. It's almost impossible to catch schizophrenic people before their first psychotic break, and sometimes that's enough. Narcissists are rarely so dysfunctional as to get themselves committed and the disorder makes them unlikely to seek treatment.

It's still a really good idea, and I think it would cut down on the murder rate a lot, but I'm not sure it'd have much of an impact on spree killers specifically.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:23 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

but it is not clear that either could have prevented this tragedy.

This is true. We have no idea yet what really happened, what the shooter's motives were, what his mental health situation was.

Of course this is a social phenomnon, so there's got to be a common thread. This would be a good time for me to link to Mark Ames's Going Postal, which inspired a BBC documentary of the same name.
posted by clarknova at 9:25 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

The very same folks who oppose gun control tend to oppose increased federal funding for mental health care. It's almost as if this focus on the mental health angle is an effort to minimize the role of guns in 20 murders that were committed with guns.

Yeah, good point, so maybe there is progress to make on that front. Maybe this is where we can find some common ground. Let's try it.

SO OK, if you think access to mental health is the real issue, are you willing to write your reps now and say "let's enact universal, single-payer health care including mental health coverage?"

That's a tradeoff I would actually look at making in the short term, to test this "mental health" hypothesis. Totally for it. Let's try universal care, reducing stress and addressing mental health issues, to see if that reduces violent crime and mass violence over, say, a 10-year test period.

After 10 years, if having universal care has not reduced our rate of mass killing, then perhaps it will be time to examine the access to the actual hardware. If it has, then great. Gun nuts win the argument and we all get to keep our gadgets, but we all are a lot safer ad healthier because of our comprehensive, perfect universal healthcare system.

Can we ask for that bargain? Gun fans, are you willing to write your reps and maybe some op-eds and ask for universal healthcare?
posted by Miko at 9:25 PM on December 14, 2012 [8 favorites]

Gun politics in Australia
posted by Miko at 9:28 PM on December 14, 2012

Well, Miko, I work on both. Have done long before this, will keep doing so after the news cycle moved on. I give to the CSGV, which I've linked a couple of times in this thread. I write to my Representative and Senators every time gun control is in the news.

And I give to a lot of mental health organizations---if I had to recommend one for others, I'd pick NAMI. I volunteered for crisis hotlines when my health permitted. I bug the shit out of my local, state, and federal officials about increasing access to mental health care.

There aren't easy answers. There certainly isn't one easy answer. Pretending there is keeps us from taking effective action, in my opinion.

And acknowledging that even the most effective action and the best policies can't prevent every obscene tragedy isn't, to me, a disincentive to work for change. If anything, it's an incentive.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:29 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

All good. I wish everyone did as you do.

Most people who pontificate about what might mitigate these rates have done a fraction of what you've done - if anything at all.

I look forward to hearing similar testimonies from the others in this thread as to where they've given, who they've written, and what they've personally done to work toward a reduction in these all-too-frequent tragedies.
posted by Miko at 9:30 PM on December 14, 2012

This is a mental health issue not a gun issue.

we're never going to get anywhere on this issue until people start to realize that it's both. As well as an economic issue, and an education issue, and political corruption issue, and and the list goes on. You can't separate the guns from the culture surrounding them. And you can't prevent these tragedies from ever happening. But we can make them less common, and we can make them less deadly. We can make them less inevitable.

The bigger picture problem is not that we can't "get rid of guns". It's that we can't even have a conversation in the public sphere about sane, common sense gun laws that reflect the realities of the world that we live in. And the main reason we can't have that conversation is because a warped sense of self interest on the part of a small vocal minority of gun owners, and the industry that profits from them.

It completely baffles me how pro-gun advocates refuse to acknowledge how it is in their best interest to prevent tragedies like this from happening. If we can do something about mass shootings, handgun violence in inner cities, and accidental gun deaths,then the rest of us are much less likely to give a shit about what you're doing out on your farm or at the shooting range.

In a sane society, the NRA would be the first ones to stand up on a day like today and say that something needs to be done.
posted by billyfleetwood at 9:34 PM on December 14, 2012 [56 favorites]

Amen, BrotherBob
posted by growabrain at 9:36 PM on December 14, 2012

Sorry to be confrontational, Miko. I admire you greatly and I am certain you are trying to effect needed change.

I think where we agree is that there is a lot people can do right now to work toward the change they want to see, but the mononarrative of the mass media doesn't make space to talk about how people can help.

While we're talking about how people can help, Newtown Youth and Family Services is accepting donations to support their work with survivors and with the bereaved.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:36 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

Miko correct More serious mental screening prior to allowing gun purchase.(If he can afford the $500 - $600 for the gun he can pay another $200-$300 for a screening. The right is to bear arms not cheap arms.

Next the more expansive idea that any citizen should have access to mental health screening.
posted by Carbolic at 9:39 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Geographical and other corelates to gun deaths

The secret history of the NRA (and the 1980 takeover by wingnuts)

If you want to read the NRA 990 (2010 is the most recent), go to guidestar.org The NRA gets about half of its funding from membership fees. The armament manufacturers mostly just buy ads in The American Rifleman (which makes it a business expense.)

As I've said repeatedly, the elephant in the room of the gun control debate is the amount of personal wealth tied up in firearms. What drives the gunnuts nuts is the fear of confiscation of a large and liquid asset or the sudden conversion of that asset into contraband. That never seems to get addressed by gun control advocates. It's one of places they should start.

The rest of the typical gun-rights rant consists of the absolutely bogus claim that the 2nd Amendment encourages or sanctions sedition and treason. This is what Chief Justice Burger was referring to when he said, "[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
posted by warbaby at 9:39 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

Apparently the press jumped all over a different guy with the same name's Facebook profile and he's been fending off media and public attention all day.

Not quite. This is tangential, but when some of the media outlets who'd mistakenly identified Ryan as the killer then saw their suspect show up alive on Facebook, they compounded the initial error by mistakenly assuming the Ryan they'd found must have been a second person from the Ryan they were calling the shooter. I know I saw at least one article make that leap, although (unsurprisingly) I can't find it anymore.

It really was a mess, and it's not surprising folks would be confused about what happened.
posted by mediareport at 9:40 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Here's the thing about the Mental Health care in the USA, and I can only speak from personal experience. I have bipolar disorder, and I've lived in nine states and 13 cities in the past 16 years. In every state and every city I've lived in, I have always been able to find affordable mental health care, and I've always been pretty damned poor. Many times, my mental health care has been free. Also, most of the crazy med suppliers offer their meds for free for those who cannot pay for them. Why? Because no one wants crazy people walking the streets unmedicated. That's a fact.

So, it's been my experience that mental health care is pretty much available to anyone who wants it. All they have to do it look for it. The people who snap and do unspeakable things (whether it's mass killings, serial killings, killing one person, or suicide) are those who refuse medical care, aren't aware that help is possible, or simple refuse to admit that they need it.

It might also help if we as a culture didn't stigmatize those of us with mental problems. So I have bipolar. Big deal. So I get a little euphoric, depressed, confused, or even angry once in a while, and my moods tend to the extreme. That doesn't make me a danger to anyone, it just makes me... different and sometimes unable to cope. My meds keep me stable and better able to deal with the world without freaking out the normals with my madness, but even in a manic rage I'm not going to get a gun and shoot anyone. It's not in my nature. I might break something, but I'd never hurt someone.

That's my two cent's worth anyway.
posted by patheral at 9:40 PM on December 14, 2012 [12 favorites]

This is perhaps a trivial detail given all the horror of this story, but could anyone shed any light on why Ryan Lanza was handcuffed when he was taken in for questioning? Was he under arrest, and if so, on what basis? Seems like this guy has had a pretty bad time of it.
posted by torticat at 9:43 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

Why Most Mass Murderers Are ~~Privileged~~ White Men

Because about 99% of mass murderers are men, and most men (in the US) are white. The DC snipers were black. The Virginia Tech shooter was Asian. The "privilege" argument is a good way to get internet traffic, but not so great for explaining the facts.
posted by John Cohen at 9:45 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

I look forward to hearing similar testimonies from the others in this thread as to where they've given, who they've written, and what they've personally done to work toward a reduction in these all-too-frequent tragedies.

Me, I am on the board of directors of a school that teaches self-defense, empowerment, and violence prevention, including de-escalation and communication techniques. Because it's never purely a mental health or a gun control issue. Sometimes when people feel like they have the tools to step into a situation, to talk to an angry person or calm down a potentially violent situation, then they can help defuse things long before they get to the massacre stage. And when people have social, verbal, and, yes, physical tools to defend themselves, they don't need to fall back on the really high-stakes weapons to feel secure. And yeah, we talk about things like the quote I posted above - about impossible gender expectations for men and women, about the necessity of learning productive ways to deal with emotions, even that everyone - including tough masculine men - have emotions. And we teach these things to the kids in our program and hope to god it helps.

There are a lot of ways to come at the problem. The other link I posted talks about the problem of the social safety net in general - not purely mental health care, because not all (or even most) sufferers of mental health disorders are violent, and not all (or even most) violent people have major mental health disorders, but drug use, history of violence and abuse, and lack of basic resources are all much more significant factors in whether or not someone will become violent.

This isn't a single-issue situation, nor is it a dual-issue situation. It's very easy to want to lay it out in black and white terms - and don't get me wrong, we've got some fucked-up health care and gun policies in this country - but it's important to recognize that it's a systemic problem, and there are many, many ways to approach it.
posted by restless_nomad at 9:45 PM on December 14, 2012 [19 favorites]

The great Jill Lepore also wrote a fantastically insightful piece about how we got the gun lobby we have, instead of the sensible, responsible gun lobby we'd like to have.
posted by Miko at 9:46 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

"Don't own guns because your son might kill you and steal them and use them to kill children" is not really the foundation of any kind of rational public policy.

There were 16 mass shootings in the US this year, with 88 fatalities.

When I heard the news today, I was saddened, but not shocked. I asked my coworker if, every six months for the rest of my life, I'll have to face a story of 12+ innocents gunned down in a public place.

The "this was an aberration" argument was silly with Columbine. Now it's willful ignorance. My only hope is that the NRA et al become exhausted with defending themselves with such predictable frequency. How many "isolated incident(s)" a year will that take?
posted by murfed13 at 9:47 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

While I agree that it's a complex problem that ideally should be approached on many fronts, I still can't help but notice that most other first-world nations have addressed themselves most directly to gun law, and made significant headway with that - not slight declines, but orders of magnitude.

The fact that they usually also have strong healthcare in place doesn't hurt - and no doubt, we're suffering from a general lack of human-services infrastructure here that is taken for granted elsewhere - but current laxities in gun law are a bit of a low-hanging fruit, here.
posted by Miko at 9:49 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Carbolic: More serious mental screening prior to allowing gun purchase.(If he can afford the $500 - $600 for the gun he can pay another $200-$300 for a screening. The right is to bear arms not cheap arms.

Wouldn't have helped this time. He used his mom's guns, and she probably would have passed the screening.

I would also suggest more broadly that using mental health screening as a 'gotcha' to reduce privileges is not necessarily effective; a lot of mental disorders do not eliminate your ability to hide symptoms. It might stop the completely delusional or totally schizophrenic, but it won't stop narcissists for instance.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:49 PM on December 14, 2012

but could anyone shed any light on why Ryan Lanza was handcuffed when he was taken in for questioning?

Police. Thinking logically. Ha ha.

It's obvious that kid is trapped in some kind of Kafkaesque nightmare from which we are struggling to awaken.
posted by clarknova at 9:49 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

Miko : Can we ask for that bargain? Gun fans, are you willing to write your reps and maybe some op-eds and ask for universal healthcare?

I very much want universal healthcare. But I can't agree with the second half of your terms, for the simple reason that mental healthcare just doesn't have the sort of magic bullets (forgive the pun) needed to "cure" such issues in a decade. We've come only the teensiest step forward from merely sedating those with mental health issues; Instead, we throw random chemical cocktails into their brains, and if they act somewhat more normal after than before, we call it good.

billyfleetwood : It completely baffles me how pro-gun advocates refuse to acknowledge how it is in their best interest to prevent tragedies like this from happening.

Of course they acknowledge that we need to prevent things like this from happening!

Okay, look at it like this - And I no way mean this as a trick situation, moment-of-total-honesty here.

I consider myself sane. I consider guns useful tools, even a bit fun to take to the range. And I would never, ever shoot a bunch of kids! I can imagine situations that might get me to kill in self-defense, but I can't picture anything that would lead to me randomly executing a classroom full of 6 year olds, ever, no way, period.

So, when you tell me the guns count as the problem... Well, you've told me, in somewhat fewer words, that you believe I would randomly go into a classroom and open fire, all because that hunk of mostly inert steel will somehow override my brain and make me do bad things.

So, perhaps you can appreciate the disconnect. You've effectively told me you want to take away my car, my computer, my washing machine, my hammer, my garage door opener, because someone, somewhere used it in a bad way. And I can only respond by looking at you like you have three heads, because seriously, my garage door opener???

/ Cue someone questioning my sanity if I don't see the difference between a gun and a washing machine - and take it as read that I will mock you for missing the forest for all those damned trees.
posted by pla at 9:50 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

"My only hope is that the NRA et al become exhausted with defending themselves with such predictable frequency."

Forget that happening. Their staff make their livings off the gun issue.
posted by Ardiril at 9:51 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

My only hope is that the NRA et al become exhausted with defending themselves with such predictable frequency.

No one quits thier job because the work is predictable and steady.

Well, okay, they do, maybe to go find themselves or something, but most don't.
posted by clarknova at 9:51 PM on December 14, 2012

current laxities in gun law are a bit of a low-hanging fruit, here.

Sure, but in terms of the "what are you doing today to make things better?" question, it's not really low-hanging fruit at all. It's a thorny political issue that could use some more public pressure behind it, but it may well not be something Joe and Jane Mefite can do fuckall about tomorrow.
posted by restless_nomad at 9:55 PM on December 14, 2012

It might stop the completely delusional or totally schizophrenic,

As was noted above, schizophrenia is very often late-onset. A lot of people don't even know what's happening to them, let alone even understand that it's psychiatric in nature and can be treated (if ineffectively). In other words, it's not a given that the mental health system ever even has a chance to intervene in situations like that.
posted by Miko at 9:55 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

This is a mental health issue not a gun issue.

It's both.

America has twice the homicide rate of other developed countries, basically because a lot of people engage in dishonest rhetoric that prevents meaningful discussion or reform on gun control.

I suppose it's possible that Americans are just worse people, but I don't think that's as plausible as the simpler explanation: that murderous rage is more deadly with more guns.
posted by grudgebgon at 9:55 PM on December 14, 2012 [10 favorites]

.
posted by dlugoczaj at 10:20 PM on December 14, 2012

It's an ouroboros from the fetishization of violence: crazy boys mass slaughter children and a whole meme promotion cycle kicks in that ultimately feeds the next crazy boys' imaginations.

I'm skeptical of there being a solution. The crazy boys aren't typically harming the privileged and powerful. Solutions cost. They don't want to spend. No real skin off their asses, this sort of event.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:20 PM on December 14, 2012

Forget that happening. Their staff make their livings off the gun issue.

I was thinking more of the "et al" -- the average anti-gun control citizen.
posted by murfed13 at 10:20 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

.
posted by Wordshore at 10:22 PM on December 14, 2012

Nope, them neither. The NRA engineers its marketing to keep the average anti-gun control citizen's focus in line.
posted by Ardiril at 10:22 PM on December 14, 2012

Miko: As was noted above, schizophrenia is very often late-onset. A lot of people don't even know what's happening to them, let alone even understand that it's psychiatric in nature and can be treated (if ineffectively). In other words, it's not a given that the mental health system ever even has a chance to intervene in situations like that.

That's true. However, it should catch people who've been schizophrenic for some time - even if they lie, they won't know what 'proper answer' to give anymore, and the flattened affect is also a giveaway.

But yeah, it won't stop recent schizophrenics, and they're some of the most likely to do this sort of thing.
posted by Mitrovarr at 10:29 PM on December 14, 2012

Are people living with schizophrenia ("schizoprenic" is a somewhat dehumanizing term) more likely to commit bloody, savage murder than other people?
posted by KokuRyu at 10:33 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Just found out that a friend's child was there today. The boy is okay. But reading the parent's Facebook updates as the events unfolded -- it's just completely heartbreaking.
posted by murfed13 at 10:33 PM on December 14, 2012

Like imperial measurement units, the death penalty, healthcare, et ceteras, when it comes to mass murders, the US does its own thing.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:37 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

People living with schizophrenia are actually far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators of it.

I'm on my phone's clunky browser so I'll let someone else follow up with the citations.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:38 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

What Obama should do tomorrow is propose a bill massively funding mental health care with a new tax on the rich. No gun bans. Let's just start there. If the anti-gun control folks can let it pass, we will know all of the "but we need to focus on mental health not guns!" from that particular sector is honest. If not...

It's time they picked their poison. The issue needs to be solved, pro-actively, with all of us behind the solution. This isn't terrorism, it's not politically motivated, but it definitely terrorizes the country when these things happen in our modern connected social media and mass media environment. Enough is fucking enough. Pick a solution and get behind it if you want to keep your guns.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:45 PM on December 14, 2012 [9 favorites]

This breaks my heart. Those poor little kids. Their families, my God, their poor families.
posted by sarcasticah at 10:47 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

Why don't the Swiss have a comparable per capita rate of spree killings and other gun violence? Switzerland has a very high rate of gun ownership, including of fully automatic weapons that are banned in the U.S.

Actually, that's not exactly true. Automatic weapons are banned in Switzerland. And they have quite a lot of rules around gun ownership (i.e., gun control), even if they do have high rates of gun ownership.

And, yeah, the Swiss have mass shootings, too.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:48 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

Sidhedevil, thanks for the Newtown Youth and Family Services link. A number of people I know want to do "something, anything" that directly helps those affected.
posted by CancerMan at 10:53 PM on December 14, 2012

Is Obama the first president to cry in public? Maybe "first president who showed emotion" is just as important as "first president who was black".
posted by WalkingAround at 10:55 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

My heart goes out to all of Newtown. This is appalling.
posted by harriet vane at 10:57 PM on December 14, 2012

The discussion page about the English Wikipedia article includes the chilling question: what name to give the article? "2012 Newtown shooting"? "2012 Connecticut Shooting"? User "Abductive" wrote:

As the person who gave it its present title, I simply followed the convention at School shooting. There is near universal agreement on the titles there.

It hurts to know that we have a naming convention for these horrific events, that they have happened enough times that we have tables, sortable by name and year and death toll.
posted by brainwane at 11:03 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

I cried watching the news this morning. I don't normally cry at the drop of a hat, but I God damn well cried seeing and hearing about this.

I'm Australian, so maybe I just totally don't get it... but people actually walk around carrying guns? I mean other than police and FBI etc... but just ordinary people like me wake up, get ready and carry a gun with them? To the shops, to parties, to a bar etc?

That is ... kinda terrifying to me.
posted by Admira at 11:13 PM on December 14, 2012 [16 favorites]

"just ordinary people like me wake up, get ready and carry a gun with them?"

Yes.
posted by Ardiril at 11:16 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Action is the antidote to dispair. If you want to help prevent more shootings like these...
- ignore anyone who says it can't be done. They're wrong.
- ignore anyone who blows off your suggestions with "But that won't stop all gun deaths". They're letting perfection be the enemy of improvement. No solution will fix everything wrong with guns, especially such a systemic problem as it is in America. But a lot of solutions could prevent thousands of deaths each and that is always worth doing.
- ignore anyone who says that gun nuts won't let the situation be fixed. Many responsible gun owners will support you, and you don't need the true gun nuts to give you permission to act.

There are so many things that can be done to help. Enforce existing laws and re-enact them where they've been rolled back; split the NRA base; get involved in campaign finance reform; act cleverly when enacting new regulations - succinct, sticky messaging can defeat the FUD of the NRA. This will be like civil rights and LGBT rights - a long and piecemeal battle with many fronts. Pick whichever aspect you feel best suited to and support people who choose other aspects to work on.

It won't be easy. Nothing worthwhile ever is.
posted by harriet vane at 11:17 PM on December 14, 2012 [17 favorites]

I'm Australian, so maybe I just totally don't get it... but people actually walk around carrying guns?

No.
posted by clarknova at 11:20 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

The Newtown Bee is our once-a-week paper. They are running stories and updates. They don't allow deep linking, just copying a quotes from "Stories Of Heroism Emerging From School Shooting Tragedy:"

But none were more tragic than the accounts of Principal Dawn Hochsprung, who was emerging from a meeting and apparently saw the gunman and warned several colleagues who were about to step into the hallway behind her, and into the shooter's direct line of fire. The last thing one witness recalled was her turning back and yelling a warning to lock the door as she apparently confronted the gunman. A few moments later she was shot.

Its a local paper, but they're very diligent about covering stories about the town in detail.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:21 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Friends of mine have concealed carry permits in Texas, so yes. Florida just issued its millionth concealed carry permit. The rationale, as far as I can tell (for carrying concealed handguns) is for deterrent, self-protection, and protecting people too weak or stupid to protect themselves. I disagree with this.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:22 PM on December 14, 2012

clarknova: " No."

what
posted by tonycpsu at 11:22 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

just ordinary people like me wake up, get ready and carry a gun with them?

Yes, and it's sick, dangerous, twisted and insane. The presidents of the United States should stop signing off their State of the Union addresses with "God bless America" and change it to "God save America". Cause when it comes to gun laws and gun culture, America is a broken state. An outlier, a rogue nation, a land whose people have lost their way, certainly in need of divine intervention
posted by flapjax at midnite at 11:25 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

Of my immediate family, I believe only my sister-in-law, my daughter-in-law and myself are the only ones who do not have carry permits. 9 of 11 others constantly carry, and the other two keep a gun in their cars. All but three of them are registered Democrats.
posted by Ardiril at 11:27 PM on December 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

what

Oh yeah, I forgot about CC people. I thought she meant open carry and whatnot, as is often the stereotype.

Those people really aren't a concern as far as crime and shootings go.
posted by clarknova at 11:28 PM on December 14, 2012

clarknova: " Oh yeah, I forgot about CC people. I thought she meant open carry and whatnot, as is often the stereotype."

In that case...

what
posted by tonycpsu at 11:30 PM on December 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Outside of war zones, no where else in the world do people feel the need to carry a gun for self-defence while running errands. Truly, America is a land of paranoid freaks.
posted by robcorr at 11:31 PM on December 14, 2012 [44 favorites]

What is so terrifying about "ordinary people" routinely carrying a gun for self-defense? Almost everyone I know owns at least one gun and many of us wear a concealed handgun when we go out as habitually as we carry our wallets, keys, phones, etc.

I don't know about 'terrifying' but, as a Canadian, it sure sounds weird.

And a little bit terrifying.
posted by mazola at 11:32 PM on December 14, 2012 [10 favorites]

tonycpsu: "In that case...

what"

Sure there are laws that allow it, but nobody does it. Except maybe some conservative fruitbats at Obama town halls. You cannot conduct daily biddnez strapped and swaggering like Yosemete Sam.
posted by clarknova at 11:32 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

I would prefer open carry over concealed carry.
posted by Ardiril at 11:35 PM on December 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

What is so terrifying about "ordinary people" routinely carrying a gun

That's an interesting question. I think it comes from my background of being from a country where ordinary people just don't walk around carrying guns, and we think of guns as deadly and dangerous things.

I definitely lack the cultural and historical perspective that makes carrying guns seem as necessary as keys and wallets.
posted by Admira at 11:37 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

What is so terrifying about "ordinary people" routinely carrying a gun for self-defense?

You all look so ordinary on the outside.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:37 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

We're "paranoid freaks" because we acknowledge the existence of rape, armed robberies, and other violent crimes and don't want to be victimized?
posted by Jacqueline at 11:37 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

but just ordinary people like me wake up, get ready and carry a gun with them? To the shops, to parties, to a bar etc?

In actual practice, it can very much depend on the state, county, or city you are in. And your definition of "carry" - a lot of the Ohio "Concealed Carry Law" seems to be about defining when & how you can "carry" a gun in your vehicle.

Plus, AFAICT, since nobody (here in Ohio) ever got around to passing a law that specifically forbids a person to openly carry a firearm in plain sight, it's not technically illegal as such. Undoubtedly in practice the cops would bust you for "disturbing the peace" or "creating a public nuisance" or something like that if you did.
posted by soundguy99 at 11:37 PM on December 14, 2012

'Terrifying'. Depends on your neighborhood.
posted by artdrectr at 11:38 PM on December 14, 2012

I don't know about 'terrifying' but, as a Canadian, it sure sounds weird.

And yet we Canadians can sure tune out the gun violence in our own communities. There is a gangland-related shooting every week someplace in Vancouver or the Fraser Valley, and gun-related deaths, on a per capita basis are double that of Japan, and many European countries.

Canadians (me included) should not be so smug.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:38 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

You all look so ordinary on the outside.

We're "paranoid freaks" because we acknowledge the existence of rape, armed robberies, and other violent crimes and don't want to be victimized?

Sorry, I meant "they"
posted by Drinky Die at 11:38 PM on December 14, 2012

We're "paranoid freaks" ... don't want to be victimized?

How many people do you know who regularly carry weapons who have defended themselves?
posted by KokuRyu at 11:39 PM on December 14, 2012 [16 favorites]

perspective that makes carrying guns seem as necessary as keys and wallets

For a lot of us, seem is the important word here - as in, does this actually, demonstrably, in reality make you safer?
posted by soundguy99 at 11:40 PM on December 14, 2012 [6 favorites]

What is so terrifying about "ordinary people" routinely carrying a gun for self-defense? Almost everyone I know owns at least one gun and many of us wear a concealed handgun when we go out as habitually as we carry our wallets, keys, phones, etc.

This is by no means universal. I'm in the U.S., and I don't know anyone who carries a concealed handgun (and yes, I too find it terrifying that "ordinary" people think it's ordinary).
posted by Wordwoman at 11:40 PM on December 14, 2012 [17 favorites]

I definitely lack the cultural and historical perspective that makes carrying guns seem as necessary as keys and wallets.

People carrying concealed weapons are licensed to do so. All states require a background check and most also require some sort of specialized training. Americans are generally of the opinion that people who are trained and licensed are conscientious and safe with their firearms.
posted by clarknova at 11:41 PM on December 14, 2012

"Switzerland has a very high rate of gun ownership, including of fully automatic weapons that are banned in the U.S."

The Swiss also have compulsory military service for men, and you're basically an army reservist for life if you live there.

Which is to say, ex-soldiers and cops owning guns doesn't bother me at all (barring mental illness, which is actually a huge problem post-Iraq and post-Afghanistan). They have training, and they're been taught that guns are serious tools, not lifestyle props and/or penis extensions.

Oh lord, how the little chickenhawks would squeal if we required them to actually enroll in the military or become a police officer before they could buy their guns and protect themselves from Nobama.
posted by bardic at 11:41 PM on December 14, 2012 [9 favorites]

Americans are generally of the opinion that people who are trained and licensed are conscientious and safe with their firearms.

"Our" opinion may not jibe with actual reality.
posted by soundguy99 at 11:43 PM on December 14, 2012

Yeah, open carry is technically legal in Nevada but the cops who taught the concealed carry permit class I took in Las Vegas said that in practice open carry was a bad idea because too many migrants from California and other heavy-gun-control states tended to freak out whenever they saw anyone open carrying and would call the police and exaggerate about someone "brandishing" a weapon in a "threatening" manner and then it would turn into a shitstorm. So the gist of it was that while the police themselves had no problem with people lawfully exercising their right to open carry, they much preferred that people get concealed carry permits and carry concealed so that they didn't have to constantly deal with drama from ignorant bystanders.
posted by Jacqueline at 11:44 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

"What is so terrifying about 'ordinary people' routinely carrying a gun for self-defense?"

For starters, the likelihood of you, your spouse, or one of you children dying due to a gunshot (accidental or fired in anger) goes up astronomically.

So if I had kids, I'd want to be a better parent than that.
posted by bardic at 11:46 PM on December 14, 2012 [24 favorites]

Yeah, open carry is technically legal in Nevada but the cops who taught the concealed carry permit class I took in Las Vegas said that in practice open carry was a bad idea because too many migrants from California and other heavy-gun-control states tended to freak out whenever they saw anyone open carrying and would call the police and exaggerate about someone "brandishing" a weapon in a "threatening" manner and then it would turn into a shitstorm. So the gist of it was that while the police themselves had no problem with people lawfully exercising their right to open carry, they much preferred that people get concealed carry permits and carry concealed so that they didn't have to constantly deal with drama from ignorant bystanders.

Hmm, ignorant California migrants (read: immigrants) are ruining open carry with excessive calls to the police. I assume there is a link for that?
posted by Drinky Die at 11:47 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

"Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home."
posted by bardic at 11:48 PM on December 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

We're "paranoid freaks" because we acknowledge the existence of rape, armed robberies, and other violent crimes and don't want to be victimized?

I acknowledge the existence of all of those crimes, and I don't want to be victimised. The same is true of basically every person on earth.

I also manage to go out in the world every day without preparing myself to kill someone, and I'm glad that my fellow Australians don't have to live in constant fear like that either.
posted by robcorr at 11:50 PM on December 14, 2012 [55 favorites]

What is so terrifying about "ordinary people" routinely carrying a gun for self-defense?

The lack of credible studies proving that carrying a gun actually makes you safer.
posted by soundguy99 at 11:52 PM on December 14, 2012 [38 favorites]

What is so terrifying about "ordinary people" routinely carrying a gun for self-defense? Almost everyone I know owns at least one gun and many of us wear a concealed handgun when we go out as habitually as we carry our wallets, keys, phones, etc.

Carrying around an object designed for killing is not the same thing as carrying around keys or phones. That your everyday habit is to carry a killing device with you is scary to me, and I would wager, to many others.

After all, I only have your word that you can be trusted with a gun. Why on earth should I take your word for it that you deserve the ability to make causing death and damage so much easier than anyone else?

Or are we getting back to the dangers of gun culture?
posted by gadge emeritus at 11:53 PM on December 14, 2012 [14 favorites]

To clarify, open carry (gun visible on your person) versus concealed carry (gun hidden on your person) is a distinction treated differently by various states. In some states, you have a default right to carry a gun openly but must apply for a permit to carry a gun concealed. The logic is that concealment is dangerous because it gives the element of surprise. In other states, concealment is a precondition to carrying a gun. The logic here is that a visible gun creates fear and intimidation.

This is one example of how widely gun culture and gun laws vary across the United States.
posted by cribcage at 11:55 PM on December 14, 2012

I will back Jacqueline on that statement. I have heard of similar statements from cops in other states with open carry about getting calls from people who don't know about open carry laws.
posted by Ardiril at 11:55 PM on December 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

What is so terrifying about "ordinary people" routinely carrying a gun for self-defense?

I'd say 'that you live somewhere this is necessary', except the real answer is closer to 'that you're so filled with fear that you honestly believe it's necessary, because teenagers, or something'.

Almost everyone I know owns at least one gun and many of us wear a concealed handgun when we go out as habitually as we carry our wallets, keys, phones, etc.

Ah, that's it. What's so terrifying is that you think this is normal.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 11:55 PM on December 14, 2012 [48 favorites]

Our government, our leaders, our media, our entertainment all tell us that it's okay-- even glorious-- to kill people (many of whom are children) in other countries for this reason or for that reason. I wish I could say it's surprising when some fuckhead brings that idea home. War isn't an event, it's a cultural cancer.
posted by threeants at 11:57 PM on December 14, 2012 [5 favorites]

Canadians (me included) should not be so smug.

I don't mean to sound smug. A question was asked and I answered. Guns are not a part of my life so 'carrying' genuinely sounds... weird. Foreign. And terrifying.

I truly hope it does not become my 'normal'.
posted by mazola at 11:58 PM on December 14, 2012

I will back Jacqueline on that statement.

I do buy that people are scared of folks walking around with killing tools. It makes absolute sense. I'm more curious about why the ignorant California migrants are being singled out.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:59 PM on December 14, 2012

Drinky Die, "migrants" is not a dog-whistle for "immigrants" in Jacqueline's anecdote. It is a dog-whistle for "liberal city-folk busybodies".
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:00 AM on December 15, 2012 [18 favorites]

Ignorant migrants aren't city folks. No, that term conjures up the type of folk the liberal city folk might be scared of if they walked down Main St. armed.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:01 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

"why the ignorant California migrants are being singled out." - In Nevada? For the same reason Texans diss Oklahomans.
posted by Ardiril at 12:01 AM on December 15, 2012

What is so terrifying about "ordinary people" routinely carrying a gun for self-defense?

Most ordinary people are terrible fucking shots.

Hell, I work in a job where most of us regularly have to pass firearms tests and go to the range and practice regularly and many of my co-workers are still terrible fucking shots. We practice shooting moving targets, we have to do this to pass our tests, and people miss a lot. And they're MUCH better than the average person.

That's what's terrifying about it.
posted by fshgrl at 12:02 AM on December 15, 2012 [45 favorites]

>Canadians (me included) should not be so smug.

I don't mean to sound smug.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were sounding smug. Once again, my apologies.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:02 AM on December 15, 2012

Let's drop the "ignorant migrants" derail, please.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:02 AM on December 15, 2012

> So, perhaps you can appreciate the disconnect. You've effectively told me you want to take away my car, my computer, my washing machine, my hammer, my garage door opener, because someone, somewhere used it in a bad way.

... not even sure what to say ...

> Almost everyone I know owns at least one gun and many of us wear a concealed handgun when we go out as habitually as we carry our wallets, keys, phones, etc.

Where I live I rationally believe I have a much greater chance of dying in a car or of a heart attack than by some stranger killing me in the street. Why would any human live in a place that they perceive is so dangerous that they must carry deadly weapons with them at all times?

I cannot imagine the level of fear that it would take for me to do this. It sounds like being in a horror movie all the time.

Americans cared so little about the Bill of Rights that they suspended about half of it over a decade ago, and no one on either side ever even considers turning it back on any more. But try to tamper with their Second Amendment, or even mention anything about "a well-organized militia," and you'll get millions of people screaming about their fundamental rights.

It won't change. There's always a sizable block of people for whom "The American way of life is non-negotiable". The system is completely rigid - there is no mechanism for change and any leaders who would possibly implement change are weeded out long before they reach the public eye. I really do not believe that anything significant will change until there's a collapse and I simply pray that it's a small enough collapse - that is, that it occurs soon enough before all that is of value about this country has been destroyed - that something of value will be preserved.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:03 AM on December 15, 2012 [13 favorites]

> What is so terrifying about "ordinary people" routinely carrying a gun for self-defense?

"Consider the stupidity of your average guy. Then remember that half of people are dumber than he is."
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:03 AM on December 15, 2012 [38 favorites]

What is so terrifying about "ordinary people" routinely carrying a gun for self-defense?

Oh I don't know, something like when I get a text from Safety and Security that says someone's just been robbed at gunpoint not 5 blocks from my apartment, in the very spot I would have been walking through if I'd taken the first bus that passed (that doesn't go as close to my apartment). Yesterday, that happened yesterday. I was thinking "wow, that could have been me."

And that person had no defense. They weren't worried about their money or the 90%-written paper on their laptop they were going to have to rewrite. They were worried about their life. When "ordinary people" are walking around with guns, you can't just assume it's for self-defense. And really, what kind of society do we live in where guns are what people go to for self-defense? If people weren't assaulting others with guns, nobody would need guns as defense.
posted by DoubleLune at 12:15 AM on December 15, 2012

Just read an interesting quote from an old interview with Wayne Lo. He carried out a similar attack at Simon's Rock 20 years ago (when he was about Adam Lanza's age), killing and wounding students and teachers. He is in prison for life in Norfolk, Massachusetts.

"The people who do these things are people who don’t want contact. They wouldn’t be capable of going out there and stabbing people to death. But there’s such a disconnect when you’re using a gun. You don’t even feel like you’re killing anybody...."

That's from someone who should know.

lupus_yonderboy: "It won't change."

People said that about tobacco control in the 60's and 70's. We can do this.
posted by Cassford at 12:16 AM on December 15, 2012 [15 favorites]

What is so terrifying about "ordinary people" routinely carrying a gun for self-defense? Almost everyone I know owns at least one gun and many of us wear a concealed handgun when we go out as habitually as we carry our wallets, keys, phones, etc.

When I leave my apartment, I think "I don't want people to be able to get in when I'm not there", so I take my keys.
When I leave my apartment, I think "I'll probably wind up buying lunch today", so I take my wallet.
When I leave my apartment, I think "It's been cold outside the last few days, and can get windy -- if it does, I want to be warm", so I take a hat.
When I leave my apartment, I think "I may want to call someone, or someone may want to call me, or I'll likely surf the internet", so I take my phone.
When I leave my apartment, I think "I might be out later than usual and I'm supposed to take my medication at 10", so I take my pills.

I have never left my apartment and thought, "I might want to kill someone today; I'd better pack for that."
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 12:19 AM on December 15, 2012 [73 favorites]

"What's so terrifying is that you think this is normal."

For my generation, gun culture is normal. My high school had a shooting team, both rifles and handguns. Kids made rifle stocks in wood shop and turned shotgun barrels in machine shop. The high school parking lot was a daily gun swap meet. During deer season, every gun rack in the school lot was filled with hunting rifles. During trapping season, the rifles were replaced with shotguns. That is just the way we grew up.
posted by Ardiril at 12:22 AM on December 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

"For my generation"

No, gun culture is a regional (urban vs. rural) thing, not a generational one.

No high school in Brooklyn has or ever will lathe shotgun barrels in shop class, wing-nut fantasies aside.

Which is to say, I have no problem with people outside of major urban areas having access to hunting rifles and shotguns. You have a lower population density, for starters. You can go to the woods and shoot a varmint with little chance of a bullet flying into someone's living room.

What's frustrating beyond words is how the NRA/gun-nut contingent wants to push their very specific demands on urban populations. For example, as a former DC resident (former and literal "murder capital of the world") I was appalled that Republican congresspeole, all of whom were whtie males, pushed through a bill to allow private ownership of handguns in DC.

Just a complete, arbitrary sense of entitlement along the lings of "what's good for Mule Tick, Arkansas is good for our nation's capital."

Utter lunacy, with a healthy side portion of racism to boot.
posted by bardic at 12:31 AM on December 15, 2012 [18 favorites]

BTW, if anything is going to be banned maybe it should be military-grade body armor.
posted by bardic at 12:33 AM on December 15, 2012

re: regional vs generational. Granted, I doubt the same can be said about my hometown now.
posted by Ardiril at 12:33 AM on December 15, 2012

And yet we Canadians can sure tune out the gun violence in our own communities. There is a gangland-related shooting every week someplace in Vancouver or the Fraser Valley, and gun-related deaths, on a per capita basis are double that of Japan

FWIW, there basically aren't any gun deaths in Japan, because there basically aren't any guns in Japan. It's not a tough rate to double, even just in Vancouver.

I don't mean to minimize the reality of gun deaths in Canada; the rate's fully half of the USA's, which isn't anything to be particularly proud of. Though, of course, [this next point is made out of indignance, not smugness] a great many of those are committed with illegal weapons smuggled up from south of the border. America's lax gun laws don't only affect their own country; just ask Mexico.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:38 AM on December 15, 2012 [8 favorites]

Just a complete, arbitrary sense of entitlement along the lings of "what's good for Mule Tick, Arkansas is good for our nation's capital."

Utter lunacy, with a healthy side portion of racism to boot.

Yes, there's some some sort of racism or ethnocentrism revealed by your comment, but not the kind you think.
posted by clarknova at 12:39 AM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Re: body armor and personal gun rights...

It really wasn't that long ago when US businessmen and the government would shoot and kill striking workers. And it happened in South Africa this year. The right to bear arms is absolutely still relevant. Body armor too.

I'd love to see some action toward stemming the killings and other violent acts perpetrated daily in this country. I think providing easy and inexpensive access to mental health care is both more feasible and more likely to be effective. I also think using mental health screenings to restrict people's rights (at least without judicial overview) will be counterproductive. People don't need excuses to avoid getting help.

Some sensible gun regulation is OK in my book but most proposals take things way too far for my sensibilities.
posted by polyhedron at 12:47 AM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

A bunch of white Republicans basically lecturing the mostly black citizens of DC, a city that literally lost a generation or two of its male youth to handguns that were often purchased in the NRA's home state of Virginia, was appalling. For the gentlemen from Tennessee and Georgia to proclaim they were "helping" black residents by ignoring their desire or strict gun laws was disgusting.

I was there when it happened, so spare me the condescension.
posted by bardic at 12:47 AM on December 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

Confessions of a Man Who Almost Went Postal
posted by homunculus at 12:54 AM on December 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

Oh man, our whole media had a freakout over a downed tent, I don't think unions shooting back is on the agenda.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:54 AM on December 15, 2012

The only way I can feel this is by watching Obama's press conference this afternoon.

I can't explain it, but I suddenly get why it is important for society to have leaders, they have to take on, embody and personify for us the things that are impossible to grasp and understand, and give them a form so that we may understand and feel empathy.

I can't put my feelings into words, I cannot feel them at all, but when I watch that video, everything is brought into sharp focus and I can begin to get it.

I can't begin to imagine what the parent to those 20 children are going through tonight. To have come up to the school this morning and to not have had your child come to the parking lot to grab your hand to be taken home. To stand there in the midst of all this relief and life,hugs and tears, alone, in that parking lot, without your child. To stand there in the shame, embarrassment, anguish, confusion and isolated devastation as the realization sinks in, your child was one of the ones.

I'd break down and never get back up.
posted by roboton666 at 12:58 AM on December 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

No, gun culture is a regional (urban vs. rural) thing, not a generational one.

No high school in Brooklyn has or ever will lathe shotgun barrels in shop class, wing-nut fantasies aside

I don't know about lathe shotgun barrels specifically, but you're completely wrong about Brooklyn and gun culture. That's certainly a generational thing. There were rifle teams in the NYC public school until the 60's. Here's a nice article about the 1922 Championships in Brooklyn (pdf).
posted by Jahaza at 12:59 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

This thread and what's been on the TV tonight has been, for me at least, an illuminating and ultimately depressing window on the chances of meaningful gun control debate in the US. Why the hell can't some people just get over the need to be able to shoot fellow citizens?
Fuck.
posted by islander at 1:00 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Are people living with schizophrenia ("schizoprenic" is a somewhat dehumanizing term) more likely to commit bloody, savage murder than other people?

No.

Especially something which requires planning; one of the more common symptoms of schizophrenia is a difficulty of motivating the self and following through on plans (avolition) and another is disorganized thinking, and both of those symptoms run contrary to the kind of planning required for mass murder.

Speaking as someone with significant experience with psychosis, it tend to be a more confusing and limiting symptom than one which galvanizes people into action; I spend a lot of time setting myself up as always telling the truth so that eventually I can engage in "reality testing" and get my clients closer to a shared reality because ultimately that is what will help them meet their own needs and stay safe. Someone with persistent and unwavering delusions can be stable in the community, but they will almost always need a "translator" like myself to deal with unexpected challenges.

"The proportion of violent crime in society attributable to schizophrenia consistently falls below 10%."

"Schizophrenia and other psychoses are associated with violence and violent offending, particularly homicide. However, most of the excess risk appears to be mediated by substance abuse comorbidity. The risk in these patients with comorbidity is similar to that for substance abuse without psychosis."

"News and entertainment media tend to link mental illnesses including schizophrenia to criminal violence. Most people with schizophrenia, however, are not violent toward others but are withdrawn and prefer to be left alone. Drug or alcohol abuse raises the risk of violence in people with schizophrenia, particularly if the illness is untreated, but also in people who have no mental illness." (Also has a lot of other information, such as the suicide rate in people with schizophrenia being 50 times higher than the general population.)

"There are many reasons for improving the resources and quality of care for people with a mental disorder, but there is no evidence that it is anything but stigmatising to claim that their living in the community is a dangerous experiment that should be reversed. There appears to be some case for specially focused improvement of services for people with a personality disorder and/or substance misuse." (Also has links to a bunch of different studies in a variety of countries.)

With a reminder that this is a non-random study, and thus says nothing about people who have not committed mass murder: "Thirty-four subjects, acting alone or in pairs, committed 27 mass murders between 1958 and 1999. The sample consisted of males with a median age of 17. A majority were described as “loners” and abused alcohol or drugs; almost half were bullied by others, preoccupied with violent fantasy, and violent by history. Although 23% had a documented psychiatric history, only 6% were judged to have been psychotic at the time of the mass murder. Depressive symptoms and historical antisocial behaviors were predominant. There was a precipitating event in most cases—usually a perceived failure in love or school—and most subjects made threatening statements regarding the mass murder to third parties. The majority of the sample clustered into three types: the family annihilator, the classroom avenger, and the criminal opportunist."

Link roundup of studies on mass murder. I didn't look at the studies in depth, but they appear to all be published in reputable journals.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:02 AM on December 15, 2012 [40 favorites]

"How many people do you know who regularly carry weapons have defended themselves?"

Defending yourself with a weapon isn't just about shooting an attacker, it's also about being left alone by potential attackers who know or suspect that you are armed.

"Have you ever shot anyone?" isn't a normal topic of polite conversation, so I can't definitively say whether anyone I know has done so in civilian life. (I know several people whom I can safely assume have done so as either soldiers or police officers, but again, it's not something one brings up.) Also, the defensive handgun school favored by my family spent as much time on teaching how to avoid dangerous situations and deescalate conflicts as they did on teaching us how to shoot, and most gun owners I know seem to share their philosophy that carrying a lethal weapon comes with the moral responsibility to avoid situations in which you might need it. (For example, our instructor said that most fights in bars take place between 1 and 2 AM and most fights outside of bars take place between 2 and 3 AM, so he always goes home at 12:30.)

Although no one has told me any personal stories about shooting someone in self defense, many of my friends and acquaintances have mentioned experiences in which they felt threatened and so they made their armed status known (ranging from a subtle pat of the bulge to beginning to draw) to get their potential attacker to back down long enough for them to get away. Also, just carrying a weapon affects your confidence and unconscious body language, thus making you appear less attractive as a potential target.

Personally, I had a couple of creepy dates that made me very nervous and glad to be carrying, but there's no way to really *know* in those situations if things would have gone differently if I had been unarmed. All I know is that previous experiences with men giving off similar bad "vibes" had ended badly for me because I was too afraid of them to be assertive.

Additionally, you should consider the synergy between habitual concealed carry outside the home and self defense inside the home. I know many people who have drawn their gun or audibly loaded a clip and/or chambered a round to scare off a home invader than who have ever drawn or patted their concealed weapons out on the street, and many of those people wouldn't have had their guns so close and ready if they didn't habitually load and carry them every day.

Personally, when my ex-boyfriend grabbed me and threw me to the ground inside his home (where I had been living with him), drawing my pepper spray canister might have been enough to get him to halt his immediate attack but I think him realizing that I was capable of shooting him if necessary probably helped motivate him to leave me alone long enough for me to pack and get the fuck out. If I didn't habitually carry those weapons I wouldn't have been able to reach them quickly enough to deter him from further battery.

We don't routinely carry guns because we're "paranoid freaks" who EXPECT to need a gun to defend ourselves, because we just AVOID any places, people, and situations in which we could reasonably expect need a gun. We routinely carry guns in case we are ever surprised by a need to defend ourselves when we couldn't have reasonably expected it.
posted by Jacqueline at 1:06 AM on December 15, 2012 [11 favorites]

Regarding the mental health angle: I agree that everyone should have cheap and easy access to mental health care, because it's a good thing for so many reasons. But even in countries with universal health care, mental health care is not that easy to get, and the people who need it often can't or won't get it, or they get help that doesn't work for them. People from Australia and the UK and other countries are rightfully proud of the reduction in gun sprees they've achieved through gun control, but I don't think any of us are proud of our mental health care systems.

It's a worthwhile goal, but if you think it will be easier than gun control you'll be sadly disappointed. It will take the same concerted effort across many fronts, as well as a better understanding than we have now of what mentally ill people really need. It is not the easy solution we wish it could be.
posted by harriet vane at 1:06 AM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

lupus_yonderboy:
Wanted to respond to your post because we've had good dialogue before, and because I respect you and the way your express yourself. Couple of things:

Where I live I rationally believe I have a much greater chance of dying in a car or of a heart attack than by some stranger killing me in the street. Why would any human live in a place that they perceive is so dangerous that they must carry deadly weapons with them at all times?

I cannot imagine the level of fear that it would take for me to do this. It sounds like being in a horror movie all the time.

I live in Oakland, California, and a lot of people here are carrying firearms illegally not too far from where I live. In Fruitvale, there are a lot of taco trucks where the owners mostly take cash only. That makes them a target for robbers. So a lot of the taco truck drivers carry a concealed firearm. Illegally, because carry permits in California are very difficult to get in urban areas. I've read over the applications accepted in Alameda County (released under a public records act request) and I didn't see any taco truck owners. Or many people who lived in the flat lands. Nope. Lots of rich business owners and politicians.

Sometimes, a taco truck guy shoots at people who try to rob them. Why do they do business there? Because that's where they can make money and survive. I know, people will say, well we should have better policing. We should have poverty alleviation. We should have a fairer economic system. People should trust the Oakland Police Department to handle these things.

As you know, I agree with all those things. That doesn't change the fact that people don't trust OPD (the police brutality issue has been pretty serious here), and it hasn't been too effective either at stopping these kinds of holdups. It doesn't change the fact that working class people who have to get to work on the swing shift in Oakland have to choose between risking a misdemeanor if they get caught with a concealed firearm, or getting robbed or killed in the street. That's reality here. I'm fortunate that my job doesn't require me to make those kind of choices, but some people aren't so lucky. Yeah I get it, people should move out of that situation. That's easier said than done in some cases. And seriously, why should anyone be forced to move away from their community, from their family, from their business, simply because some thugs have created a threatening environment? Isn't there something to be said for sticking it out in your home?

Americans cared so little about the Bill of Rights that they suspended about half of it over a decade ago, and no one on either side ever even considers turning it back on any more. But try to tamper with their Second Amendment, or even mention anything about "a well-organized militia," and you'll get millions of people screaming about their fundamental rights.

I've been screaming about the Constitutional rights rollback since this "War on Terror" started. It's awful and it threatens as you say, everything that is good about the United States. We've talked about it before, and I know we are in agreement about the absolutely frightening turn the US government and elites have taken. What is hard for me to understand (and I mean this with 100% sincerity) is how people who are so concerned about the ever growing scope of oligarchy and elite lawlessness, would trust those same people to have a monopoly, even a partial one, on firearms ownership? That doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

As an aside, I have seen some other comments (not yours) about the murder rate in Japan and the strict Japanese gun control laws. I've spent about a month in Japan, and have close friends there. I have the privilege to participate in what is a very old Japanese cultural tradition, taught in a post modern context, so I get to see some very old traditional attitudes, in today's context. What I can say is that modern Japan is extremely oppressive; not legally, but socially. I have deep empathy for people who live there. Japan has a much lower murder rate than the USA, around .2 per 100,000, versus the US which has around 4.7 per 100,000.

The suicide rate in Japan, on the other hand is around 26.1 per 100,000. By comparison, the US suicide rate is around 11 per 100,000. The situation in Japan is brutal and oppressive-- I would not want to live under those conditions, and I certainly do not view them as a model for what I would like America to be.

It won't change. There's always a sizable block of people for whom "The American way of life is non-negotiable". The system is completely rigid - there is no mechanism for change and any leaders who would possibly implement change are weeded out long before they reach the public eye. I really do not believe that anything significant will change until there's a collapse and I simply pray that it's a small enough collapse - that is, that it occurs soon enough before all that is of value about this country has been destroyed - that something of value will be preserved.

You know, I too am afraid of the rigidity of the system. I know we've talked a lot about that in the context of the financial sector, and I agree with you that significant change may not happen until there's a collapse. In fact, I think it's likely that significant change won't happen sufficient to avert a collapse.

In that situation, I do not want to be unarmed. I am an ethnic minority and I know exactly what happens to ethnic minorities in a collapse situation. Just look at Bosnia, or more recently, Greece. I've also hold, and have expressed personally and professionally, very anti-establishment opinions. I know what happens to people like me in a collapse situation as well.

Look, I'm under no illusion that I am going to stop a hardened (notional) hard right death squad, the mythical "12 guys with shotguns." I'd like a chance though. And at the very least, I'd like a chance to die on my feet and not on my knees.
posted by wuwei at 1:11 AM on December 15, 2012 [20 favorites]

Thanks for explaining that, Jacqueline. It's a very alien attitude to me, coming from such a different culture with respect to weaponry. I keep pepper spray by my bed, have never had to use it or even threaten to use it, and I'm considered quite extreme by the friends and family who know its there. I wonder what difference, if any, there is between crime rates where we each live.
posted by harriet vane at 1:11 AM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

I'd really rather no one shoot anybody. The right to bear arms existed for labor activists when the government was shooting at them, it's obviously not going to prevent the worst abuses of power. I was just trying to provide a more relatable example of tyranny in which the right to bear arms is relevant (it looks like wuwei just did a much better job). Crossing my fingers to avoid a labor-capital gunfight derail.
posted by polyhedron at 1:16 AM on December 15, 2012

A few people on other forums have brought up drug law reform in reply to my requests for a policy goal righty and lefty 2nd amendment supporters could get behind and make a credible difference. Oh yeah, that's the ticket.

Want to clean up the cities where businessmen and citizens feel the need to carry a gun because they fear for their lives? Drug reform is a huge step.

Put it on that list next to healthcare reform where we can't get the Republicans to play along though.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:20 AM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

The US needs to spend more money on mental health care. there is really no good argument for why we aren't. Don't let your conversations about what happened in CT end without mentioning this.

The majority of mass murderers have not been diagnosed with a mental illness prior to offending. Presuming that someone has a mental illness because they are a mass murderer is, frankly, not how the mental health system works right now and it may or may not be reasonable to alter that.

Asserting that mental health is inexorably linked to mass murder is stigmatizing to people with mental illnesses and decreases the likelihood of them seeking help as well as actively harmful to those who do seek help and then risk being ostracized for having a diagnosis and taking medication. If you really want to help people with mental illnesses, by all means join NAMI and raise awareness, but linking people with mental illnesses to mass murderers is both inaccurate and harmful.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:20 AM on December 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

Nate Silver: In Public ‘Conversation’ on Guns, a Rhetorical Shift
posted by homunculus at 1:20 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

What's frustrating beyond words is how the NRA/gun-nut contingent wants to push their very specific demands on urban populations. For example, as a former DC resident (former and literal "murder capital of the world") I was appalled that Republican congresspeole, all of whom were whtie males, pushed through a bill to allow private ownership of handguns in DC.

If you were there, you should have noticed that 52 Democrats also voted for the bill (Among them Joe Baca, a Mexican-American Democrat and Artur Davis, a black Democrat.)

Also that Marsha Blackburn was not male and neither was Candice Miller, to name two Republicans (there were others). I don't have time to go through the whole list for you.
posted by Jahaza at 1:21 AM on December 15, 2012

To clarify, by "migrants" I meant the literal definition of people who used to live in one place and had moved to another -- in this case, from one U.S. state to another. I didn't realize that some people might infer that I meant immigrants from other countries.

Is there a better word for what I meant? I thought about using "newcomers to Nevada" but that's not quite right either because many of those people may have been living in Nevada for several years but never learned about Nevada's gun laws because they didn't grow up there, didn't take their civics class there, and grew up in a state where the laws and culture are very different.

These misunderstandings had become particularly problematic for local police because ~95% of people living in the Las Vegas metro area were not originally from Nevada.
posted by Jacqueline at 1:23 AM on December 15, 2012

Sorry Jacq, It was way off base for the thread and I should not have posted it. I'm in chat if you want some more detail on how I found it problematic.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:27 AM on December 15, 2012

The US needs to spend more money on mental health care. there is really no good argument for why we aren't. Don't let your conversations about what happened in CT end without mentioning this.

I would agree with that, especially treating and helping those with paranoia, delusions of grandeur, PTSD (from living in a less connected world? military service? belonging to cults or other organizations which stress the dangers from 'the other'?), overwrought machismo, and the myriad other possible things which lead some to conclude that stacking up weapons is a sane response to extremely unlikely events. Especially as those events become, as has been shown the world over, much less likely if guns are tightly restricted.
posted by maxwelton at 1:46 AM on December 15, 2012

Couldn't sleep. Kept thinking about this tragedy. One thing that has continued to both me. Adam Lanza, the killer, his brother Ryan, erroneously initially implicated as the killer, told police he had not seen his brother since 2010. Yet, Adam lived with his mother (who Adam killed.) Two years of not coming home for a Holiday, not coming home for a weekend to do laundry or any of that? I know his parents are divorced and we (I) have not heard much about the father other than he lives in Stamford, is remarried, and works for GE Capital. For two years they never visited their father at the same time? There is something really disturbing about that. I know a lot of families have falling outs or are disfunctional, but two years without contact of a brother 4 years younger while in your early 20s seems like either Ryan was afraid of Adam or there was something else going on with the family maybe related to the fact that the guns were apparently registered to the mother. Maybe Ryan disavowed any relationship with both of them because of that?
posted by JohnnyGunn at 2:00 AM on December 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 2:06 AM on December 15, 2012

I need to do something. There's something different about this tragedy. Maybe it's the cumulative effect of all the other tragedies together with yet another. Maybe it's the kids. Maybe it was seeing the military-style gun he had. Fuck the NRA. Is there some organization that acts as a countervailing force to that group? I was thinking maybe the Brady Campaign, but it seems to spend a lot of money fundraising.

Seriously--whatever group is the equal-and-opposite force to the evil that is the NRA: I want a lifetime membership to that. What is it?
posted by professor plum with a rope at 2:25 AM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

It was only recently there was furore amongst gun rights advocates when Recoil magazine dared to print an article that mentioned in passing that the 4.6x30mm H&K MP7A1 shouldn't be in civilian hands.

The weapon is concealable under a light jacket, comes with a 40 round magazine and is light, accurate and easy to handle. More importantly the bullets will easily penetrate a NIJ IIA vest (the sort most police officers wear). Gun nuts went completely apeshit, demanding the writer of the article be sacked and that their constitutional rights should allow them to carry such a weapon. The magazine caved and the editor (also the writer of the article) ended up publicly apologising for his statement.

I mention this because this is what gun-control advocates are up against. The NRA and the manufacturers have a vested interest in saying "buy more stuff, shout down all arguments" and it is going to be an incredible uphill battle to convince gun bunnies to even begin to discuss where the line is drawn, never mind reach any sort of agreement. I am a big fan of recreational shooting and if I lived in the USA I know that I'd own several guns. I also know that I'd keep them at a gun club and not in my house.

I know the statistics regarding gun ownership and suicide/accidental death and I am not stupid enough to value possessions above the lives of my family. The ludicrous arguments I have seen on every pro-gun website drive me up the wall and it's all I can do to bite my tongue. I genuinely do not see how to even open the argument. As St Alia and others have said convincing a gun-owner to hand over what, in their mind, equates to a tool of freedom from opression and self-defence would be as difficult as telling a religious believer to give up their god.

If you track gun sales by year you will see that in the last 30 years they spike hugely, every election, due to right-wing fearmongering that certain weapons will be banned etc. There are ammunition shortages due to Obama being elected (same in 2008). It's not so much the military industrial complex in this case as the NRA-GOP-Religious Right complex. It's all tied in to a horrible, complex mindset which is absolutely resistant to external change.

I absolutely feel for your country and I really hope that one day the pro-gun lobby comes to the table to negotiate. Right now it's just not going to happen. I consider myself as pro-gun and pro-gun control and I can't understand who thinks incidents like this do not lead to the obvious conclusion that there are just too many guns available, too easily. Pro-gun culture is something that is simply not understood by a lot of liberal folks and it's this that is going to be hard to break through.

Slap*Happy's suggestions above are possibly the best and most sensible suggestions I have seen on the concept of gun control and tally almost exactly with how I would approach it. Civilians don't need 6 thirty rounds magazines on a chest rig over a ceramic plate and they don't need to own several thousand rounds of ammunition. If you want to churn through a couple of hundred rounds for fun go to a range and do it safely where the only people you can hurt are other like-minded people with the firearms to deter you.
posted by longbaugh at 2:31 AM on December 15, 2012 [24 favorites]

Earlier this year, Jill Lepore wrote an excellent piece in The New Yorker explaining that the gun lobby's current extremist stance ("cold, dead fingers" etc) dates back no further than the 1970s. Just 40 years ago, America managed these matters in a far saner way, and surely progress could be made in that direction again. All that's required is organisation and sustained effort.

You can read Lepore's full essay here. She draws on information in Adam Winkler's new book , “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, and the history lesson she provides is worth quoting:

“For most of its history, the NRA was chiefly a sporting and hunting association. To the extent that the NRA had a political arm, it opposed some gun-control measures and supported many others, lobbying for new state laws in the nineteen-twenties and thirties, which introduced waiting periods for handgun buyers and required permits for anyone wishing to carry a concealed weapon. It also supported the 1934 National Firearms Act—the first major federal gun-control legislation—and the 1938 Federal Firearms Act, which together created a licensing system for dealers and prohibitively taxed the private ownership of automatic weapons (‘machine guns’).

[…]

“In 1968, as Winkler relates, the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., gave the issue new urgency. A revised Gun Control Act banned mail-order sales, restricted the purchase of guns by certain high-risk people (e.g., those with criminal records), and prohibited the importation of military-surplus firearms. […] The NRA supported the 1968 Gun Control Act, with some qualms. Orth was quoted in American Rifleman as saying that although some elements of the legislation “appear unduly restrictive and unjustified in their application to law-abiding citizens, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

[…]

“In the nineteen-seventies, the NRA began advancing the argument that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to carry a gun, rather than the people’s right to form armed militias to provide for the common defense. Fights over rights are effective at getting out the vote. Describing gun-safety legislation as an attack on a constitutional right gave conservatives a power at the polls that, at the time, the movement lacked. Opposing gun control was also consistent with a larger anti-regulation, libertarian, and anti-government conservative agenda. […] Ronald Reagan was the first Presidential candidate whom the NRA had endorsed.”

Tragedies like Newtown encourage us to shrug our shoulders and say "yeah, but nothing will ever change". The assumption is that imposing saner gun laws would require rewriting the whole of America's history, and must therefore always be impossible. The value of Lepore's piece is that it makes it clear this simply isn't true. So much of the damage was done in the past 40 years, and if laws can move in one direction over that period, then they can also be reversed.

There are a thousand rational, reasonable Americans for every gun nut in the US, who want nothing more than the civilised public safety which every other developed nation takes for granted. Why are these people not organised into a opponent for the NRA, with many times its membership, an equally effective lobbying arm and an even louder political voice?

If politicians heard from 100 NRA members, but 1,000 gun control advocates, would that not encourage them to listen to the larger group? If corporations saw the numbers breaking down that way, wouldn't their own PR interests dictate they did the same thing?

With Obama in the White House in his final term, Newton could become the event that reverses this terrible tide. But that will happen only if the vast majority of sensible Americans keep a focus on this issue, and work to make their voice heard in Washington. The result, I'm sure, would be far from perfect - but if this isn't the point where America decides to at least make a start on fighting its gun problem, then what's it going to take?

In short, don't mourn: organise.

PS) The Onion headline that struck me most powerfully in Newton's aftermath was "Right To Own Handheld Device That Shoots Deadly Metal Pellets At High Speed Worth All Of This". Isn't that effectively what the gun lobby's saying? "Your dead kid is a price worth paying for my fun."
posted by Paul Slade at 2:34 AM on December 15, 2012 [34 favorites]

You have to wonder what they started putting in the water in the 70s. It seems like the country went mad about then.
posted by fshgrl at 2:37 AM on December 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

If politicians heard from 100 NRA members, but 1,000 gun control advocates, would that not encourage them to listen to the larger group?

Depends. If those 100 NRA members donated $50 apiece for someone to put their position across and the 1,000 gun control advocates simply write their representatives who do you think is going to be heard?

Secondarily to that, after State Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot how many representatives do you think would be in fear of similar action if they attempted to implement gun control policies*?

*I'm not saying this was the reason for the shooting but it's certainly something I would be concerned about given the tension between pro and anti-gun groups in the USA.
posted by longbaugh at 3:02 AM on December 15, 2012

Strange, it used to be deranged American gunmen killed our leaders and celebrities for notoriety. Way too many in the 20th century and even before.

I guess now that we all hate out leaders (at least half of us, regardless) they don't bother. The nutjobs seem to want to kill the people we love. I don't think the stable of assassins is that deep.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:11 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I read almost all the thread, but I've been with my kids all day. One of which started kindergarten this year.

America, I'm so very, very sorry this happened. My condolences to the family and friends of the victims.

And to the collective harmed psyche of your nation, I send hugs. Hard days ahead for all.
posted by taff at 3:19 AM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Wow. I am just absolutely terrified of America now having been given some glimpse into the way things work over there. The average, everyday person seriously totes around a hidden gun for the means of self-defense?

If anything, I would imagine that a gun would be the worst self-defense tool you could carry around, simply because it's designed to kill, or at the very least, permanently damage someone. Instantaneously. And you don't even get to decide the level of damage either, because there are just too many variables that affect whether a bullet hits say, an artery versus something less lethal. You can't adjust for the simple thief versus a serial killer. It's made to harm them permanently or kill them with no way to dial down the settings, in the way that other self-defense tools aren't.

I would be terrified if my only option against the mugger who wants my wallet and nothing more is to take his life. Because criminal or not, it is my understanding that I have no right to decide whether someone else lives or dies.

And it terrifies me to the point that I'm seriously reconsidering ever taking a vacation to America again. It feels absolutely foreign to me that just being in public means that I relinquish the right to my own life - and to complete strangers at that, any of which has complete and total say over whether I live or die.

What if I look at someone wrong, and they've been having a bad day at work that renders them particularly suspect to offense and impulse?

What if it's late at night, and I'm going the same way as some young lady in front of me, and I get judged as a rapist?

What if someone drops their wallet, and I pick it up and tap them on the shoulder to return it, and they suddenly think that I'm a pickpocket?

Suddenly, I'm dead. And suddenly, it's not only my own life gone, but that of the other person. They've got blood on their hands now; they've got to go through the justice system.

I don't understand how people in the states live with these possibilities. I would drive myself mad just by stepping on the street if I realized that I could die from the slightest misunderstanding and the slightest impulse. How, in any way, does this make anyone more secure?

If it's just for self-defense, why not pepper spray or a taser or something like that? I would prefer having to wash pepper spray out of my eyes for an hour while the person profusely apologized for the misunderstanding the entire time, than to, y'know, be dead.
posted by Conspire at 3:45 AM on December 15, 2012 [27 favorites]

What kind of pickpocket taps you on the shoulder after stealing your wallet?
posted by to sir with millipedes at 3:49 AM on December 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

Voter-ID. Talk about an imaginary problem. Why are conservatives so quick to regulate voting rights and so slow to regulate gun rights? Which one has shown more evidence of danger that necessitates harsh government regulation?
posted by Drinky Die at 3:49 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

The majority of mass murderers have not been diagnosed with a mental illness prior to offending. Presuming that someone has a mental illness because they are a mass murderer is, frankly, not how the mental health system works right now and it may or may not be reasonable to alter that.

i would say that if going off and shooting a bunch of people isn't something that fits our definition of mental illness, then our definition is lacking
posted by pyramid termite at 3:50 AM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Longbaugh said: "If those 100 NRA members donated $50 apiece for someone to put their position across and the 1,000 gun control advocates simply write their representatives who do you think is going to be heard?"

Why do you assume the gun control advocates couldn't be making donations too? After all, given the relative numbers, a very small per-head donation would be enough to match the NRA's contribution and more. And why wouldn't a big corporation want to get behind a burgeoning gun control movement with a hefty cash donation they could publicise as a sign of how much they cared about America's kids?

My argument is that the gun control movement could - and should - be doing everything the NRA does, but doing even more of it. It would take organisation and sustained effort, yes, but that's precisely the point I made above.

Knee-jerk cynicism is too easy. We assume nothing can be done, therefore we don't even try, therefore nothing does get done, therefore we decide our first assumption was correct and the cycle continues. It's the flip-side of that Onion headline: "Your dead kids are a price worth paying for me being able to stay sat on my ass."
posted by Paul Slade at 3:51 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Well, that's the thing, to sir with millipedes. The one issue I have with placing my life in the hands of total strangers is that I don't know how they think, and I don't know how they'll react on a split-second's judgement.

But all a gun requires IS a split-second's judgement.
posted by Conspire at 3:52 AM on December 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

The average, everyday person seriously totes around a hidden gun for the means of self-defense?

the vast majority of us never do

i have only seen two gun incidents in my entire life - first, when i was working at a motel and got robbed at gunpoint

second, when i was working at a convenience store and a couple of teenagers were shot across the street, not seriously

that's what i've seen in 55 years and i probably would have seen neither if i hadn't been working night shift at public businesses

for the record, i don't believe a gun would have helped me a bit in either situation - in fact, i'm sure in the robbery, having a gun and trying to use it would have just gotten me killed
posted by pyramid termite at 3:57 AM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Comment deleted. Difficult thread, I understand, but do not make personal attacks against other members. Thanks.
posted by taz (staff) at 4:06 AM on December 15, 2012

I am just absolutely terrified of America now having been given some glimpse into the way things work over there.[...]I don't understand how people in the states live with these possibilities. I would drive myself mad just by stepping on the street if I realized that I could die from the slightest misunderstanding and the slightest impulse.

Your set of fantasies about America is so filled with mischaraterization as to be offensive. You are not at all likely to die here over "the slightest misunderstanding," or, indeed, over a large misunderstanding either. You, frankly, don't seem to be engaging in the reality of things in good faith. But I wouldn't want to get in the way of your chance to spout reflexive anti-American drivel. For which, thanks by the way, it was just the perfect kind of comment for the kind of tragedy we are confronting. I hope I can be of similar support to you at some point.
posted by OmieWise at 4:14 AM on December 15, 2012 [9 favorites]

Is the NRA controlling this thread?
posted by telstar at 4:22 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Nope.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:24 AM on December 15, 2012

Why do you assume the gun control advocates couldn't be making donations too? After all, given the relative numbers, a very small per-head donation would be enough to match the NRA's contribution and more.

I assume that because as it stands at this time, that's how it is. I would love for it to change.

My argument is that the gun control movement could - and should - be doing everything the NRA does, but doing even more of it. It would take organisation and sustained effort, yes, but that's precisely the point I made above.

I couldn't agree more. I fully support this as simply enough money = access and right now the NRA has this in spades. When the gun-control supporters outspend the gun-rights supporters is when you may start to see some effort at law making.

This will not, ultimately, change the point of views of individual guns owners who range from normal folks who enjoy target shooting to full on paranoid idiots with a military fetish and a lack of understanding of their own capabilities.

Thousands of Americans spend tens of thousands of dollars attended special training classes with professional ex-military trainers and believe that by doing so they increase their chances of foiling a terrorist plot or taking down a crazed gunman but it's utterly delusional. Real life often has a way of showing people that 20 hours of training is insufficient for the prevention of accidents.

As an example of this look to how much driver's ed most people receive and compare this to the number of accidents on the roads. Of course everyone always says "I am a good driver/shooter and I will never crash/negligently discharge a firearm". Well and good but not every accident is caused by the user. I would not be surprised to see civilians with concealed carry permits end up shooting one another in the confusion of a real live shooting event. The idea of arming teachers and expecting them to find the time to practice and develop skills is totally off the wall. What if that teacher is a 60 year old woman* and some kid in the class decides to overpower her and get the gun? Congrats - you have just made it easier for a gun to get in the wrong hands.

I've punched paper with many different firearms in my time and I am, in my own opinion, a good shot and a very safe and sensible user. I can easily group 2" at 25yds with a handgun on a range. Could I draw a concealed firearm, make the weapon ready, identify and engage a target accurately and successfully amongst a group of civilians whilst panic and chaos ensues? I very much doubt it. I think I am in the minority with that realistic opinion of my skills and certainly amongst gun bunnies I have spoken to I find the confidence level most users exhibit to be well out of whack with how they would perform if shit got real.

*Not meaning to be ageist or sexist here.
posted by longbaugh at 4:25 AM on December 15, 2012 [18 favorites]

Personally, when I carried a gun every day I also carried pepper spray and two pocketknives. I also trained in unarmed self defense. So while I'm prepared to kill to defend myself, I'm also prepared to use non-lethal force when the latter would be sufficient to keep me safe.

I can't speak on behalf of all defensive handgun classes out there, but the ones I took spent as much time on teaching us how to avoid violent crime and deescalate hostile situations as they spent on teaching us how to shoot. The company also taught a spectrum of self defense classes (including unarmed, pepper spray, and knives in addition to their gun classes) and emphasized responding to different types of attacks with an appropriate amount of force (with "run away" being the first choice response).

It varies from state to state, but in general you have to have a reasonable fear of being killed or irreparably harmed to legally use lethal force in self defense. So a law-abiding citizen carrying a concealed gun is not going to shoot you over being offended, nervous, or suspecting you to be a thief. Even in situations in which one could legally shoot in self defense -- e.g., being mugged at knife- or gun-point -- every self-defense class I've taken has recommended just throwing your wallet/purse on the ground and running away as the preferred alternative to drawing your gun.

If you are worried about people with hair-trigger fuses blowing you away for stupid reasons that would never hold up in court then you shouldn't be worried about those of us who have gotten trained and licensed to carry concealed, you should instead be worried about the people who don't give a damn about the law and thus will carry guns regardless of whether it's legal.
posted by Jacqueline at 4:36 AM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Personally, when I carried a gun every day I also carried pepper spray and two pocketknives. I also trained in unarmed self defense.

Holy crap. Was this in a first world country?
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:49 AM on December 15, 2012 [34 favorites]

Just to clarify one thing: the term IDIOT addressed towards those who are ready to prefer the illusory individual safety provided by gun ownership to the proven collective safety provided by sane (and by "sane" I mean extremely strict) gun control measures, and this despite comprehensive statistical evidence that owning a gun is actually far more dangerous that not owning one, is not a "personal attack", only a statement of fact.
As for the epithet BLOODY, it seems more than appropriate on the day after an elementary school teacher and scores of her pupils were killed by the very same guns that she probably kept for her "safety".
posted by Skeptic at 4:54 AM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Jacqueline, it's anecdotal so you're welcome to disregard it but I know of at least two instances amongst my immediate friends where a bit of verbal has escalated to legal firearms being pulled (a handgun in one incident and a lever action from a gun rack in truck in another. That necessitated someone walking out of a bar, unlocking their truck door and their rifle rack, loading and returning to the scene of the dispute).

Guns make killing without thinking easier and that is the problem. All it takes is letting down one's guard be it through alchohol, depression, anger or any other emotion that clouds judgement and you have increased the chance of one person's actions immediately and definitively ending someone's life. Knife wounds are statistically less likely to kill you. How many knife victims survive a couple of dozen stab wounds? How many people survive a similar number of bullets?

Everyone always thinks they are a special case and won't screw up. You may have seen the video of the DEA agent in the school demonstrating safe weapon handling. Can you imagine he thought he would ND himself in front of a class of kids whilst being recorded? Can you say without hesitation that you could end a human life if you needed to without making a mistake because one of the first things my self defence teacher said to me is "If you can say 'Yes' to that question and not 'I don't know' I don't want you in my class".
posted by longbaugh at 4:57 AM on December 15, 2012 [20 favorites]

you shouldn't be worried about those of us who have gotten trained and licensed to carry concealed, you should instead be worried about the people who don't give a damn about the law and thus will carry guns regardless of whether it's legal.

I can worry about both at the same time!
posted by Miko at 4:59 AM on December 15, 2012 [35 favorites]

you shouldn't be worried about those of us who have gotten trained and licensed to carry concealed

Thanks and all, but your assurances do not entirely assuage my concerns. Not to mention that the guns belonging to you "trained and licensed" folks will always have the potential to fall into the hands of say, people who want to go shoot up a kindergarten. That's what happened in Connecticut.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:59 AM on December 15, 2012 [16 favorites]

Miko: jinx!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:00 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

If you are worried about people with hair-trigger fuses blowing you away for stupid reasons that would never hold up in court then you shouldn't be worried about those of us who have gotten trained and licensed to carry concealed, you should instead be worried about the people who don't give a damn about the law and thus will carry guns regardless of whether it's legal.

I'll worry about both, thank you.

A few years ago I was standing in line at the grocery store behind some idiot practicing open carry. While waiting in line, he grew more and more impatient about how slow things were moving, and even when it was his turn, he continued to berate the poor cashier and dispute every single charge with his handgun purposefully holstered in full view. The situation was so intense, I almost ran away, and the kid at the register was visibly shaking, even after the guy had collected his things and departed for the store exit.

As long as gun culture empowers jerks like this and easily arms them, I'll be for absolute gun control.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:00 AM on December 15, 2012 [23 favorites]

Spitbull - relatively good points although I would point out that most people would find it significantly more difficult to shoot a human than an animal, regardless of whether they were a hunter or not.
posted by fearnothing at 5:16 AM on December 15, 2012

I live in a rural hunting community. My husband and all his friends own guns to take to the range and hunt. I don't mind the rifle as much, but I don't like the fact that he conceal carries a pistol. For him, a big part of it is *feeling* like they'll be able to protect someone in some kind of emergency. A probably bigger reason he feels so strongly about it is that it's something that he and his friends do together - go to the range on their day off. It's something that they can connect over, the same way that my friends and I all get together and talk about our babies and nursing and diapers. I maybe/kind of understand this. I think he handles them safely. I would be much happier if all the guns just lived at the range, a la what slap*happy suggested. Honestly, I'm not sure what to do about it, because this is pretty much the one thing he's interested in after his 80 hr work weeks. He also cried after he heard about the shooting, but he thinks that gun ownership is the answer. His heart is in the right place, but I think it's misguided. I agree with spitbull - I don't think he would actually be able to shoot someone effectively if it came to that. So, I honestly don't know what to do about this. I might be able to convince him to sell his gun, maybe just use his friends' when they go to the range...

but I guess the reason I'm (very soberly) posting this is to make the point that in some communities there's a lot of social pressure for gun ownership/carry that's really hard to buck (no pun intended).
posted by marylucycraft at 5:17 AM on December 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

The second amendment is always going to trump gun bans in this country. We have to repeal or refine it. In doing so, it might be helpful to think of ways to open an actual dialogue with right wingers. Use a question like How would you strengthen or change the second amendment if you could rewrite it today? This would give us the opportunity to get people to rethink thinks without polarizing the issue from the get go.

Remember always that when you are talking about this issue half the people you are talking to are going to think you are taking away their rights. Either the collectivists are going to think you are talking about taking away their right to be safe from guns, or the individualists are going to think you are talking about taking away their right to protect themselves. Can't we just re-frame the issue as one where we talk about how to define both of those rights in a positive way?

This was a sickening tragedy, the worst I can think of in this country since the Bath School disaster. My heart breaks for the grieving families. I admire the passion of those who are fighting to try and find a solution that makes sense of this. I don't think there are any easy answers, but my thanks to those who care enough to try.
posted by BrotherCaine at 5:21 AM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

...you shouldn't be worried about those of us who have gotten trained and licensed...

I mentioned this before but I want to emphasize it again. Your training is absolutely, no matter how much you value it, insufficient for reality. I drive a pretty decent mileage annually, have driven for 19 years and have weathered several frightening incidents on the road and survived. Despite this, every time I get in my car and go on the roads I assume by default that everyone is shit at driving and is not paying attention to what is going on around them.

I do not assume that my training will be sufficient to avoid an accident. I have in the past avoided hitting the car in front of me during a multi-vehicle motorway pileup only for some dipstick to plough into the back of my car still doing >40mph. Were they not paying proper attention? Was their "tool" not well maintained? Were conditions bad? Doesn't really matter. It still happened.

In other words, the statement that you have sufficient training to be safe is meaningless. An individual may have several hundred hours behind the wheel and when they hit snow, rain, a sharp turn or some other out of the ordinary situation that training goes right out the window. The same holds true of firearm training.

Nobody can promise that they won't fuck up at some point and to pretend you are a special case is delusional. This fetishisation of the warrior/warfighter/cowboy mythos is one of the most painfully stupid things I see amongst fellow firearm enthusiasts and will be amongst the hardest things to change should both parties agree to come to the table.
posted by longbaugh at 5:21 AM on December 15, 2012 [76 favorites]

if you have never pointed a gun at a living being and pulled the trigger, as hunters must do regularly, you have no idea how you will act in the first moment you are confronted with a life or death decision to shoot.

Quite true. In addition, adding more guns to the situation may increase the likelihood of more casualties. I don't feel safer with the idea that some vigilante in a convenience store with me when it gets robbed will try to take out the robber. More bullets will fly than otherwise would, putting more bystanders at risk, and the escalation factor is intense.

As veterans know, even soldiers in wartime situations - doing the type of killing they have been highly trained for and that society generally considers the most supportable - often cheat their fire in an attempt to avoid killing anyone. Over the course of the century's conflicts, military has actually had to redevelop training to try to reduce this human tendency.

a big part of it is *feeling* like they'll be able to protect someone in some kind of emergency

Yeah, but this is an emotionally driven fantasy and not a rationally derived position. There's no data showing this has results, which is my biggest issue with the daily heat-packers.
posted by Miko at 5:25 AM on December 15, 2012 [11 favorites]

Miko, I know. But that's the problem - that it is emotional. That means that I can't argue him out of it. :(
posted by marylucycraft at 5:29 AM on December 15, 2012

We have to repeal or refine it.

I don't think there's really anything wrong with it. We just need to pay more attention to the "well regulated" part.

It's frustrating that it was designed to set up a system of national defense that is ridiculously outdated. But the right to "keep and bear arms" can be regulated, as it is in Australia, and still result in a dramatic drop in gun deaths. WE also don't have to indulge in this goofy and childis gun culture of gun shows, hero and self-defense fantasies, and the idea that guns represent only a solution to problems without bringing with them a serious risk of creating and exacerbating problems. Those things don't flow from the 2nd amendment; they're cultural.
posted by Miko at 5:29 AM on December 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

That means that I can't argue him out of it.

I get it. But the data isn't there, so at the least, people like him shouldn't expect to hold forth and not be challenged on their fallacies.
posted by Miko at 5:33 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

This link by Steve Weldon, a good photographer but apparently lacking as a human, might have easily already been added. Arm the teachers. Yeah, right. It's all about having enough guns in the right hands all the time. Idiotic.

I can't say how much I disagree with his assumptions. And this sort of attitude is very much why I've given up on Luminous Landscape as a reasonable place to discuss photography. It's mostly full of old, privileged white men.

Here's an idea. Have every young adult reaching majority shoot another person, fatally injuring them. Then require them to comfort the victim until they die. Only then can they qualify to carry a gun. The absurdity of what's happening in the US is sickening.
posted by michswiss at 5:33 AM on December 15, 2012

When I worked at Tandy Corp many years ago, we worked with a children's advocacy group to put free gun safety brochures in all Radio Shack stores. Not gun control brochures, but common sense safety guidelines like keeping guns locked up at home, etc... We got a letter from Wayne LaPierre, then head of the NRA threatening a national boycott of Radio Shack. And that my friends is why you've never seen a gun safety brochure in a Radio Shack.
posted by punkfloyd at 5:43 AM on December 15, 2012 [32 favorites]

I was puttering around in the kitchen this morning and I had Colbert on in the background, and I hear him introduce Sean Lennon, Jeff Tweedy, Mavis Staples, and the Harlem Gospel Choir who begin to sing Happy Xmas (War is Over). And when Sean starts to sing, I think for a minute it's his Dad, and it snaps me out of my puttering, and I watch Sean, and I start to weep.

I don't want to take anyone's gun away, but I still fucking hate them, and I grieve for what we have lost. He should have had more time with his dad, and all those CT families should have had more time with their children.

And so happy Christmas we hope you have fun
The near and the dear ones, the old and the young.
A very merry Christmas and a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one without any fear.
War is over if you want it, war is over now.

posted by Toekneesan at 5:46 AM on December 15, 2012 [13 favorites]

I don't think there's really anything wrong with it. We just need to pay more attention to the "well regulated" part.

That's exactly what's wrong with it. It's open to being interpreted as either an individual right the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed(affirmed in the Heller decision) or a collective right (Silveira v. Lockyer) by those who think the prefactory clause modifies the operating clause (which is not a useful position in light of the SCOTUS decision).

Basically, the well regulated is pretty much thrown out at this point.
posted by BrotherCaine at 5:51 AM on December 15, 2012

...honestly, the case for national service/military draft involving mandatory (for all but conscientious objectors) gun training and under-fire exercises strikes me as a good idea for all kinds of reasons. I hate war, but I favor the draft because I hate war and believe that if making discretionary war came at a cost to a broader segment of society there'd be less of that...

I think this also plays into the extreme pro-military fetishisation thing in the USA (nowhere near as pronounced anywhere else in the world I might add) where civilians purchase several thousand dollars worth of milspec kit so they can go play pretend that they are CPO Badass McGinty of DEVGRU, chasing down tangos in the desert.

It's a stupid, unhealthy fantasy that many people inhabit and this explains why every gun magazine nowadays features an AR with several hundred dollars worth of optics, lights, suppressors etc. I keep thinking of the documentary "Restrepo" where the happy-go-lucky youths slowly become psychologically damaged by the deaths of their friends around them. I sincerely doubt their experiences lend them much sympathy to the tactical tourist running around in $10,000 of self-bought kit on the weekend.

My idea of being pro-military is to support a well funded VA with psychiatric services and job training opportunities to allow those who have bravely served the chance to rejoin civilian life successfully.
posted by longbaugh at 6:07 AM on December 15, 2012 [32 favorites]

Sorry should have quoted from the wikipedia article section on the decision [I made what I thought was most relevant bold]:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

So the fat lady has sung at least until the balance of the court shifts. Personally I would way rather see a rewriting of the second amendment than a continual battle over this, especially since I think the collective right position on the second amendment has pretty much always been wrong (from a legal rather than moral perspective). In any case I think it's poor tactics to fight for gun control from the position that the second amendment can be ignored, and the best way to repeal or redefine it is to get a conservative to spearhead the effort and engage in compromise to get it through.

It also makes me uneasy to see people stomping all over the constitution. If we ignore the bits we find unpalatable without some kind of formal process do we make it easier to expand on that precedent in the future? Are the erosions of non-enumerated rights, free speech rights, and gun rights in part responsible for further erosions like the patriot act? I'm guessing not given the history of Japanese internment, etc... but I'm still sort of squeamish about it.
posted by BrotherCaine at 6:12 AM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Bill Maher: "Sorry but prayers and giving your kids hugs fix nothing; only having the balls to stand up to our insane selfish gun culture will."
posted by porn in the woods at 6:17 AM on December 15, 2012 [12 favorites]

snickerdoodle: ""Don't own guns because your son might kill you and steal them and use them to kill children" is not really the foundation of any kind of rational public policy.

Why not? If I give my car keys to a drunk driver, that's negligent. Why the hell can't people who leave guns where mentally unstable people can get them be charged with negligent homicide?"

Data point: after a ruthless jerk killed 16 people and wounded 11 in the German town of Winnenden with guns taken from his father's collection, the father was convicted on 15 counts of negligent homicide and 13 counts of negligent battery.
posted by brokkr at 6:17 AM on December 15, 2012 [12 favorites]

I know this is hyperbole, but honestly, the case for national service/military draft involving mandatory (for all but conscientious objectors) gun training and under-fire exercises strikes me as a good idea for all kinds of reasons.

Ah, someone else who thinks he knows what's best for everyone. In this regard, I think we are amazingly, incredibly opposed. Really, the thought infuriates me.
posted by JHarris at 6:21 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

A few things I'm wondering about that may or may not be helpful:

1. I'm dumbfounded by these pictures of like 25 paramilitary police officers standing around in full body armor with assault rifles. How long did it take to get those guys together, get them suited up, and shipped out in their tank or whatever? It seems like many of these situations are ended the minute that a single cop can make contact with the shooter and put some pressure on him (that was true at Columbine and I think in a few others, maybe Va Tech?). I will be very interested to see how much time passed before any LEO went into the building.

2. High-capacity clips and magazines seem like the low-hanging fruit that Congress could (and should) make illegal with fast action. There is literally no purpose to these things other than to kill many many people quickly. Nobody legitimately hunts with them (I believe they are against hunting rules in most places) and there is no realistic self-defense scenario where you need to fire 100 bullets (or even 20 or 30 bullets) without changing a clip. The guy in the Colorado shooting had one of these things. I think we need to get away from looking for laws that will fix every aspect of the gun problem and just start hitting things like high-capacity magazines with very targeted action. Laws against specific products or product features do not need to solve every aspect of a given problem -- i.e., specific fire code rules do not solve all fires. Getting some very targeted laws passed I think would make a big difference in showing that guns can and should be subject to new federal legislation, which seems currently to be some kind of impossible dream.
posted by Mid at 6:22 AM on December 15, 2012 [9 favorites]

Start here.

Let's make the next 100 comments here a show of hands.
posted by Ardiril

(remember I'm talking to a pretty right-wing Republican here)

Dear Senator Cornin,
As a voting citizen I would like to have my voice heard on the issue of firearm regulation. I believe it is long since past the time when America needs to find common-sense ways to lessen firearm deaths. The number of Americans who die as a result of gun violence is absolutely unacceptable. It is a national health crisis and I urge you to review the Center for Desease Control's exhaustive statistics regarding gun deaths and injuries. They are both sobering and damning of our inaction. I support the right of responsible citizens to own firearms, but strongly belevie that common-sense regulations that could demonstrably lessen firearm deaths must be implemented as rapidly as possible. Lives are at stake.

Thank you for your time,
Chris Vreeland.
posted by Devils Rancher at 6:24 AM on December 15, 2012 [11 favorites]

All that for what?

.
posted by stormpooper at 6:25 AM on December 15, 2012

only having the balls to stand up to our insane selfish gun culture will.

But what does that mean? I'm not being rhetorical, I want to be specific. Does "our insane selfish gun culture" include first-person shooter games? If so, then I will stand up to that. I don't understand the fun in spending an afternoon shooting fake people in the face; I think it's poisoning. Guns are purposeful and I don't want to restrict people's access to them; I just want people to know what guns are for - to kill things, including people. And I don't find that "fun". And like with guns, I don't want first-person shooter games outlawed or restricted. I want them to be entirely unpopular and uncool and nobody with any decency or self-respect would buy them.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:27 AM on December 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

America, we can do better.
posted by tommasz at 6:29 AM on December 15, 2012

For those of you in Michigan, where Snyder is about to sign a law that relaxes the concealed carry law, here is the contact page to encourage him, in light of this event, to reconsider signing the legislation. I suspect he might also appreciate the opinions of those that travel to Michigan, attend football games here, come over from Windsor to see a baseball game, or those that have family here... He would really like to know how you feel about guns in day care centers.
posted by HuronBob at 6:40 AM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

roboton666: The only way I can feel this is by watching Obama's press conference this afternoon.

This.

I have an 8 year old. I have a niece (two of them actually, both that I see every day and that might as well be my own daughters) that is a kindergartener. Every day I'm lucky enough to drive just a couple minutes from home and drop my boy off from school. And every day, because I'm an overly sentimental sap when it comes to my son, to whom I'm grateful nearly every single second of every day for literally saving my life with his birth, I stare at him as he enters the school. He walks up the sidewalk into the grade school I too attended, housing about 300 pre-k through 6th graders, and I memorize that boy's walk. I note his little coat and his StL Cardinals backpack. I note the way he saunters with his little boy walk and I try to commit his messy coif and whatever toy he decided to drag to school that day in his hands to my memory. Nearly every day after he's departed our car, I nearly cry. I don't know why I do any of this other than I love him so damn much...

I sat all day at work yesterday with the newscast in real time playing in the background and fought tears because my god, America. Because my god, it was just a tiny school full of tiny humans and even though I fought the urge to make it about me, my god, that could have been my son's school. That could have been my niece's classroom. I can't even...

And then I watched the President and I felt okay about crying right there at my desk. He too was thinking my god, those children and those teachers. Just a tiny school. He seemed to be right where I was in terms of realizing that it was impossible to even comprehend this. I imagine that at some point he too thought about his own little girls walking into school and maybe at some point, like most parents I'm sure, he too committed that little seemingly meaningless scene down in his memory.

Even the President, who I find to be a very nuanced, intelligent, rational person, couldn't comprehend this just as I couldn't.

.

**

I watched the news at home all night with my son around and I probably shouldn't have but even 8 year olds should know that this is America now, I think. This wasn't a one off incident, this is now our reality, until (if ever) we decide to stand up and stop this madness. I took the advice of Mr. Rogers mother and told my son to "always look for the helpers". He watched hours of television with me yesterday, broadcasts filled with horror and unspeakable tragedy and commented that he knew kids that age. In the end, as I put him to bed last night, I asked him if he felt okay and that if maybe seeing all that had upset him, as I started to doubt my decision to expose him to that. His takeaway? He was proud of the 6 year old that burst out a classroom side door and helped some of his friends to safety, standing there waiting for all of them to exit before running himself. Bravery, my son said. And he was glad to know that somewhere, in a locked bathroom full of small students and a scared to death teacher, there was a little boy who thought (just as my son sometimes does, without any doubt) that he was a ninja and could take out the bad guys with his ninja skills.

My takeaway? Sometimes America is a mess. As a grown up, when these things happen, my brain goes to a place that tells me this country might just be a rotting cesspool and that if we don't value human life more than we do a fucking piece of metal, I should just up and move to an uninhabited island to save the little boy I'm charged with caring for from this bullshit and tragedy. And then I listen to that little boy and he reminds me, just as Fred's mother did for him, that in this country there are helpers, too. This is awful, so awful that nearly no one has the proper words because really, how can one have the words, but here there are helpers, too. If there is a God, may he bless them with serenity.
posted by youandiandaflame at 6:41 AM on December 15, 2012 [34 favorites]

It's amazing to me on several levels that this well-moderated board in so many respects has a giant blind spot to the egregious, ludicrous strawmen of subsistence hunting in a thread on gun control.

Or that a personal firearm may have prevented a rape.

Guns in America are a problem in search of a solution. If America wants to talk about crippling mental illness, here's one to chew on: Your personal mythology is not a reality.
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 6:45 AM on December 15, 2012 [31 favorites]

If my little town ever has an event like this, I hope, for everyone's sake, the second thing they do in response is put up a blockade that keeps the damn media out...
posted by HuronBob at 6:48 AM on December 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

With any gun-control legislation it is worth keeping in mind that there will be abuses of whatever wording is chosen. In California for example it is not legal to have an AR-15 style rifle.

The law specifically states that a weapon cannot have a pistol grip and adjustable stock with a >10 round magazine and a quick and easy to use magazine release. This law was specifically designed to prevent people using AR style rifles for spree killing. Along comes some "clever" soul with this, essentially designed to completely bypass the law.

Because it has no AR-style pistol grip and adjustable stock you can have a quick magazine release and by purchasing pre-ban 30 round magazines you have totally skirted the law. This flagrant abuse of the spirit of the law is frankly exactly what I expect from the firearms market. "Hellfire" trigger sets and "bump-fire" stocks bypass the whole semi/fully automatic weapons issue and every word of every law is scrutinised to allow manufacturers to keep on selling weapons that allow killers to claim multiple victims.

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone owning or using any hand-held firearm if the circumstances are right. If you want a WWI water-cooled Maxim machinegun then bully for you. You can buy it and own it and you can even shoot it at a controlled location. If you want to fire a submachinegun legally then cool. It's an awesome experience and genuinely great fun to do. So long as it is at a range. If, on the other hand, you think concealed carry in public is anything other than dangerous to yourself and bystanders, think again. You're not Larry Vickers and for every bullet that misses you risk killing or injuring another person. You don't want the emotional and financial trouble that will cause.
posted by longbaugh at 6:49 AM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

I wonder how many of those who argue they need guns for "self-defence", consider themselves as Christians, and what they would think of somebody who, in a far more legitimate situation of self-defence than they are likely to ever find themselves, said:
"He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."
posted by Skeptic at 6:50 AM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

"Sorry but prayers and giving your kids hugs fix nothing; only having the balls to stand up to our insane selfish gun culture will."

I love Bill Maher, but prayers and hugs do fix something -- they help to soothe the pain. I don't know, I'm very anti-gun, but I spent much of yesterday just crying over this tragedy and not really ready to talk about policy implications yet. (And I barely know anyone remotely connected with Newtown. What the actual residents feel, what the parents of these children feel, is too horrible for me to comprehend.)

I saw a lot of comments yesterday (mostly on my FB, not here on MetaFilter thankfully) that were extraordinarily insensitive to the fact that many people are experiencing grief over this. I think this is a mistake for those of us who want change to happen. We need to advocate for that change in a compassionate way. I know we think we're advocating for compassion itself by arguing for less gun violence, and hell, I think we're right about that. But in the immediate wake of a tragedy, we need to think twice about HOW we're saying what we're saying.

Give people room to pray and hug for a little while, at least.

(I know, I know, our national attention span is so short that we have to speak up before people forget about this, and that pretty much destroys my entire argument. Oh well.)
posted by Carmelita Spats at 6:57 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

.
posted by Neneh at 6:59 AM on December 15, 2012

It's amazing to me on several levels that this well-moderated board in so many respects has a giant blind spot to the egregious, ludicrous strawmen of subsistence hunting in a thread on gun control.

I just went back and checked the mentions of subsistence hunting. There's a point to be made that a tiny subset of the US population, seemingly all of whom live in Alaska, rely on subsistence hunting, so if we try to reduce personal gun ownership drastically, we have to take these people into account. (Screw sport hunters though, even if they moan about how they eat what they kill.) But, as was pointed out way earlier, this is a solved problem from the perspective of gun control laws, in that other countries with people subsistence hunting in the Arctic have much more robust firearms legislation. (Stereotyping would suggest Russia has lax gun control laws (or poor enforcement), but no matter what they have drastically fewer guns per capita than anyone else bordering the Arctic. The US has drastically more. Norway, Sweden, Finland and Canada are all about the same.)
posted by hoyland at 7:00 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

it just speaks to incredible illness.

So does this illness come from the top and go back to the takeover of the land from who was 'common law owner by possession' via guns and germs.

The nation was founded upon violence from guns.

When the leader went to go and pick up a peace prize - what was the topic of the acceptance speech?

No one, let alone an 8-year-old, should have to go through that.

Seeing those around you shot and in that din - your own life threatened? Is that the that you are speaking of?

Is leadership leading by example and not going around doing the same to other human beings on the planet?

How about this framing:
Seeing those around you shot and in that din - your own life threatened by a fellow human being?

Now HERE is where there is leadership in America - the plan seems to be to use robots with guns to do the threatening and killing.

Here is something else for ya'll to think about in the "leading by example" framing.

How many of you remember how TASERS were to be used as the alternative to deadly force in policing?
Yet the videos of handcuffed people getting TASERed show the mindset of some of those who are 'leaders' or are there to 'protect and serve' is to think "Oh hey - I could user my gun and its deadly force but instead I'll use the taser because that is the authorised alternative".

So I'm here to call for leadership from the top not by proclamation but by action.

Leadership lead by example. Show you can solve problems and address issues without violence.

(and those of you concerned about this issue, have you considered visiting your local Friends meeting house?)
posted by rough ashlar at 7:01 AM on December 15, 2012

It's amazing to me on several levels that this well-moderated board in so many respects has a giant blind spot to the egregious, ludicrous strawmen of subsistence hunting in a thread on gun control.

so that's why all those people i work with take vacations in the fall for - to hunt strawmen

and to think i believed they were hunting deer - why some of them have shown me obviously fake photographs - hell, one of them even put a dead deer in the back of his pickup to fool me

i'm so gullable

well, perhaps you'd say that they don't really NEED to do that - but then, i don't know who made you the judge of what people need to do

hunting with guns is part of our culture and it's not going away
posted by pyramid termite at 7:03 AM on December 15, 2012

I wonder how many of those who argue they need guns for "self-defence", consider themselves as.........

I wonder whether those who argue they need guns as "self-defence" are displaying just plain selfishness laced with arrogance and a large measure of fallacious logic.

I would like to see the percentages of those people who truly have been in situations where a gun was necessary to ensure their safety as opposed to an argument of what might happen if they did not have a gun.

I would say more, but that pie I have baking in the sky is just about done.
posted by lampshade at 7:05 AM on December 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

NBC is reporting this morning that the mother was not a staff member of the school, and that the school did have a security system, but that Adam Lanza shot his way in.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:07 AM on December 15, 2012

............................
posted by FrauMaschine at 7:10 AM on December 15, 2012

This is by no means universal. I'm in the U.S., and I don't know anyone who carries a concealed handgun (and yes, I too find it terrifying that "ordinary" people think it's ordinary).

Seconding this. I don't know anyone who carries a gun. I have a few relatives who have guns for hunting. Beyond that, I only know of one friend who keeps a gun at home for self defense. Now maybe others do and I just don't know it.

I find the idea of people walking around with guns in malls and restaurants and workplaces pretty terrifying too.
posted by madamjujujive at 7:18 AM on December 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

Show me a country that hasn't made concessions to rightfully subsistence, or sport hunters. One country. Tell me about how you hunt deer with your glock, since that was the best and most economical way to do it, since you're so dang down on your luck.

I know tons of "hunters." They own dozens of guns, rifles, shotguns, AR-15 kits. Thousands of dollars of ammo. Concealed carry permits, classes, NRA bumper stickers.

It's a hobby. It's a persona. It's a personal mythology. It's bullshit. They haven't killed to eat for decades. That's the average NRA life member.

It has nothing to do with putting food on the table.

But this argument that there are poor people in this country who need to literally break the law by shooting deer in their own yard (discharge in an inhabited area), out of season (self explanatory), without a permit (third charge), butcher it themselves (granted, this is sometimes exempted), and store it.

And somehow all of this is magically ok and never prosecuted because the local sherriff loves poor people. This is your ideal scenario and that's why we can't ever have any gun control legislation.

That's ludicrous; and more to the point anybody offering that argument up seriously should be ashamed of their mental faculties, because that kind of propaganda is offensive and I hope you got something nice with that lobbying check.
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 7:19 AM on December 15, 2012 [18 favorites]

The police chief in Newtown just said there is evidence in the home that provides motive, but he isn't obviously at liberty to talk about it now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:21 AM on December 15, 2012

Anyone think an age of majority for handgun ownership would be worth exploring?

Say, 25 years old to apply? At that point they can be required to take classes and be thoroughly vetted in a background check.

In Connecticut, the law prohibits transfer handguns to minors under age 21, except as authorized at firing or shooting ranges. Reportedly, the shooter was 20.

While a minimum age didn't prevent this tragedy, it doesn't mean it's not a good idea to have one.
posted by radwolf76 at 7:21 AM on December 15, 2012

I know tons of "hunters."

so do i - and none of them fit the "ludicrous" description you've given them

they go out, with ordinary hunting rifles, get a deer or two, and yes, they eat the meat

i see nothing wrong with it

my mental facilities are good enough to distinguish what i see in the town around me and what i hear from ill-informed, prejudiced people with an axe to grind
posted by pyramid termite at 7:34 AM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Just found out a college friend lost her little cousin yesterday in Newtown.

My opinions are:

1) If you are going to try to tell me a concealed carry would have saved their life, fuck you. More guns in a chaotic situation are not something I think will save lives. For every mass shooting they have prevented (have they?) there would be more they have not. Stop projecting how you could become a hero, finally getting the love and attention you are denied through your everyday life.

2) If this guy didn't have a gun, he might have done something as horrible with other means (see Bath School Disaster) but that would have taken more time, planning, and left more possibilities for discovery.

3) The more difficult it is to have a gun, the better. It is a privilege, and yes you are kicking and screaming because someone is taking something away you feel entitled to, but the writers of the constitution weren't right on everything. See 14th amendment, women's suffrage, and so on.

4) The media circus around this is going to probably cause a copy cat, or push someone contemplating this to go "I could do better, and then they would finally listen to me." Giving attention to the shooter and making this the headline of the week for the next month wont help anyone. It will re-enforce the idea that you get a lot of attention for killing people though.
posted by mrzarquon at 7:38 AM on December 15, 2012 [13 favorites]

The whole hunting thing is a strawman because there are plenty of other developed nations where hunting is highly popular, and yet manage to have both much stricter gun control laws and much lower gun crime.
posted by Skeptic at 7:40 AM on December 15, 2012 [16 favorites]

Behind the discussions about subsistence hunters, and people who feel that carrying a gun is necessary for their safety, or may have saved them in the past, there's a deeper point, I think: the gun control that America so desperately needs might indeed make life significantly worse for a significant number of blameless people -- and that doesn't make it wrong.

There are, of course, both moral and strategic reasons for alienating as few of those blameless people as possible (and I'm pretty sure the subsistence-hunting argument, in particular, is a strawman, easily addressed by following examples from around the world). But it isn't, in principle, a decisive argument against a policy to show that it will cause some people to suffer, whether economically, emotionally, or even in terms of their physical safety. Maybe gun control will make some blameless people less safe. It's a lesser-of-evils argument, and in terms of gun culture, there aren't many evils greater, surely, than what happened yesterday.
posted by oliverburkeman at 7:45 AM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

my mental facilities are good enough to distinguish what i see in the town around me and what i hear from ill-informed, prejudiced people with an axe to grind

I believe Hobo was saying the same thing - that there is a difference between the people you see around you and the people who do behave in the way Hobo is describing.

So the question becomes - how do we preserve the rights of the people you know, while restricting the people hobo is talking about? Because as you have pointed out, those are two VERY different people, but the people Hobo is talking about are claiming to be the SAME as the people you know.

Perhaps the hunters you know could speak up about the "hunters" Hobo is talking about, to differentiate themselves from them. Becuase right now the gun argument is being dominated by the "Hunters" hobo is talking about.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:46 AM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

I'm really sorry for the pre-coffee cynicism this morning, but how many kids have been shot in Chicago this year? The pornographic quality of the coverage in Connecticut is unbelievably upsetting to me. I can't even imagine what it must be like to have lost a son or daughter and be caught up in this mess.
posted by phaedon at 7:50 AM on December 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

that's a fair point, empress - but i would also like to say that over-the-top descriptions such as hobo's are part of what feeds the paranoia some gun owners feel towards the government or "liberals"

that makes it part of the problem, not part of the solution

i certainly don't see why anyone needs a gun with a 30 round magazine, for example - if someone needs that many shots to get a deer, they shouldn't be hunting
posted by pyramid termite at 7:54 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I wonder if the prevailing strand of NRA-driven rhetoric has met the point where it lapses into obvious logical absurdity. Arm teachers, have a loaded gun on every desk, start issuing little kevlar vests for kids? (Which, of course, they'd grow out of every year, but if you're a gun-industry shill, that's a feature not a bug.) Really, you're going to make that case, and expect us not to laugh you out of the room?

When a line of argument gets that unstable, to fail to question the premise it's built upon is itself an absurdity. When rights become implicit compulsions, they cease to be rights.
posted by holgate at 7:55 AM on December 15, 2012

Oh yeah, and

5) Why do you need to have a gun to feel safe? What are the major causes of crime for which you might want to have a gun to protect yourself?

Drugs - Legalize them, its a health issue, not a legal one.

Poverty - "Fuck you, got mine" isn't an enduring social contract. Ensuring your neighbors, and your neighbor's neighbor's can feed themselves, clothe themselves, hope their kids will be safe just as yours will make your kids safe as well.

Mental Health - Comprehensive healthcare, especially for those who cannot help themselves, means providing mental healthcare. This ensures people get the care that they need, and helps them stay in stable areas.

Racism - It is a multiplier effect of all of the above issues, since the system has been stacked historically against minorities, and there are systemic changes that still need to happen.

So thats why people feel they need guns. To feel safe. What is broken in our society that we can't feel safe? Combine the above with 24x7 media saturation that thrives off the terror they manage to cultivate on their own now, and you have this wonderful cycle of isolationism, distrust, and fear.
posted by mrzarquon at 7:56 AM on December 15, 2012 [25 favorites]

I don't think it's cynical to point a finger at the coverage. I know about a kid in Philly who was shot last year over the right over his corner where he sold loose cigarettes.

On the one hand, that family was given more or less the right to grieve privately, because nobody cared. On the other hand, nobody gave the support to that family that they almost certainly needed during their time of grief. One benefit, I suppose, of this gawkerism is that the families will be given support. On the other hand, if I am wanting to dick-punch the media right now, those poor parents.
posted by angrycat at 8:01 AM on December 15, 2012

Ok, we've gone too many comments without a mention of mental health.

Gun control is only part of the problem.

The US needs to spend more money on mental health care. there is really no good argument for why we aren't. Don't let your conversations about what happened in CT end without mentioning this.
posted by victory_laser at 3:07 AM on December 15 [1 favorite +] [!]

Look. We have affordable and/or free mental health care in the USA. It's there for anyone that needs it. We have a whole organization set up to help people find the psych care they need NAMI no matter what their socioeconomic standing is. I can only speak from personal experience, but I've used mental health care clinics in several states across the country and they are separate from physical health care clinics... One does not need any kind of insurance to use them. Period. Some of the ones I've used are linked with city's drug and alcohol rehabilitation clinics because many undiagnosed people tend to self-medicate that way (I've never had to use that aspect of these clinics, thank goodness). Most of these clinics are very affordable or free to anyone who needs them. Psych med companies will often offer their medications free to patients if they can't afford them because they're damned expensive (one of mine costs upwards to $300 a month). This service has nothing to do with federal funding. It comes from the psych med companies themselves. Why? Because no one wants unmedicated crazy people walking the streets.

As I mentioned upthread. All of this is available to anyone who looks for it. The people who go about doing unspeakable things are those who are undiagnosed, newly snapped, refuse treatment, or refuse to acknowledge that anything is amiss in their minds.

I also mentioned upthread that just because one is mentally interesting doesn't mean they are going to snap and take a gun to a room full of people, young or old. I have bipolar. That doesn't make me a potential murderer. It makes me a little wacky compared to "normal" people, which is why I take medication to cope with the really real world. However, even in my darkest moment of paranoid mania the thought of hurting anyone would never cross my mind. Hiding in the closet so "they" can't see me might, but killing "them"? Not gonna happen. It's not in my nature. We're not all a psychotic ball of violence about to explode. Actually, I'm pretty sure that the majority of us aren't. But that's just my experience. Take it for what it's worth.
posted by patheral at 8:01 AM on December 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

Linked above, but I think this bears <blockquoting>

Alternet: Your thesis that these rage murders are effectively failed slave rebellions takes you back in your book to consider in some depth the circumstances of slave rebellions in the antebellum South. At what point did the parallels start to dawn on you?

Ames: I really started with the idea that in every age, there is some awful oppression that is not yet recognized and therefore doesn't exist, but later seems horribly obvious. This became clear to me working in Moscow in the '90s. No one in the "liberal" Western press corps, academia, world financial aid organizations or Clinton Administration had a shred of sympathy for the millions of Russians suffering from so-called "privatization" programs that we rammed down their throats. Literally millions of Russians went to their graves early in the '90s, yet many respectable Westerners openly said that the old generation would "have to die off" before the proper mindset set in to allow full Westernization in Russia.

Those millions of deaths are still not seen as part of something larger and evil. Later I looked at the details of these American rage murders -- they were all similar, mostly normal Middle Americans attacking seemingly "at random." If they weren't psychopaths, which they aren't, then that meant their attacks were very deliberate, that they were attacking something as a response. That's when I decided that it was the culture which was viewing the murders "at random," the culture which refused to see the purpose.

I simply assumed, from experience in Russia, and from looking at modern rage rebellions, that early slave rebellions would be completely misunderstood in their day as random acts of crazed evil just as modern "rage rebellions" are, and from the evidence I uncovered, it seems they were.

Alternet: How much blame do you place on Reaganomics for the changes in the workplace that you argue lead to rage attacks?

Ames: Put it this way: rage murders in the workplace never existed anywhere in history until Reagan came to power. Reagan made it respectable to be a mean, stupid bastard in this country. He is the patron saint of white suckers. He unleashed America's Heart of Vileness -- its penchant for hating people who didn't get rich, and worshipping people who despise them, and this is the essence of Reaganomics.

I hate to sound like a Clintonite here, but let's remember Hillary Clinton became the most hated human being alive because she tried to give most Americans the opportunity to lead longer, healthier lives, while these same Americans adored goons like Sam Walton, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump -- everyone who has dedicated their lives to transferring wealth, health and pleasure from the masses to a tiny elite. Liberals are hated in America precisely because they want to help people, which is seen as "patronizing."

You can see how this kind of cultural insanity, unleashed by Reaganomics after decades of New Deal (relative) harmony, could make someone snap, when the cognitive dissonance suddenly strikes on a very personal level, and you realize that you've been screwed hard by your own dominant ideology.

Alternet:You demonstrate that there is absolutely zero accuracy in the psychological profiles that "experts" have assembled to predict what kind of young student might start another Columbine, and you instead advocate profiling schools that could prompt a deadly massacre. What are some of the tell-tale signs to look for?

Ames: White kids. Just look for white kids, and you'll have a potential Columbine. When I said that the school should be profiled rather than the kid (since the Secret Service and FBI have both concluded no profile of a Columbiner is possible), I meant something larger than just the school campus -- I meant the entire culture. Our culture today is completely insane, the disconnect between how our propaganda says our lives are, and how our lives actually are. And let's face it, white middle-class kids are far more deeply invested in the dominant cultural lies, and therefore more easily destroyed by the rupture when those lies become untenable, than minority urban kids are.

posted by clarknova at 8:02 AM on December 15, 2012 [33 favorites]

5) Why do you need to have a gun to feel safe? What are the major causes of crime for which you might want to have a gun to protect yourself?

I have considered owning a gun for safety reasons. Such a gun would be illegal where I live in Chicago, which has strict gun control. But honestly, I'm a tiny woman and I live alone. There is tons of gun violence in Chicago, even in "nice" neighborhoods. It's usually gang members killing gang members, but lately in my neighborhood there has been a spate of unusually violent muggings. Usually you give up your purse and they run away. But these people gave up their violence and were shot. That is freaking scary. Guns are pretty much banned here but you hear gun fire. Ramn Emmanuel is cutting police services in my neighborhood. The local station is closing. You feel powerless, like laws can't do anything to stop and no one will protect you. Carrying a gun seems better than nothing sometimes, even with the knowledge that it might not save you. This is what living with empty un-enforced gun control rhetoric is like. Is it gun control to ban something but not actively hunt down and extricate the problem? Or would the devolve to the "police state" of NYC, which honestly is a much safer nicer place in general to live than Chicago despite some of the issues there. I love Chicago and I don't want to live, but sometimes I think I might have to.

Ironically when I lived in NYC I wanted to learn how to hunt because I wanted to be able to be more accountable for where my food came from. NYC compared to Chicago is a hunter's paradise. It's a bit expensive and a process to get a rifle there, but that's not a bad thing. And once you do, there is a shooting range in Manhattan and one in Downtown Brooklyn. I spend part of my time in rural areas so it's a useful skill for me to practice. I've had to kill coyotes raiding chicken coops for example.

Chicago on the other hand, you have to drive to be able to do those things. Chicago's gun control is all about rhetoric, it's the kind that anti gun control people love, because it's not backed up by rule of law and makes things difficult for sports shooters and hunters, but doesn't seem to have an impact on the murder culture here. NYC isn't perfect, but it looks a lot more like what logical gun control might look like.
posted by melissam at 8:08 AM on December 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

> Why? Because no one wants unmedicated crazy people walking the streets.

Then why are there unmedicated crazy people walking the streets. You know, a good majority of the homeless population suffer from some sort of mental disorder, PTSD or Schizophrenia.

So maybe there are free services, but there appears to be a lack of coverage, support, and access for the people who need to get them, so that should be looked at. It is a systemic issue, you can't just point to "this group does free mental health care, if you can find it" and say the problem is solved.
posted by mrzarquon at 8:08 AM on December 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

I'm really sorry for the pre-coffee cynicism this morning, but how many kids have been shot in Chicago this year?

I get what you're saying here but frankly it's the age and number of kids killed in one single instance. Individual deaths here and there are unfortunately common enough not to garner media attention. Multiple deaths over a year fade into abstraction. 20+ people killed in one go is going to be a big thing simply because it's out of the "ordinary".

Hopefully the shock of the latter will cause changes which in turn will reduce the individual deaths too, although these are more likely related to illegal firearms which is a whole different kettle of fish.
posted by longbaugh at 8:11 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Look. We have affordable and/or free mental health care in the USA. It's there for anyone that needs it.

Uh, no, and I know of what I speak. Interventions happen late, the crisis management infrastructure is overstretched, and you'll find more state resources deployed within the prison system than outside it.

But you're right that it's a horrible conflation. The severely mentally ill, even those who meet the standard criteria of "danger to self or to others" for commitment, are mostly not mass murderers in waiting, and talking about mental health in this context feels like the learned helplessness of not being able to talk about bloody holy sainted guns.
posted by holgate at 8:16 AM on December 15, 2012 [9 favorites]

So maybe there are free services, but there appears to be a lack of coverage, support, and access for the people who need to get them, so that should be looked at. It is a systemic issue, you can't just point to "this group does free mental health care, if you can find it" and say the problem is solved.
posted by mrzarquon at 10:08 AM on December 15 [+] [!]

I didn't say that. I said that every city I've lived in offers mental health services through the city. Every city and every state, and I've lived in many cities and several states. All I had to do was look in the phone book or online and find the city's mental health clinic. NAMI is an organization that makes it easier to find alternatives.

That's not "this group" That's nationwide. I can go to any state's website and type "mental health" and I can pretty much find a mental health clinic. All I have to do is look. All anyone has to do is look. That's my point. The crazy people walking the streets are those who either refuse services or don't where to look. Do you propose that we round them up and FORCE them into treatment? That violates their civil rights.
posted by patheral at 8:16 AM on December 15, 2012

We need to stop saying 'gun control' and start saying 'massacre prevention.'
posted by growabrain at 8:20 AM on December 15, 2012 [16 favorites]

Good Lord, mental health treatment is not easy to come by in the U.S. Anybody who says that, I can't believe they live in a major urban area, where interactions with the homeless mentally ill, are common.

I had a habit, when I was lawyering, of suing the agency in NYC designed to intervene in cases where people couldn't take care of their basic needs. Because the agency would duck out of its legally mandated responsibilities with many excuses that would have been funny if they weren't enraging.

This agency got established as IRC after a mentally ill homeless woman froze to death during the '80s. Prior to that she had a bad habit of flinging excrement onto passing cars, but the city was like, /shrug. So then they created this agency. Which regularly fails to intervene when it should.
posted by angrycat at 8:22 AM on December 15, 2012 [13 favorites]

I work with a guy who has a concealed carry gun license. He made sure to tell me, as a new employee, that he left his gun in the car when at work.

He's a normal looking, sad-sack kind of fellow. Not in good health. I don't know what his aim is like, but I have to wonder about his reflexes during, say, a mugging or carjacking or home invasion, which I assume is his fear.

He lives in a nicer part of town than I do, extremely low crime rate, and so I find his need to carry strange and confusing. He's also kind of depressive...while I can't imagine him taking us out at work, I can imagine him doing himself in. He'd be the third person I know who's done so with a gun.

I can understand the thrill of hunting or shooting at the shooting range, but having guns around you all the time? No, I don't get it. I wouldn't feel safer. I'm not really convinced I would be safer.
posted by emjaybee at 8:24 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Also, health insurance often puts a limit on how many times you can see a therapist before the money runs out.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:24 AM on December 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

Maybe it's just me, but I find it completely astounding and yes, actually, very terrifying that among a group of Americans who carry concealed weapons with the expectation that they absolutely will at some point need to use them to shoot and most likely kill another person in the course of an average day, that it's somehow rude to ask if those gun carriers have ever actually killed anyone.
posted by palomar at 8:25 AM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

patheral, I'm glad that you had an easy time accessing mental health services, but I know people who have had a terrible time trying to get mental health services. I think this may be something where people's experience varies a lot.

I'm one of them. About four years ago I was chronically ill with a severe digestive disorder, severely depressed, and low income for a time and I was referred via a crisis line to Sunset Park Family Health Center in Brooklyn. I was able to get an "intake" appointment for a few weeks later. At the intake appointment I waited an hour and a half (good thing I was already unemployed) and then I talked not to a psychologist, but to a bureaucrat in a small windowless room who took my basic info and explained the process to me. She explained I would have another intake appointment and they I would get assigned a mental health professional. If I missed any appointments I would be forced back to the beginning of the process, to the room we were sitting now. A few weeks later I had my second intake appointment, again I did not get to see a mental health professional. Then my illness flared up again and I missed my next appointment because I was lying on a floor in horrible pain. They said I had to go back to the beginning of the process even though I got a doctor's note. I also got a bill for the missed appointment. It was one of the most horrible experiences of my life. Anyone who says getting help is easy either got lucky or had a different kind of mental health problem that allowed them to still be able to persevere in the face of depressing circumstances and navigate bureaucracy.
posted by melissam at 8:27 AM on December 15, 2012 [38 favorites]

patheral, I'm glad that you had an easy time accessing mental health services, but I know people who have had a terrible time trying to get mental health services. I think this may be something where people's experience varies a lot.

Indeed. My wife works in a pediatric ER and they have to find adolescent psych placement on a pretty regular basis. They often end up transporting to other states.
posted by werkzeuger at 8:28 AM on December 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

I would imagine that a gun would be the worst self-defense tool you could carry around, simply because it's designed to kill, or at the very least, permanently damage someone. Instantaneously.

The reason why a handgun is a poor self-defense tool is that it isn't designed to kill instantaneously.

Upthread, people were discussing the recent Empire State Building police-shooting casualties. There are a couple interlocking reasons why things like that happen. First, combat accuracy (as opposed to shooting in a designated lane at a firing range) is notoriously bad. According to the most often-cited statistics, you have roughly a one-in-three chance of hitting your target inside three yards. Those odds drop precipitously with increased distance. Handguns aren't designed for pinpoint accuracy, and humans' stress reactions wreak a lot of havoc.

Second, when police open fire, they tend to fire lots of bullets. Why? Well, partly because they know about those accuracy statistics. They have a low chance of hitting, per bullet, so they fire more bullets—because if you have fired the first, then presumably you need to hit. (Eg, to stop a target from shooting at kids.) But primarily, they fire a lot of bullets because handgun ammunition isn't terribly effective for police (and self-defense) purposes.

If a police officer opens fire, or if you open fire in self defense, the goal isn't to kill. The goal is immediate incapacitation: Stop the target from doing whatever he's doing (eg, shooting at kids). There are two ways to do this. The first is to strike the central nervous system. Handgun accuracy makes this unrealistic, so forget about it. This is why you hear about being trained to aim at "center of mass." The second is to disrupt the circulatory system, dropping blood pressure sufficiently to incapacitate. In other words, shoot enough holes until the person has lost so much blood that he can't function.

Bullet impact is negligible. When people "fall down" upon being shot, that's mostly a psychological reaction caused largely by watching television shows and movies where we see people collapse when shot. The impact of a 9mm bullet is roughly equivalent to having a ten-pound weight dropped on you...from less than one inch. You cannot reliably knock somebody down with a handgun. So we're back to one solution: Drop the blood pressure sufficiently to incapacitate.

That's why police using handguns shoot lots of bullets. They are trying to hit their target and create lots of holes. They aren't trying to "kill" the target, although that will probably be a consequence; they are trying to stop him/her from doing something, using a tool that is not especially suited. In fact, even if you are able to "kill" the person by instantly destroying the heart, there may be enough residual oxygen in the brain to support another ten or fifteen seconds of action. You still have not necessarily incapacitated him (ie, stopped him from shooting at kids).

All of this, by the way, is also why you see police officers respond to violent incidents armed with assault rifles. Because if we know that handguns perform poorly compared to rifles in a combat situation, then we also know police do not want to respond to a combat situation with a handgun if possible. Without a moment's notice, an officer may have a handgun and may not be wearing protection. Similarly, a firefighter without notice might run into a burning house without a breathing apparatus or turnout gear. But it isn't ideal, and with a moment's preparation he will retrieve appropriate equipment.

So to return to your point. What you want in a self-defense tool is the ability to immediately incapacitate an attacker. Handguns are designed, and not especially well, to punch holes in things. Those two things are not the same.
posted by cribcage at 8:28 AM on December 15, 2012 [27 favorites]

Okay, maybe it's because I have lived in mostly suburban areas, Seattle being the most populated, that my experience has been so easy. I'm sorry that others have suffered. As I mentioned, I can only speak from my experience. I haven't had health insurance in decades, so I don't know what kind of limits that puts on therapy. My kind of mental is brain chemistry, so I take medication - no therapy needed.

But I still stand by the statement that just because someone is mentally interesting DOES NOT make that person a mass murderer, or any kind of murderer. Ordinary people can snap and do unspeakable things. They're not in their right mind at the time they do these things. That doesn't make them mentally ill, that makes them ordinary people who snapped and did something they normally wouldn't have done. Someone who is diagnosed with a mental disorder can lead a "normal" life and never kill anything larger than a cockroach. I'm honestly tired of these mass murderers being labeled as "mentally ill" when they're probably not. It gives the rest of us a bad name.
posted by patheral at 8:30 AM on December 15, 2012

If anything just further emblematic of the difficulty and sketchiness of reporting unvetted details on a chaotic breaking story is the apparently major-news-org ambiguity on whether Nancy Lanza was a teacher at the school or maybe a substitute teacher there or may not a teacher there or maybe who fucking knows but let's get it in print either way, chop chop.
posted by cortex at 8:31 AM on December 15, 2012 [14 favorites]

A major problem in the whole discussion seems to be a real difficulty thinking about different types of guns and/or gun features. If we get more specific about guns and features of guns, it gets a lot easier to balance the concerns raised about hunting and self-defense. Getting specific about types of guns and features would also make it easier to pass federal legislation, which could then be amended/supplemented to address other issues over time. It is a big mistake to waste time arguing about "gun culture" or whether hunters really need to hunt - the fact is that there are a lot of people in the country who support some form of "gun rights" - you aren't going to get any real-world change in the law if you don't try to accommodate the concerns of those people.

So what kind of specific distinctions can be drawn that would help pass targeted legislation?

1. High-capacity magazines (say, over 12 rounds) have absolutely no legitimate civilian purpose. Ban 'em and criminalize them.

2. Distinguish between long guns and handguns. Hunters do not use handguns. Waive hello to the hunters and tell them you aren't going to touch their hunting rifles. Then increase the background checks/licensing/safety regulation around handguns. Close all "gun show loophole"-type issues that allow handguns to be transferred without checks.

3. As far as trying to distinguish between different types of long guns, I am less certain. Shotguns versus rifles is easy (and none of these killers seem to pick shotguns), but then it gets hard. As many have discussed, you can use the same caliber round in a "hunting" gun or an "assault" gun. Much of what we think of with "assault" guns is cosmetics - it just looks like a military weapon. Limiting magazine capacity would perhaps accomplish everything you would need to do with respect to "assault guns." But - there is clearly something about these military-like guns that attracts these mass murders, so I am not completely prepared to say that the law should be blind to the fact that insane killers seem to prefer a specific type of weapon, even if the "type" is largely cosmetic.

Other random thoughts:

A. I thought there was this whole thing about the Colorado shooting about not publicizing the killer's name? What happened to that? The NY Times today has a list of like the "20 biggest shootings" or whatever, with each killer's name. It looks like a hall of fame.

B. Further to my comment up-thread about the paramilitary cops - I don't mean to blame these particular cops and we don't yet know the timing of how long the killer had to shoot before the police arrived. Still, is there any case in which these SWAT-style teams have been effective in a mass shooting? It seems like the name of the game in a mass shooting is to get any cop on the scene as fast as possible. If nothing else, the big SWAT team standing around looks like a waste of resources versus other things that could be done to speed overall police response. I blame 9/11 thinking.
posted by Mid at 8:44 AM on December 15, 2012 [8 favorites]

The mother/child reunion is only a motion away.
posted by telstar at 8:45 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I live in Connecticut. I grew up in the area in which this happened. I'm someone's mom. I spent most of yesterday crying my face off and I thought I'd do a little bit better today. But I'm weeping again because here, I'm finding a quality in conversation I'm not finding in many other places: compassion. I'm grateful that amid all the debate and speculation and calls for action, there's a general concern for the well-being of fellow participants. It's difficult to visit anywhere else on the net right now.
posted by houseofdanie at 8:55 AM on December 15, 2012 [8 favorites]

It doesn't change the fact that working class people who have to get to work on the swing shift in Oakland have to choose between risking a misdemeanor if they get caught with a concealed firearm, or getting robbed or killed in the street. That's reality here.

Bullshit. I live in Oakland and run around on the streets all night. I have never felt the need for a gun. But my hick bretheren in Reno NV where I moved from all think guns r cool. They are idiots.
posted by telstar at 8:59 AM on December 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

mid - 1. High-capacity magazines (say, over 12 rounds) have absolutely no legitimate civilian purpose. Ban 'em and criminalize them.
Agreed.

2. Distinguish between long guns and handguns. Hunters do not use handguns.
Most hunters I know will pack a magnum revolver in case of bear. They don't carry high capacity small calibre pistols as this would simply irritate the bear. Otherwise, agreed.

3. As far as trying to distinguish between different types of long guns, I am less certain. Shotguns versus rifles is easy (and none of these killers seem to pick shotguns),
The Denver shooter had a shotgun iirc. A semiautomatic shotgun with an extended tube can put out as much lead in a few seconds as 4 magazines from a high capacity handgun.

...But - there is clearly something about these military-like guns that attracts these mass murders, so I am not completely prepared to say that the law should be blind to the fact that insane killers seem to prefer a specific type of weapon, even if the "type" is largely cosmetic...
This, in my opinion, most often relates to the "Walter Mitty" military fetishist. .

Further to my comment up-thread about the paramilitary cops - I don't mean to blame these particular cops and we don't yet know the timing of how long the killer had to shoot before the police arrived. Still, is there any case in which these SWAT-style teams have been effective in a mass shooting?
This will depend on whether there is a standing emergency response team or whether full time officers are pulled off duty to perform the role. As a general rule as soon as the call goes out each individual officer serving on an emergency team will make their way as quickly as possible to the area and get prepped once there. Kit will be in the officers vehicle or in a team vehicle. Emergency response teams are not usually going to arrive in time unless the situation has become one involving hostages.

It seems like the name of the game in a mass shooting is to get any cop on the scene as fast as possible. If nothing else, the big SWAT team standing around looks like a waste of resources versus other things that could be done to speed overall police response. I blame 9/11 thinking.
When they first arrive they know nothing. How many shooters, IEDs, hostages, who is inside or outside the building. Cordons are set up and then intelligence gathered. Running in blindly results in dead police officers and civilians.
posted by longbaugh at 9:04 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Every illegal weapon was a legal weapon once, before it was stolen, or "borrowed", or driven across a state line.

Or an international border: There's a U.S. special agent in Toronto because the U.S. knows illegal export of guns is a problem: "Toronto police have said 70 per cent of guns seized after crimes were smuggled from the U.S."
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 9:05 AM on December 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

we don't yet know the timing of how long the killer had to shoot before the police arrived.

Well, in fairness to law enforcement, unloading a couple of handguns would happen in a far shorter period of time than would be the time needed for assistance to arrive.

This guy was on a mission - a horribly misguided one - but he went to that school with at least some idea of what he wanted to do. Had maybe a single police officer been in the area right at the time of the first call, gotten into the school and gone to exactly the place where the shooter was at, then maybe there would have been a chance. But the shooter murdered too quickly for that to happen apparently and that lucky chance a cop was in the area was not to be had.

Newtown CT is rural and not like a city where police are on every corner. Even the police station is over 2 miles from the school.
posted by lampshade at 9:06 AM on December 15, 2012

When I took the test to be able to purchase a handgun the gunshop owner who was administrating the test stood over my shoulder and gave me the answers. I didn't ask him to. I had studied and knew the answers but I guess he was in a hurry or something. A, B, B, A, C, D, A. Okay let me sign it.

When I took my gun to the range and the employee inspected it and found I had a trigger lock on it (which is the law here, when transporting firearms they must have a trigger lock) he said "What the fuck? How're you gonna use it?"

It's pretty apparent to me that gun laws are like traffic laws. They don't pertain to me because I am a good driver/citizen. I have never been in an accident so I can go 80 in a 65. I am good at multi tasking so I can totally text and drive.
posted by M Edward at 9:08 AM on December 15, 2012 [29 favorites]

growabrain: "We need to stop saying 'gun control' and start saying 'massacre prevention.'"

"What you mean 'we', white man?"

There are many gun murders every day in this country that would not be described by most people as "massacres." Are those not worth dealing with?

It's preposterous to say that we should focus only on mass shootings, or that sensible gun control cannot be part of the solution to not only the "massacre" problem but the "guns killing dozens of Americans every day" problem.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:12 AM on December 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

As far as access to mental health care, North Carolina is all fuxxored up, and in this town at least (shortage of shrinks) people have to wait weeks and sometimes months for treatment EVEN IF THEY HAVE PRIVATE INSURANCE.

On a totally different note, I know most of you don't watch Fox News, and I don't have cable but I do have a Roku box that allowed me to access some of the news reports from yesterday....all I can say is, Geraldo Rivera? Really, dude?
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 9:14 AM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

tonycpsu : In that case... what

In practice, open carry doesn't mean some wild-west scene of walking into the saloon with a six-shooter at your side. It means people without a CCW or a hunting license can defend themselves while hiking and a rabid wombat takes an interest in them.

robcorr : Outside of war zones, no where else in the world do people feel the need to carry a gun for self-defence while running errands. Truly, America is a land of paranoid freaks.

No, "America is a land" with an average population density of 100 people per square mile - Except, in practice, around 90% of that gets squeezed into a few dozen major cities and their surrounding 'burbs, leaving most of America (geographically) a literal "wilderness".

That said, if you want paranoid - Yeah, I'd take my chances with that rabid wombat, over most urban environments once you get 10 feet past the bright lights and bustling crowds.

Admira : but people actually walk around carrying guns? I mean other than police and FBI etc... but just ordinary people like me wake up, get ready and carry a gun with them? To the shops, to parties, to a bar etc?

Since you've already gotten conflicting answers, yes and no.

Most US states have a means by which you can apply for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Some but not all states have a "must issue" requirement, meaning that if federal regulations don't bar the applicant from owning a firearm, the state must issue a CCW permit to the applicant. Somewhere around 20 states (last time I looked) have reciprocity agreements for carry permits (including my own).

That said, don't think that works like filling out a postcard-sized magazine subscription. Even in my fairly lax state, the application runs on for seven pages, and the state does a complete criminal and mental health background check on the applicant. On top of that, you need to renew it annually (renewal takes less time, but uses the same insanely detailed application).

As for where you can carry - Bars count as an absolute no-no. Federal buildings, no. A handful of other "sensitive" places, also not allowed (that includes schools).

Now, Tony already posted a link to it above, but many states also have some form of "open carry". See my response to him at the top of this post, but don't think of it as Clint Eastwood walking through town - It more means that you won't get arrested for mere possession of a gun in a public place; so you can have a rifle-rack in your truck; you can keep a pistol in your glove compartment. And yes, you can actually wear one as a sidearm - But! "Brandishing" will still get you at the very least harassed by the police, and possibly arrested. What counts as brandishing varies a lot by context, but suffice it to say, walking down main street with a shotgun strapped across your back will get unwanted attention in all but the most rural towns.

Mid : 1. High-capacity magazines (say, over 12 rounds) have absolutely no legitimate civilian purpose. Ban 'em and criminalize them.

Would have no effect - You can swap a magazine in about two seconds flat. And the idea of "high capacity" magazines doesn't even really apply to pistols - Yes, you can get them, but they look stupid and make the gun totally unmanageable.

Hunters do not use handguns.

Sure they do - For putting a slowly-dying animal out of its misery. You don't fire a rifle at point-blank range unless you want to wear a cloud of gore. Many states' hunting licenses explicitly limit what types and how many guns you can carry when hunting (including how many spare rounds), and particularly with bigger game, you'll frequently see an allowance for a side-arm for the coup de grace.

I agree with your third point, however. Even at the height of the "assault rifle" ban, you could still get basically the same weapons legally, more a matter of fashion than practicality. And I have no interest in fashion in this regard (hell, I'd like to see 9mm all but cease to exist - It seems like every wannabe gang-banger fantasizes about that one for some incomprehensible reason). That said, it becomes an awfully slippery slope when we start banning pink hammers.

Okay, this post has gotten much too long. And please, don't take this as "fighty" - I have no interest in arguing in a thread about dead kids. I just wanted to clarify a few points of confusion people seem to have.
posted by pla at 9:15 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Makes me think that the kind of security they had at the "bad school" I attended in 8th grade, metal-detectors and security guards, will become standard even at "nice" schools.
posted by melissam at 9:16 AM on December 15, 2012

pla, I wasn't confused at all about open carry. The statement was that people don't do open carry in the U.S., and it turns out that some, in fact, do.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:17 AM on December 15, 2012

If a police officer opens fire, or if you open fire in self defense, the goal isn't to kill. The goal is immediate incapacitation: Stop the target from doing whatever he's doing (eg, shooting at kids).

Yes, but for the police, shooting for 'incapacitation' is pretty much de facto shooting to kill.

For some reason lost to the stands of time, where I grew up, the police range was at one point in the basement of the high school. As a result, my high school had a tradition of exposing kids to guns in the outdoor ed class (which was the cool gym class). When I took outdoor ed, this meant turning the wrestling room back into a shooting range for air rifles (with much admonition to not shoot the mats) and an after school field trip to the police range, which was actually in the police station, taking the .22s which the school still owned for some reason (I think outdoor ed used them when the range was in the school, though the yearbook also shows there was a rifle club at some point). The memorable things were the cop we were with explicitly stating that 'incapacitation' meant shooting to kill and that he had no qualms about killing someone, criminal or bystander (I'm still hoping was in denial about the possibility), and firing his handgun. I'd shot a rifle before and didn't have particular qualms about doing so (though the total comfort my classmates had with shooting at humanoid targets made me pause), but I'd never touched a handgun. And I'm never going to again. It seemed so clear that the thing was all about power, particularly power derived from the ability to kill.

I still feel kind of gross about that trip to the police range. The whole time we were there, it was becoming increasingly apparent to me that this was something I shouldn't be doing, even if I enjoyed shooting. I'd refused to shoot at humanoid targets (which are all the police had) and found some old bullseye targets at the bottom of a rifle box, but with everyone around me gleefully shooting the 'bad guys' it was clear this was just some lame attempt to make myself feel better about pretending something that was really about killing was 'sport'.
posted by hoyland at 9:18 AM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Pla - Loughner was stopped when changing magazines. The idea isn't that banning high-capacity would stop all killings, but it would make guns incrementally less easy to use in mass killings.
posted by Mid at 9:22 AM on December 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

No, "America is a land" with an average population density of 100 people per square mile - Except, in practice, around 90% of that gets squeezed into a few dozen major cities and their surrounding 'burbs, leaving most of America (geographically) a literal "wilderness".

And there's the rub, when you have a political system that is explicitly weighted towards giving representation to square footage over people, combined with a fetishism for a faded old founding document and a largely obsolescent model of pioneer liberty. It allows gun extremists to hold democracy to ransom.
posted by holgate at 9:23 AM on December 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

In practice, open carry doesn't mean some wild-west scene of walking into the saloon with a six-shooter at your side.

Uh, yeah it does. I was in Phoenix a few months ago for 2 weeks and in every restaurant and store I went into there was at least 1 person with a sidearm. Maybe I was in the bad part of town or something but it was still unnerving for me.
posted by M Edward at 9:23 AM on December 15, 2012

I don't know, just don't know. Why this happens, how to prevent it or the best steps to take, going forward. Not having the judicial, legal and political system so beholden to the NRA and its members is a no brainer, but also extremely difficult.

Ah hell, I do know something. Another massacre like this will occur in America.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:26 AM on December 15, 2012

I think it's reasonable to notice that, for the shooter, this was both a school AND a workplace shooting. Internet diagnosing someone whose motives are fairly complex and bound to social situations and power dynamics we know nothing about seems a bit naive. It's questionable whether free mental health Switzerland style could have prevented his scheme, or if banning all pistols would satisfactorily address the underlying issue. We've always been armed to the teeth, but these massacres are only about thirty years old.

Structurally we have a big problem with banning the types of firearms that are used in these shootings. Everybody owns them. Disarming the American populace, even if half of us unanimously supported it, is a big, scary prospect. Waco happened. Ruby ridge happened. There are hundreds of thousands who are either sympathizers or fellow travelers of those folks. If you come for their guns... well. They aren't kidding.
posted by clarknova at 9:28 AM on December 15, 2012

Gun culture varies so much according to the region of the country you are in. I almost feel it would be helpful when we have these kinds of discussions to make plain where we are from. Guns in Phoenix would make me yawn, guns in, say, New England would make me a bit jittery.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 9:29 AM on December 15, 2012

Also - pla, you say "the idea of "high capacity" magazines doesn't even really apply to pistols," but my statement is not limited to pistols.

Also, also - Loughner had a 30-round clip in his Glock. Again, he was stopped when it ran out. Would have been better if it was a smaller clip.

Klebold had a Tec-9 at Columbine with clips of 52, 32, and 28 rounds.

The guy in Colorado had a 100-round clip in his .223 that jammed.
posted by Mid at 9:30 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's called a magazine, not a clip. If you want anyone who actually owns one of those to take you seriously, and maybe you don't care, use that term.
posted by clarknova at 9:33 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

When I took the test to be able to purchase a handgun the gunshop owner who was administrating the test stood over my shoulder and gave me the answers. I didn't ask him to.

In Massachusetts, you need to pass a basic safety class in order to own a firearm. Theoretically it is supposed to be the same class no matter where in the state you take it, as long as you're taking it from a certified instructor. That's theory. Reality is a little bit different.

Here is one extremely reputable training center where the class is a full day, and here is a different, also reputable training center where the class is only four hours. Now both of those classes include live-fire shooting; you will fire a handgun before receiving your certificate. For comparison, here is a partial list of other training centers and instructors offering the class, some of whom will come to your home and administer the class in your living room. Obviously this does not include live fire.

I am extremely skeptical that either of those first two training centers would "coach" somebody on passing the course. (Not that "passing" is really an issue. The point of the class is the experience, not the quiz.) And I would like to think that no certified instructor would do that either. However, I'm not naive and it's hard for me to speculate about what happens between you and somebody you've paid to sit in your living room on a weeknight.
posted by cribcage at 9:33 AM on December 15, 2012

While growing up in the nation's capital, we had two mass sniper events and corresponding lockdowns as well as a guy killed by a cop in the alley out back, on top of the normal sorts of gun violence like muggings and so forth. The absolute last thing that would make me feel safe are additional guns in houses and on the streets. DC doesn't need more guns. Philly sure doesn't. A . for all those kids and their families and the adults who died and the kids who lived through this.
posted by jetlagaddict at 9:38 AM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Structurally we have a big problem with banning the types of firearms that are used in these shootings. Everybody owns them.

Nope.

As per my comment above:

"A study published in the Injury Prevention Journal, based on a 2004 National Firearms Survey, found that 20% of the gun owners with the most firearms possessed about 65% of the nation's guns."

It's called a magazine, not a clip. If you want anyone who actually owns those to take you seriously, and maybe you don't, use that term.

I want people who own these guns to take me seriously because dead goddamned kids. Nitpicking the exact terminology is bullshit.
posted by soundguy99 at 9:39 AM on December 15, 2012 [59 favorites]

In Massachusetts, you need to pass a basic safety class in order to own a firearm. Theoretically it is supposed to be the same class no matter where in the state you take it, as long as you're taking it from a certified instructor. That's theory. Reality is a little bit different.

That is how it should be everywhere, and for real. You'd (well maybe not you specifically) be surprised how many people who take firearm training at a young age look up to firearm instructors as role models, and accept both the value of "don't be unsafe with the weapon" and its underlying premise "life is precious". That lesson in morality and mortality from an adult, often a veteran, goes a long way.

That's another aspect our gun culture that's never talked about. Firearm training is a positive social experience for a lot of people, especially young people.
posted by clarknova at 9:39 AM on December 15, 2012

Structurally we have a big problem with banning the types of firearms that are used in these shootings. Everybody owns them.

This is not true. A third of US households have a gun. Something like just over 40% of adults own a gun--a third of men and about 10 percent of women. (Clearly gun-owning women are frequently living with gun-owning men.) The reason we have so many guns per capita is not that everyone has a gun, it's that a subset of people could each arm a small army.
posted by hoyland at 9:40 AM on December 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

That's an "everybody" as in "everybody is wearing x". Meaning a lot of people. The meat of my statement stands. If you send ATF agents door to door to collect everybody's newly-banned firearms and you will have a lot of very messy situations.
posted by clarknova at 9:44 AM on December 15, 2012

Gun control? Maybe these kids are onto something

You haven’t heard about the gun dorm? Well, back in August, the University of Colorado announced it was segregating students with concealed carry permits in dorms of their own on its campuses in Boulder and Colorado Springs. This, after the state Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that struck down the school’s ban on people bringing guns on campus. So now, a student 21 years or older who has a permit may be armed in the dorm or even in class, though not, for some reason, at a school event requiring a ticket.

Recently, The Denver Post decided to count the number of young gunslingers who wanted to live among their own. How many kids had rushed to take advantage of this opportunity?

Let’s just say there is not a waiting list. The Post reports the number of kids who opted for the gun dorm is zero. A big, fat goose egg.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:44 AM on December 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

> Personally, when I carried a gun every day I also carried pepper spray and two pocketknives.

Outside of the United States, only people in war zones walk around with four weapons at all times.

If you think that makes it sound better that you have more weapons that aren't guns, it does not. It makes me never want to go within a thousand miles of wherever it is that you live. You know, I've lived in some pretty low-rent districts, I got mugged once, but the idea of literally walking around with a small arsenal all the time, knowing many other people are doing the same, makes me frightened and sad.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:46 AM on December 15, 2012 [16 favorites]

Personally, when I carried a gun every day I also carried pepper spray and two pocketknives.

What for? Ze Germans?
posted by elizardbits at 9:48 AM on December 15, 2012 [16 favorites]

In Massachusetts, you need to pass a basic safety class in order to own a firearm

That's great. Here in CA they give you a quiz and then you wait 10 days for a background check. My coworker's dad just purchased a gun and nearly killed himself when he went to the range the first time because he had no idea what da/sa meant or how it works and the first shot he ever fired was into the ceiling from a misfire. One of the other shooters at the range saw the accident and gave him a little class on gun safety. I can laugh at this because it's good dark comedy but my coworker is now completely terrified his dad is going to shoot himself or one of his family members in error.
posted by M Edward at 9:50 AM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

clarknova - you'll see I use both the term "magazine" and "clip" above. Plenty of people who shoot use the word clip, including me. Terminology bullying is an offshoot (cause or symptom?) of the general problem that it is difficult to talk about specific types of guns or features of guns that should be regulated.

I wasn't bullying. I know what you meant and it doesn't bother me. But a person saying "clip" in a sentence about gun regulation is a big ol trigger for a lot of conservative gun "enthusiasts". Your point may be right. You might even have a chance of convincing someone. But using a that specific term that doesn't mean what you think it means (they're not interchangeable) just activates the condescending know nuthin liberul archetype. If you've never seen it treated as a faux pas it may be hard to believe. But it's the case.
posted by clarknova at 9:51 AM on December 15, 2012

that's a fair point, empress - but i would also like to say that over-the-top descriptions such as hobo's are part of what feeds the paranoia some gun owners feel towards the government or "liberals". that makes it part of the problem, not part of the solution

Not if there really are people like that. And there are.

i certainly don't see why anyone needs a gun with a 30 round magazine, for example - if someone needs that many shots to get a deer, they shouldn't be hunting.

Tell that to the people who claim they do. Here, I found you some.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:54 AM on December 15, 2012

I just heard that each of the victims' families has been assigned a state trooper (or maybe a cop?) to help them feel more secure and to serve as a communications liaison. That sounds like a really good and compassionate idea, I hope it's true.
posted by madamjujujive at 10:06 AM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

clarknova - thanks, totally agree with you that there are these "trigger" words that make "gun rights" people go bananas. The general idea is that if you are not personally steeped in every aspect of guns and technical terminology around guns, then you have no business talking about regulating guns. This dynamic obscures some really simple points about technical capabilities of guns (like high-capacity magazines/clips) that really should not be controversial. My own view is that this dynamic is a purposeful tactic by folks like the NRA to obscure/confuse the issues, but I recognize that this perhaps is a partisan view.
posted by Mid at 10:09 AM on December 15, 2012 [12 favorites]

If you send ATF agents door to door to collect everybody's newly-banned firearms

Complete and utter straw man. It's entirely possible to enact & enforce gun control laws without sending anyone around confiscating anything.

Make high-capacity magazines illegal, give everyone a 6 month grace period to turn them in to their local police, no questions asked, and then if you're caught with one after that, serious jail time and high fines.

Just as an example.
posted by soundguy99 at 10:10 AM on December 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

Yes, the head of the state police said that none of the families wanted to speak to the media and that each had an officer assigned to them and that the media would have to go through the officer to get the family. I think that's a wonderful idea and I'm so glad someone thought of that.
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 10:15 AM on December 15, 2012 [14 favorites]

Make high-capacity magazines illegal, give everyone a 6 month grace period to turn them in to their local police, no questions asked, and then if you're caught with one after that, serious jail time and high fines.

Just as an example.

The ones who wouldn't turn them into visiting agents won't go to the agents either. At the end of your scenario you're still sending someone to the door for the guns. With predictable results.

My example of sending someone to the door to collect the firearms isn't just pulled out of thin air, either. In Canada, if you own a pistol, you have to be a member of a shooting club. The moment your membership expires the RCMP comes to your door for the gun. It's a model for handling firearm control.
posted by clarknova at 10:17 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

> But using a that specific term that doesn't mean what you think it means (they're not interchangeable) just activates the condescending know nuthin liberul archetype.

But these stereotypes are activated if you say you don't own guns, or if you tell them you don't hunt - forget about it if you say that you don't eat meat!

Honest question - wouldn't any attempt at suggesting gun control activate those same archetypes?

Another honest question - do you honestly believe that any compromise is possible? Is it really possible to have a meaningful discussion when side X has contempt for side Y, and side Y fears side X?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:18 AM on December 15, 2012

Mexico's attempt to deal with guns.

It could be said it would help them if we tightened our own laws, but I can't help but agree with one of the people quoted in that article, that people determined to have guns will find a way.

soundguy99, somehow I think that the most problematic people with those firearms would also be the least likely to participate in a buyout and least likely to care about consequenses of being caught with one.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 10:19 AM on December 15, 2012

To make it less personal: if it's an explicit choice between a few more Ruby Ridges and a few more Newtowns, then I'll take the former.
posted by holgate at 10:20 AM on December 15, 2012 [8 favorites]

If you're tossing around those kinds of implicit threats, even if it's dick-swinging, it doesn't say much for the whole "responsible gun-owner" narrative, big boy.

Look. I'm being very reasonable and polite. I'm not even arguing for my own position. I'm pointing out what I believe to be a reality of American culture, having lived in the rural south and having traveled America quite a bit. You can toss out prissy insults aimed at a stereotype you imagine I fit, but you don't further any cause you have by doing so.
posted by clarknova at 10:21 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

The moment your membership expires the RCMP comes to your door for the gun. It's a model for handling firearm control.

It doesn't have to be the only model. Instead of rounding them up, we could do a period of voluntary buyback (fed/state officials pay you fair value for your extended magazines.) After that, they're contraband. The cops don't go round them up, but they do confiscate them if they discover them during their investigations, and possession of the banned magazines results in extra jail time / fines.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:22 AM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

It doesn't have to be the only model. Instead of rounding them up, we could do a period of voluntary buyback (fed/state officials pay you fair value for your extended magazines.) After that, they're contraband. The cops don't go round them up, but they do confiscate them if they discover them during their investigations, and possession of the banned magazines results in extra jail time / fines.

I don't think you understand. There are people who will just. Not. Volunteer for that. They may be paranoid but they're not dog dumb. They know what gun control looks like in any form: their enemy.
posted by clarknova at 10:26 AM on December 15, 2012

Mexico's attempt to deal with guns.

It could be said it would help them if we tightened our own laws, but I can't help but agree with one of the people quoted in that article, that people determined to have guns will find a way.

Sure, they'll find a way. But maybe that way will be slightly trickier than, "Go to USA, buy guns hassle-free, smuggle guns across border."

I mean, come on. Try it with some other crime. "Rapists gonna rape, so why bother making it illegal?" What kind of logic is that?
posted by Sys Rq at 10:26 AM on December 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

No personal back-and-forth please, and if you are articulating a position that is not your own, please make that clear. Thanks.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:27 AM on December 15, 2012

From an article on the the CNN website:

Authorities found three guns next to Lanza's body in one of the classrooms, a law enforcement source told CNN. All three -- a semi-automatic .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle and two pistols made by Glock and Sig Sauer -- were owned by Lanza's mother, the source said.

Investigators know which one Lanza used to kill himself but are not yet revealing that information, the source said.

Lanza also had access to at least three more guns, a second law enforcement source said. Investigators recovered a .45-caliber Henry Repeating Rifle, a .22-caliber Marlin Rifle and a .30-caliber Enfield Rifle, though it's unclear where they were found, the source said.

One of the law enforcement sources said they have information that Lanza tried to buy a gun in the area this past Tuesday. The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms said it is contacting shooting ranges and gun stores in the area to try to establish whether Lanza sought to purchase guns or practice using them.
posted by Dr. Zira at 10:28 AM on December 15, 2012

New details from yesterday.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 10:29 AM on December 15, 2012

clarknova: " I don't think you understand. There are people who will just. Not. Volunteer for that. They may be paranoid but they're not dog dumb. They know what gun control looks like in any form: their enemy."

Did you not read what I said? Of course a lot of people won't turn them over. That's why you have the second part, where using one in a crime or having one discovered in a routine police search increases the fines and jail time. This won't get rid of every extended magazine, but will make people think twice about whether they really need to fire 15, 30 shots without reloading.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:29 AM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Right. The idea that any specific gun control measure must work perfectly in all circumstances or it is invalid is a standard that is not applied in any other public safety area. Requiring airbags does not prevent every automobile death. Restricting the sale of explosives and explosive ingredients does not prevent every type of bomb. The idea is to incrementally improve safety or incrementally make it harder to kill a lot of people before someone can intervene.
posted by Mid at 10:30 AM on December 15, 2012 [35 favorites]

using a that specific term that doesn't mean what you think it means (they're not interchangeable) just activates the condescending know nuthin liberul archetype

It's true that someone advocating for a very specific kind of policy should be able to speak the language that policy requires, but the insistence on being able to talk about guns just like a gun enthusiast before having any opinion at all on the role of guns in society is silly and bullying. And like any priest craft that enforces its own jargon, it's a way of guarding privileges and keeping questions at bay.
posted by octobersurprise at 10:32 AM on December 15, 2012 [8 favorites]

It really does seem that it is being claimed, "There will never be meaningful changes to gun control laws, as too many gun owners will resist these changes using their guns."

We see two statements:

1. Nearly all gun owners are responsible individuals.
2. If the law attempts to do anything to control their ownership of guns and ammo, then there will be blood baths.

These two statements cannot both be true. A person who thinks that obeying a gun control law is "dog dumb" cannot also be a "responsible individual".
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:36 AM on December 15, 2012 [31 favorites]

The new details St. Alia posted really make most of the recent discussion in this thread moot:

"Adam Lanza, as the alleged gunman was identified in several press reports, was 20-years old, a year under the legal limit for gun ownership in Connecticut. " (emphasis mine)

He had them illegally. With that one clarification, all our posturing back and forth about the evils of legally available guns and their various configurations amounts to squat - This could have happened in NYC or DC, with their insanely restrictive gun laws, just as easily as it did in (relatively) gun-friendly CT.

Can we all just shake hands now and accept that crazy, evil people will do crazy, evil things?
posted by pla at 10:36 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

.
posted by montag2k at 10:38 AM on December 15, 2012

Can we all just shake hands now and accept that crazy, evil people will do crazy, evil things?

Why should we accept them? Why should we let it be normalized instead of doing something? Because "liberties" is just a buzzword, not an explanation.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:43 AM on December 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

Can we all just shake hands now and accept that crazy, evil people will do crazy, evil things?

This type of thinking somehow does not get me out of the nudie-scan machine at the airport. I also can't buy unlimited quantities of nitrogen fertilizer or perform electrical work that does not meet code. It is not applied in any other area of public safety.
posted by Mid at 10:47 AM on December 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

that people determined to have guns will find a way.

And this is true also, but, as others point out, there is no other aspect of our lives that we apply this standard to. It isn't an refutation of every kind of gun regulation, it's an incantation and applied to the rest of life in the manner the NRA likes to use it, it's an incantation that would abolish every law, every regulation, and most social activity.
posted by octobersurprise at 10:49 AM on December 15, 2012

zombieflanders : Why should we accept them? Why should we let it be normalized instead of doing something? Because "liberties" is just a buzzword, not an explanation.

For the same reason we recognize that free speech will occasionally include hate speech.

Megami : No pla we can not, because unless he broke in to an armoury

Ah. I see where this has gone... When it looked like he got them legally, putting the pro-2nd-amendment people on the defensive, we could all talk rationally about "control". As soon as the coin flipped, *poof*, end of rational discussion and back to using loaded terms like "semi-automatic" and "assault rifle" incorrectly.

Consider me done in this thread. I'll leave a parting "." for the kids involved, and spare the snark for another day.

.
posted by pla at 10:50 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

pla: "all our posturing back and forth about the evils of legally available guns and their various configurations amounts to squat"

I'm sure spiking the ball and pointing toward the scoreboard feels good, but as it happens, there are plenty of aspects of the gun control debate that have nothing to do with whether the guns are possessed legally or illegally. More guns in circulation, legal or illegal, increases the chance for someone to get their hands on them. Extended magazines increase the chances that a shooter can take out dozens instead of a few. Regulating the amount of ammunition one can buy the way we regulate methamphetamine precursors could have made it harder for the guy with illegal guns to get his hands on ammunition, legally purchased or not.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:51 AM on December 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

For the same reason we recognize that free speech will occasionally include hate speech.

Until it causes harm to a person or group of people, at which time it is no longer free speech.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:52 AM on December 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

I don't think you understand. There are people who will just. Not. Volunteer for that. They may be paranoid but they're not dog dumb. They know what gun control looks like in any form: their enemy.

That is true. But we have several examples of things people would never do that they are doing. It is within the immediate past that a hardcore group of people would never allow black people to attend "their" schools, sit at "their" lunch, or marry "their" kin. In my lifetime, all that has changed. Are things perfect? No, but the needle has moved in ways that people might never have thought 5 decades ago.

Someone above mentioned the anti-smoking campaign. I was as adamant as any of the gun people about my smoking rights (well maybe not quite as adamant, but...) -- here some few decades later, I no longer smoke. There are still smokers, but public spaces are healthier and fewer people smoke.

Gun control would need to be a longterm cultural and public health campaign to shift attitudes - incremental changes, as Mid says. But it can happen if we have the will and stand up to big moneyed interests.

Take a page from the antiabortion people - when they couldn't outlaw abortion wholesale, they have conducted a wildly successful long-term campaign to chip away at the edges. Gun control will take that kind of tenacity and long-term commitment.
posted by madamjujujive at 10:53 AM on December 15, 2012 [18 favorites]

Can we all just shake hands now and accept that crazy, evil people will do crazy, evil things?

So if in America we had like 200 million canisters of nerve gas, much of it in heavily weaponized forms designed to kill masses of people, and then a 20 year old stole his mom's arsenal and killed a bunch of kids, you'd be in here all "crazy people gonna be crazy, what'cha gonna do?"

Because that's about as much sense as your argument is making to a lot of us. I went over to a friend's house a couple months ago and he showed me his new toy, an AR-15. There is simply no sane reason on earth for civilians to have those in their homes.

The purpose of these devices is to greatly magnify a person's killing power. And there's not that many well-adjusted, sane people committed to spending thousands of dollars to magnify their killing power.
posted by crayz at 10:53 AM on December 15, 2012 [11 favorites]

that people determined to have guns will find a way.

And this is true also, but, as others point out, there is no other aspect of our lives that we apply this standard to. It isn't an refutation of every kind of gun regulation, it's an incantation and applied to the rest of life in the manner the NRA likes to use it, it's an incantation that would abolish every law, every regulation, and most social activity.

I suppose my point is, that if we put ALL our focus on that one aspect, it still may not bring us the results we all agree we want. Whether you are a gun owner or not, whether you are for gun control or not, there is a bigger picture here. I am not saying that no one should advocate for stricter controls on gun ownership but I am saying that in this particular culture of ours, that even if that achievement is unlocked, it still will not fix the overarching problem.

When I was a child there were lots of guns out there, my husband's high school had a gun safety day where everyone brought their guns to school, so on and so forth....why is it that we did not have these sorts of incidents THEN like we do NOW? We need an answer to THAT question even as we try to figure out how to keep firearms out of the reach of evil people.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 10:54 AM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

He had them illegally. With that one clarification, all our posturing back and forth about the evils of legally available guns and their various configurations amounts to squat - This could have happened in NYC or DC, with their insanely restrictive gun laws, just as easily as it did in (relatively) gun-friendly CT

Insanely restrictive?? Look at the laws in any other country. NY gun laws are not that restrictive.

As for his having them illegally, how did he get them? How hard is it for other people to get them? How available are they in general? Alcohol is illegal for 20 year olds, and so are grenades. But one of those things is still easier to access for 20 year olds...
posted by mdn at 10:54 AM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

These two statements cannot both be true. A person who thinks that obeying a gun control law is "dog dumb" cannot also be a "responsible individual".

They cannot be true if all people who own guns all think exactly the same thing.

If you don't think disarming the nation presents, as I said, a structural problem because of defiant people with guns, people with mental problems, people with paranoid worldviews, and so on, you're free to think that.
posted by clarknova at 10:58 AM on December 15, 2012

If you don't think disarming the nation presents, as I said, a structural problem because of defiant people with guns, people with mental problems ...

Well let's take the case of Adam Lanza, a person with mental problems who did not have guns. Presumably his mother would have been a responsible citizen and turned in her guns, and then her son would have not been able to access them.

Is this a perfect idea that solves all our society's problems? No. But that doesn't explain why you're arguing against it.
posted by crayz at 11:04 AM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

> If you don't think disarming the nation presents, as I said, a structural problem because of defiant people with guns, people with mental problems, people with paranoid worldviews, and so on, you're free to think that.

No, I'm saying that many gun owners are not responsible people, because they are defiant with guns, have mental problems or paranoid world views.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:04 AM on December 15, 2012 [14 favorites]

If you don't think disarming the nation presents, as I said, a structural problem

Well I don't think anyone's trying to oversimplify the logistics. But lobbying and getting policy in place is the first step. Enforcement is, of course, a big problem.

Let's look at it this way. Say we disarm the nation of military grade weapons, leaving the allowable weapons as hunting rifles and limited handguns for those with hunting licenses (for the aforementioned bear issue), thus limiting allowable guns to those used for hunting.

I'm going to go ahead and say 50% of people willingly turn in their guns. That makes it twice as hard for someone to get their hands on a military assault rifle.

Now, in 5, 10, 20 years, with no new weapons being sold, the old ones dry up. In the long term, you don't need to enforce possession so much as production and distribution.

Cities with gun problems have reduced crime rates because, even with the black market, there are only so many guns available for distribution.

It doesn't solve the problem for tomorrow or next year, but it puts in place a long term plan that will make our nation safer in time. From a national policy level, that's pretty much the most we can hope for.
posted by DoubleLune at 11:06 AM on December 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

No, I'm saying that many gun owners are not responsible people, because they are defiant with guns, have mental problems or paranoid world views.

Yeah they probably aren't.
posted by clarknova at 11:11 AM on December 15, 2012

> Yeah they probably aren't.

So why should they be allowed to have weapons?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:14 AM on December 15, 2012

It comes down to a yes/no question:

Do you believe that deaths of these children and their guardians is an acceptable price to pay for the current interpretation of the Second Amendment?

I own guns, and I can't answer yes. I've thought a lot about it, and I'd give up all of the semi-automatic weapons that I own. Some of them are old, and I dearly love old things. That would leave me with the muzzle-loader handgun, the .22 revolver, and the 30-30. I don't own any double-action revolvers anymore, but I'd give them up too.

But I won't have to give anything up. Nothing is going to change. The sellers of guns in this country have an interest in continued sales, and that market will trump the inalienable rights of the citizen to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
posted by the Real Dan at 11:16 AM on December 15, 2012 [25 favorites]

They cannot be true if all people who own guns all think exactly the same thing.

Likewise, if every gun owner isn't defiantly preparing to fight the Feds, then prohibiting some kinds of firearms isn't the insurmountable structural problem that you imagine.

Undoubtedly, any kind of nationwide confiscation would be difficult and expensive. I'm skeptical that it would be worth the cost or effort. But that's very different from asserting that any kind of regulation is doomed because gun owners will rise up in revolt.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:17 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

unless he broke in to an armoury to get them

Didn't have to. The weapons likely belonged to his mother.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 11:19 AM on December 15, 2012

"Look. We have affordable and/or free mental health care in the USA. It's there for anyone that needs it. "

But not in a way that adequately addresses their problems.

Two cases in point:

Case One: A bipolar woman I know. Usually fairly functional and able to work, despite her diagnosis... but she lost a good job that paid about $70K a year during the recession, and is currently stuck working a job that pays half that. She can't afford to leave it, though, because it has health insurance which she needs to make her bipolarism affordable to live with. Even with insurance, it costs her about $300 a month in insurance and meds to tackle the setup that allows her to be mentally functional at work, which for her means three different meds -- only one of which is generic -- plus sleeping pills, plus a hormone replacement patch, plus a CPAP machine. That, plus the crappy pay, makes her barely able to keep her head above water.

If any one element of what she needs isn't there, she gets bipoliarism, depression, panic attacks, and general inability to function. When she lost her prior job, she tried getting help from her city mental health services... but they didn't provide any coverage for non-psychiatric drugs, such as sleeping meds or hormone replacement therapy... nor did they provide any non-generics, which meant that she would get major panic attacks every day, and made living with her bipolarism *much, much* harder. It also made her job hunt much harder too. Fortunately, she found a job pretty quickly, as she couldn't afford to live on unemployment for long.

And so, she works her current lousy job, because it has semi-affordable insurance that covers these things.. even though it requires her to wait up to 2-3 months to see her psych doctor, located about 40 miles away. The doctor is far from ideal, but they're the only one in her insurance system that sees bipolar patients. She looks forward to the full implementation of Obamacare, because at least that way insurance will be available, no matter what employer she has... making it possible for her to take on more lucrative contract and temp-to-perm positions.

Case Two: A homeless person with schizophrenia. They'd get meds from the city mental health services, but would then be released and either have a hard time finding space in public shelters, or be essentially kicked out for talking/yelling in his sleep. Public housing had a 14 month waiting list, and wasn't configured to provide meds within the housing services geared to the homeless, even though most of the homeless required meds of one sort or another to be functional.

The problem, really, is that most people with mental disorders need several things at once -- and a stable environment -- in order to be functional, but our society does a lousy job of providing the depth of services they need. That makes it entirely too easy not only for the mentally ill to get off the streets and get functionally treated, but it also creates the kind of environment that tends to cause even functional, working mentally ill to wind up homeless and untreated, if they run into a spot of bad luck... which, statistically, they are likely to do sooner or later.
posted by markkraft at 11:29 AM on December 15, 2012 [15 favorites]

Meanwhile another shooting.. Hospital in Alabama. 3 injured, gunman dead
posted by edgeways at 11:31 AM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

pla, the fact that he was under CT's legal age to carry a gun is not new information; it was known yesterday. More importantly, though, the idea that "this happened while a law was broken and therefore no possible law can help" is, frankly, totally absurd.
posted by Flunkie at 11:32 AM on December 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

You can turn in guns right now. I did this a couple of months ago, turned in my late father's revolver (which had been in my mother's house for 25 years and in the house I grew up with before that, bullets still in the chamber, probably, and isn't that scary?) to HPD. Took the gun and the bullets over to the West Side command station, got a case file number, and they said they'd destroy the gun, which was fine with me.

I wish the shooter's mother had done the same.
posted by immlass at 11:33 AM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Naturally, and as usual, Up with Chris Hayes had a really thoughtful discussion about the issues everyone is talking about here in this thread and all across the country today.
posted by ob1quixote at 11:33 AM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

I've been watching news coverage of the latest mass murders by firearm for over a decade and I don't remember even once seeing an interviewed witness or victim or family member reacting with anger at the American gun culture that allows massacres like this to go on and on and on.

Because no one ever reacted with outrage or because corporate media would never air it?

The latter I'm sure.
posted by wrapper at 11:36 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

So long as politicians fear the pro-gun lobby more than they fear anti-gun activists, little will change. People who continue to do no more than argue online rather than write their Representatives and Senators are just farting in the wind. Name-calling is ineffective and a "national conversation" is only more bullshit. This debate must be held in Congress and State Legislatures, and it cannot stop until the Second Amendment is extensively modiified.

Come Monday morning, the bulk of this indignation will have faded away, but the NRA's cash flow machine will continue churning contributions.
posted by Ardiril at 11:38 AM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Alabama? We're definitely in mucker territory now.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:39 AM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

markkraft,
There's something about schizophrenia that makes it treatment resistant. I saw some data not too long ago that said that even in countries with socialized medicine, relapse rates were about the same. This isn't an excuse for our crap medical care system in the USA, which in my opinion, is a national disgrace.

I tend to think there's something really wrong with American society. Two anecdotes.
A friend of mine spends a lot of time in the Philippines. He said he sometimes meets people who "talk to dead people" and they seem to fit in and function decently enough. Other people know that if you want to talk to a dead relative, you go to them. What's interesting is that my friend told me that when these "talk to dead people" folks move to the US they fall apart and get diagnosed with schizophrenia. Once they are back in the Philippines they are fine.

Second anecdote-- I used to have a friend who had schizophrenia, as it turned out. Money wasn't a problem for her, she had considerable financial resources. She just wouldn't take her pills. She was a beautiful, intelligent, perceptive woman even in the middle of her episodes, who seemed to simply have a hard time integrating into society. Seeing the cruelties of life seemed to hurt her more, and deeper, than it hurt other people.
posted by wuwei at 11:40 AM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Another anecdote:
My brother has paranoid schizophrenia. He does this dangerous thing, when he's stressed, of getting himself arrested by pretending to have a gun, demanding money. He doesn't want to hurt anybody, just wants -- out, I guess.

So recently we had a bit of panic because his group home director told me that the state was working to get folks in group facilities put back in the community. The director to me was like, I have one client who thinks he's from Venus. He's not going to make it outside.

My bro is vulnerable enough that, hopefully with Venus guy, he will get to stay in his safe place. But the idea that somebody would try to take his safe place away makes my blood boil. Because I and his caregivers know that w/o a safe place, the chances that he will get shot by a cop during one of his 'please arrest me' adventures are very high.

Also anecdotally, my parents tried in various ways to get him care when symptoms of his schizophrenia manifested. I disagree with 95% of their choices when it comes to my brother, but my parents did try -- they were greatly hampered by their own limitations and by the lack of mental health care.

My little bro is not going to go shoot a bunch of kids. That's not how his disease manifests. But the amount of danger he has put himself into, he kind of lucky to be alive.

Anyways, one story, not proof of anything.
posted by angrycat at 11:51 AM on December 15, 2012 [8 favorites]

I read that Time piece St. Alia of the Bunnies posted and cried.

I'm a magazine editor, and I know that as writers and editors, we want to write things that touch people—when my colleagues and I read each other's work, we try to let each other know when a passage is particularly affecting, whether we laugh or we cry. That's part of the craft of writing and editing.

But no one I know wants things like this to happen just so they can evoke tears with their writing. These reactions are not the kinds of things you want to find yourself having to quote.

And wrapper, having read a lot of news coverage of this sort of thing myself, I would say that's because the family's first thought generally isn't to the larger culture. Their first thought is "Oh my God. Why did they take my baby?" So no, you probably aren't going to see a lot of victims talking about "gun culture" in initial coverage of things like this, and I think that has more to do with human nature and how we process personal tragedy than any sort of concerted effort on the part of news organizations to omit that sort of reaction.

But I could be wrong; I don't know what they do at other news organizations, and maybe those organizations are full of psychopaths who love it when mass murders occur so they can quote bereaved mothers and make people cry ("That'll get me a Pulitzer for sure!"), and maybe they suppress early quotes talking about gun culture to serve some sort of corporate goal or out of fear of seeming "political." I only know that at my own publication, that's not how we do things.
posted by limeonaire at 11:52 AM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

"we want to write things that touch people"

How many journalists will donate their wages from yesterday toward amending the Second Amendment? How many will remain vampires, feeding off their reality porn?
posted by Ardiril at 12:01 PM on December 15, 2012

The argument I keep seeing on FB today (mostly by pro-gun folk) is that it's not a gun problem, it's a lack of mental healthcare problem, and any sort of gun control won't fix anything, because determined folk can resort to lawn furniture to hurt people.

And the thing is, I agree that mental healthcare in this country (or the lack thereof) is pretty appalling, but pointing that out as a counterargument is like people who talk about weight loss like "Diet is as important, if not moreso, than exercise." Which is true, but like, you know what else remains important then? Exercise!
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 12:09 PM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

NYT recap:

Contradicting earlier reports, Ms. Robinson said Mr. Lanza’s mother, Nancy Lanza, had never been a teacher or a substitute teacher at the school, though she did not specifically say whether she had had any other connection to the place.

Officials said the killing spree began early on Friday at the house where Mr. Lanza had lived with his mother. There, he shot her in the face, making her his first victim, the authorities said. Then, leaving her dead after taking three guns that apparently belonged to her, he climbed into her car for the short drive to the school. Two of the guns were semiautomatic pistols; the other was a semiautomatic rifle.

Outfitted in combat gear, Mr. Lanza forced his way into the school, apparently defeating an intercom system that was supposed to keep people out during the day unless someone inside buzzed them in. This was contrary to earlier reports that he had been recognized and allowed to enter.

So the bulletproof vest has morphed into combat gear and his mother's connection with the school is non-existent.

The "combat gear" and the choice of weapons (for which his mother apparently served as a strawman purchaser) makes this look like a long term developing situation. Wait for what turns up in the search of the home. I'm betting there will be other evidence of long-term planning.

We are still days, if not weeks, from the facts of the case.

Lack of access to mental healthcare was not a factor in this case. Refusal to seek care is more like it. So people should stop scapegoating the mentally ill or mental health providers. This isn't their problem.
posted by warbaby at 12:11 PM on December 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

The argument I keep seeing on FB today (mostly by pro-gun folk) is that it's not a gun problem, it's a lack of mental healthcare problem, and any sort of gun control won't fix anything, because determined folk can resort to lawn furniture to hurt people.

Well, even at that. He apparently wanted to buy a rifle earlier and was dissuaded by the background checks.

So, he stole his mother's legally registered and acquired guns, and used them.

Don't get me wrong - I think there should be more substantive registration and checks of firearms. But at the same time, I see the ineffectiveness of, say, DRM at curbing behaviors and how it gets in the way of legitimate users and how trivial it is for anyone with half a brain to circumvent.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 12:18 PM on December 15, 2012

From the point of view of someone in their early thirties in the UK, the non-hunting pro gun arguments people have voiced on here are some of the most terrifying and personally incomprehensible things I've read recently.

Why the fuck do you guys think it's a great cultural norm for anyone to go around with a tool designed only to kill...? I mean, the parts about "it's just like car keys..." or similar.

NO IT'S FUCKING NOT.
posted by MattWPBS at 12:18 PM on December 15, 2012 [72 favorites]

The argument I keep seeing on FB today (mostly by pro-gun folk) is that it's not a gun problem, it's a lack of mental healthcare problem, and any sort of gun control won't fix anything, because determined folk can resort to lawn furniture to hurt people.

hmmfff.....well, lawn chairs tend to take a bit more time to be effective as a fatal instrument. Yesterday's events would have been far less tragic if the shooter had stocked up at Home Depot that morning.

But I hear ya and get what you are saying. Though coming from FB users, I tend to be reminded of that dad who shot his daughters laptop because she had posted something he did not like on Facebook.

Model citizenry.
posted by lampshade at 12:30 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

From Reuters:

Nancy Lanza legally owned a Sig Sauer and a Glock, both handguns of models commonly used by police, and a military-style Bushmaster .223 M4 carbine, according to law enforcement officials who also believe Adam Lanza used at least some of those weapons. ... Nancy Lanza was an avid gun collector who once showed him a "really nice, high-end rifle" that she had purchased, said Dan Holmes, owner of a landscaping business who recently decorated her yard with Christmas garlands and lights. "She said she would often go target shooting with her kids."

Well then.
posted by Kat Allison at 12:31 PM on December 15, 2012

Gail Collins | The New York Times:

Every country has a sizable contingent of mentally ill citizens. We’re the one that gives them the technological power to play god.

This is all about guns — access to guns and the ever-increasing firepower of guns. Over the past few years we’ve seen one shooting after another in which the killer was wielding weapons holding 30, 50, 100 bullets. I’m tired of hearing fellow citizens argue that you need that kind of firepower because it’s a pain to reload when you’re shooting clay pigeons. Or that the founding fathers specifically wanted to make sure Americans retained their right to carry rifles capable of mowing down dozens of people in a couple of minutes.

... We will undoubtedly have arguments about whether tougher regulation on gun sales or extra bullet capacity would have made a difference in Connecticut. In a way it doesn’t matter. America needs to tackle gun violence because we need to redefine who we are. We have come to regard ourselves — and the world has come to regard us — as a country that’s so gun happy that the right to traffic freely in the most obscene quantities of weapons is regarded as far more precious than an American’s right to health care or a good education.

We have to make ourselves better. Otherwise, the story from Connecticut is too unspeakable to bear.

posted by ericb at 12:33 PM on December 15, 2012 [11 favorites]

Interview with a 1st. Grade teacher (aka a 'brave angel' IMHO) who barricaded her students in their classroom while the shootings were taking place.
posted by ericb at 12:39 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's not been mentioned in this thread, but one aspect of the "right to bear arms for personal defense" argument (as opposed to for sport or for hunting) is deeply held and unspoken racism.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:40 PM on December 15, 2012 [22 favorites]

The argument I keep seeing on FB today (mostly by pro-gun folk) is that it's not a gun problem, it's a lack of mental healthcare problem

I've heard pretty much nothing but chirping crickets from the usual suspects amongst my Facebook friends. Literally the only thing from any of them was that one of the most vocal way out there Jesus-bless-my-guns-so-I-can-protect-America-from-the-Kenyan types posted a picture of an ubiquitous "cause" ribbon with the name of the school on it. As if that absolves him.
posted by Flunkie at 12:41 PM on December 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

How many journalists will donate their wages from yesterday toward amending the Second Amendment? How many will remain vampires, feeding off their reality porn?

You know, journalists have to live—and live with what we've seen and what we've written—just like everyone else. And we're human beings with sometimes complicated sets of feelings about things that are central to living in the U.S., like the Second Amendment. I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all approach to being a journalist or dealing with crises like this, and personally, no, I'm not ready to call for an amendment to the Second Amendment, or donate my wages from yesterday toward that cause.

Speaking only for myself, I'm still working through my thoughts and feelings about this week's shootings and the surrounding issues, processing it all just as so many others are, and figuring out how to move forward. Part of how I'm doing that is by writing down my thoughts and feelings, and commenting when I feel like I have something worth saying or thinking through in writing, as I just did. And another part of how I'm doing that is by reading everyone's thoughts in this thread, including yours, and trying to figure out what I think is a useful or good solution. I am definitely not at a point where I think I have all the answers, but if you feel like you know the way forward, then by all means press on. I'm still figuring it out—and I'm allowed to take the time to do that.

Yes, some journalists are "vampires, feeding off their reality porn." But many more aren't, and the antidote to the behavior of the others isn't snap judgments or instant vows to be part of a given cause.
posted by limeonaire at 12:43 PM on December 15, 2012 [21 favorites]

Yeah, the "those weren't Ms. Lanza's guns" misinformation is pretty thoroughly shattered now, so can we stop repeating it?
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:48 PM on December 15, 2012

I don't care if the guns belonged to her, the shooter, or Charlie Manson. She didn't need all those damn guns.
posted by angrycat at 12:51 PM on December 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

If a government were any damn good, it would actively seek to learn how other nations do things, analyze the results, and choose best practices. Hell, anything less than that is to just pathetically half-ass one's responsibilities to the country.

Assuming that those with true wealth and power want best management practices. I'll bet a scared, stressed-out population is better for them.

I suppose in that case, they are utilizing best practices. For them.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:55 PM on December 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

Why don't the Swiss have a comparable per capita rate of spree killings and other gun violence? Switzerland has a very high rate of gun ownership, including of fully automatic weapons that are banned in the U.S.

I know some studies show a great correlation between social equality and lower rates of violence. (Also better social equality equates with better health and a horde of other things).

The book I am most familiar with is The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone.

One of the co-author's ted talks is here.

The US is an outlier in gun violence and inequality among wealthier countries.
posted by chapps at 12:57 PM on December 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

Isn't it the case that all "illegal guns" were once "legal guns"? It's not like they come out of the gun factories with different labels. While the transition from legal to illegal is one obvious point of attack, the ultimate problem is therefore the legal guns since they are a necessary condition for the illegal ones.

As for being a gun fancier with lots of guns in a house with a mentally-ill 20 year old son, I dunno, that's reckless at best and close to being an accessory before the fact, though no doubt perfectly legal and covered by the 2nd amendment and all that deeply important stuff.
posted by Rumple at 1:00 PM on December 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

octobersurprise: Alabama? We're definitely in mucker territory now.

You reminded me of something I wrote five years ago in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre. My apologies for the length.

John Brunner was cyberpunk before there was such a thing. Brunner's works are somewhat of a riddle. He wrote prolifically, but much of it is about what you would expect. However, in the decade between 1965 and 1975 Brunner unwittingly originated the cyperpunk genre and wrote five of the most horrifically visionary science fiction novels of the 20th century, viz. The Squares of the City, The Sheep Look Up, Stand on Zanzibar, The Jagged Orbit, and The Shockwave Rider.

Arguably, the Hugo award-winning Stand on Zanzibar is the best of the lot. The book takes place in 2010 as seen from 1968. Many of the themes are hauntingly accurate: rampant consumerism, ubiquitous terrorism and "muckers."

The consumerism depicted in Zanzibar is a reasonable projection from the society of 1968. Even then automakers would introduce "Next Year's Model" in the fall. In Zanzibar the "Next Year's Model" syndrome is markedly more pronounced, but not dissimilar to the way everything from clothes to phones are marketed today.

As for terrorism, Brunner's vision is much sharper here. While there are events that could be considered "terrorist attacks" stretching back into antiquity, most of what we know as terrorism hadn't even happened yet. Munich wasn't until 1972. The first terrorist suicide bomb wasn't detonated until 1981. While we haven't risen to the level depicted in Zanzibar, there is no denying that the tactics of terrorism have seen a dramatic upsurge in the last four decades.

The most disturbing future vision raised in Zanzibar is the mucker. A mucker is a person who has run amok, i.e. they have gone into a frenzy and taken up arms with the intent to kill everyone they meet. Usually, there is little to no warning that a person is about to do this. Muckers are typically not captured alive.

In Zanzibar, Brunner describes a society absolutely petrified of muckers. Many of the people in Burnner's world live tightly packed, but in complete isolation from one another. They sit at home and watch the adventures of "Mr. and Mrs. Everywhere," in which their form and speech are digitally superimposed over the actors, so that they feel like they've gone places without leaving their couch. Kept in terror by newscasts that imply that any of their neighbors might run amok at any time, they arm themselves in self-defense, even though it is widely believed that few who stand against a mucker live to tell the tale.

The reasons people run amok are a mystery, both in Zanzibar and in real life. Psychologists, as they are want to do, come up with all kinds of theories, but none can explain what makes a person want to kill dozens of complete strangers. Crackpots have at various times posited video games, pornography, rap music, comic books, and marijuana as prime causes. Society in general comes up with nothing but excuses, much of which is merely an attempt to deflect any collective culpability for the marginalization of the perpetrator. Like the denizens of Brunner's America, we isolate ourselves psychologically from our friends and neighbors, believe more of what we see on the news than is good for us, and deny any part of fomenting an environment in which such tragic events are all but certain to occur.

Is it not plain to see that while tragic and senseless events do occur, THE MAN exploits them to keep us off balance and constantly starting at shadows? Have we come to this, that we slaughter the innocent, convict the guiltless, welcome the oppressor, and praise the charlatan, such is our ignorance and cowardice? With each passing day we advance to a time when Brunner's nightmare visions come closer and closer to reality. Must we perforce bury our essential human dignity deeper and deeper beneath machinery and deceit simply to survive without giving in to the mucker within all of us? As we march inexorably towards that day when all Earth's people, elbow to elbow and face to face, might be able to stand on Zanzibar if we allow some to wade up to their knees, what happens to humanity itself?

posted by ob1quixote at 1:03 PM on December 15, 2012 [28 favorites]

Astonishing arguments above:

* Owning a gun is like owning a fridge or other household appliance.
* Carrying a gun is like carrying a cellphone or car keys.
* Gun control is a bad idea because too many dangerous people have guns.
* Murdering 20 small children is no proof that someone is mentally ill.
* Obtaining an illegal gun is like breaking DRM.

I start to type - and I'm just dumbfounded. Would it really bother you as much to learn that your next door neighbor had 2000 pirated DVDs as to learn they had 100 illegal guns? What possible definition of sanity includes someone who can randomly murder a couple of dozen people, mainly kids?

Is there even any basis for communication between the two sides in this debate?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 1:25 PM on December 15, 2012 [13 favorites]

Today is my son's birthday. It is unfathomable to me that we picked up his birthday cake yesterday, gave him presents today, and that parents lost their children yesterday and will never have another birthday like we had today.

I experience an almost fugue state thinking about it.
posted by zizzle at 1:27 PM on December 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

pyramid termite: i would say that if going off and shooting a bunch of people isn't something that fits our definition of mental illness, then our definition is lacking

Most soldiers are not de facto given a mental illness diagnosis (though shellshock/PTSD is found in a lot of them). As I listed above in my exhaustive listing of studies of mass murderers and schizophrenia, only about 30-40% have contact with the mental health system prior to offending. Mental illness is primarily defined by symtoms a person exhibits, and while someone might be diagnoses AFTER committing a mass murder, as that would be considered 'a symptom', they seem to not meet criteria beforehand and people who do meet criteria for a variety of mental illnesses (possibly even sociopathy - our studies of sociopathy come almost entirely from the prison system, which is a major confound) don't commit mass killings.

False positives are a huge and serious problem, even within more study and predictive driven forensic science, and the majority of mental health is not predictive.

I want to emphasize that. Our predictive ability sucks. (Sucks defined as same as chance). Far more false positives and negatives than valid calls. And when false positives cost people their community, career, and standing that destroys their life.

Even when our predictive ability doesn't suck (which is rarely) there is still usually a huge false positive cohort - not 1% of 5% but 20%. The most predictive test of future violence, Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, has an 80% success rate - which means a 20% failure rate. Its creator admits all the fears he had about it being applied in a criminal setting have pretty much come true.

"Once you get into the real world, there does seem to be some lessening of reliability," says Daniel Murrie, a professor at the University of Virginia who has studied what happens when psychological tests are taken from a rarefied research environment and transferred to the rough-and-tumble world of criminal justice.

About four years ago, Murrie decided to study the PCL-R to look at what happened when a psychologist hired by the prosecution gave Hare's test to the same prisoner as a psychologist hired by the defense.

Did those two psychologists give the same score to the same person?

The answer, says Murrie, was no. "Ten, 15, even 20-point score differences we found," he says, " And overall there was about an 8-point difference in scores."

And this is with something pretty tested and predictive - that inter-rater reliability is crap. In a study, those would have to be thrown out. In a court, someone whose defense didn't get their own scoring can be labeled a "sociopath" and kept in prison for the rest of their life even if they didn't kill someone.

Nevermind that since the majority (2/3) of mass murderers have no significant contact with the mental health system we'd just have to test everyone and then... I don't know, throw them all in prison? Seriously, before they've committed a crime, how do you think this can even be addressed? Right now we're not meeting the needs (food, clothing, shelter) of the mental illness population we have; I'm not sure where the money could come to follow around people who somehow fail the "will committ mass murder" test we haven't even made yet.

A lot of people seem really, really invested in re-defining "mental illness" to keep the people who kill people from being "normal." The cost to that is the lives of people with legitamate mental illnesses who never commit crimes - people already struggling who are discriminated against because people are afraid of them. This is fucking criminal.

People being scared of mass murderers is not a good enough reason to punish anyone with a mental illness, nor is it enough to de facto remake the mental illness system to address mass murderers at the expense of everyone else.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:28 PM on December 15, 2012 [16 favorites]

So, it's been my experience that mental health care is pretty much available to anyone who wants it. All they have to do it look for it. The people who snap and do unspeakable things (whether it's mass killings, serial killings, killing one person, or suicide) are those who refuse medical care, aren't aware that help is possible, or simple refuse to admit that they need it.

As someone who was poor and looking for affordable mental health care during a crisis, your experience was not my experience at all. After days of searching I found one facility that offered $30 for the first session--$100 for all sessions after that. Then the cost of medication. Right now I get treatment because of my school's counseling center. When I leave I am not sure what I'll do. Do not assume it's that easy.
posted by Anonymous at 1:43 PM on December 15, 2012

What group is the anti-NRA? The Brady Campaign seems to spend lots of money fundraising. I need to do what I can to fight the pernicious effects of the NRA. What group do I join?
posted by professor plum with a rope at 1:50 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

The victims.

Children:

Charlotte Bacon, 6
Daniel Barden, 7
Olivia Engel, 6
Josephine Gay, 7
Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 6
Dylan Hockley, 6
Madeleine F. Hsu, 6
Catherine V. Hubbard, 6
Chase Kowalski, 7
Jesse Lewis, 6
James Mattioli, 6
Grace McDonnell, 7
Emilie Parker, 6
Jack Pinto, 6
Noah Pozner, 6
Caroline Previdi, 6
Jessica Rekos, 6
Aveille Richman, 6
Benjamin Wheeler, 6
Allison N. Wyatt, 6

Adults:

Dawn Hocksprung, 47
Rachel Davino, 29
Anne Marie Murphy, 52
Lauren Russeau, 30
Mary Sherlach, 56
Victoria Soto, 27

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
posted by zizzle at 1:51 PM on December 15, 2012 [25 favorites]

Huckabee: Schools ‘A Place Of Carnage’ Because We ‘Systematically Removed God’
"He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."
Valid military targets are children

God sure is a strange cat eh?
posted by rough ashlar at 1:51 PM on December 15, 2012

Is there even any basis for communication between the two sides in this debate?

It is like trying to communicate with goldfish about water. You're talking to people who can't conceive "no water". US culture ensures you spend your life swimming in violence. For a great majority of Americans, the concept of safety without firepower is as absurd as the concept of breathing in outer space.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:52 PM on December 15, 2012 [14 favorites]

This prompted me to return to chapter 2 of Colin Wilson's epic A Criminal History of Mankind. (Yes, Wilson was infaturated with the occult, but he was also one of the best true crime writers to ply the trade.) In "A Report on the Violent Man" Wilson recounts a theory of A. E. Van Vogt, a renowned science fiction writer who was also the author of a number of psychological studies.

Van Vogt had formed the theory that a certain subset of the population, particularly men (but as Wilson later argues a few women too) are "Right Men" who have a consistent psychological weakness. Of the examples Wilson visits perhaps the most prominent is Peter Sellers, a brilliant and respected actor who was deeply insecure and prone to fly into uncontrollable rages when challenged. Wilson:

Van Vogt makes the basic observation that the central characteristic of the Right Man is 'the decision to be out of control, in some particular area.' We all have to learn self-control to deal with the real world, and with other people. But with some particular person -- a mother, a wife, a child -- we may decide that this effort is unnecessary and allow ourselves to explode.

After recounting another anecdote from Sergei Aksasov's Family Chronicle of his grandfather flying into a senseless rage, Wilson continues:

Aksasov sees his grandfather as a 'noble, magnanimous, often self-restrained man' -- So he is capable of self-restraint. But in this one area of his life, his control over his family, he has made 'the decision to be out of control.' It is provoked by his daughter persisting in a lie; this infuriates him; he feels she is treating him with a lack of respect in assuming he can be duped. So he explodes and drags his wife around by the hair.

So how does this behavior extend to mass murder? A later comment is haunting:

The Right Man feels that his rage is a storm which has to be allowed to blow itself out, no matter what damage it causes. But this means he is also the slave of an impulse he cannot control; his property, even the lives of those he loves, are at the mercy of his emotions.

I'll just leave it at that; Wilson takes over 600 pages making his case that this kind of behavior is fairly common, readily provoked by certain recognizable situations, and becoming steadily more common and bizarre. These are not people who would normally be recognized as "mentally ill." They are hard working upstanding citizens and they do not consider themselves dangerous; often neither do their victims even after multiple outbursts.

Recounting an episode when Peter Sellers flew into a tantrum, stabbed the floorboard with a knife and told his maid "I'll kill you you cow," Wilson says we must leave the question open of whether he was serious. Many similar examples show that, despite all he had to lose, he might well have gone through with it if sufficiently provoked. (In that case the maid jumped out a window and ran for her life, never to be seen by the Sellers family again.)

I'll let the rest of you lot argue about whether such people should have guns and if not how to keep them separated.
posted by localroger at 1:53 PM on December 15, 2012 [20 favorites]

Then why are there unmedicated crazy people walking the streets. You know, a good majority of the homeless population suffer from some sort of mental disorder, PTSD or Schizophrenia.

I will say this more simply since people seem to not be reading.

The rates of violence among those with schizophrenia are about the same as those without; higher rates of violence are correlated with drug use, not mental illness.

"A small preportion of violence in our society can be attributed to people who are mentally ill." [Disclaimer: I did not read their studies they meta-analysed, but the methodology they used seemed sound.]

Also, people who are medicated may still have symptoms of hallucinations and delusions; most of my clients still do, even though they are medicated, but effective case management can teach coping skills and reality testing. Negative symptoms, like avolition and cognitive disorganization, also often remain. Having a very severe mental illness sucks hairy monkey balls, and a bunch of people deciding you also are an empryo-mass-murder does not help.

Most people with severe enough mental illnesses can get on social security and use medicaid and medicare. Getting on can take years (you often have to apply multiple times), but once you're in you can usually score a case manager (like me) who can try to keep the benefits going. Medicare is the hardest to maintain; it gives me serious headaches because we have to renew every year (oh yeah, last year she had schizophrenia, but this year just an adjustment disorder! *spits*). If you're looking for local services in the USA, call 211 and explain your situation; each state has a different process even when the services are Federally Mandated. I believe NAMI might also have people who can help you navigate getting services. If you memail me your location, I'll see what I can find; I have experience across a couple of states.

If you want to help, contact NAMI. They can point you to ways to volunteer locally. One basic way to help is to treat all human beings with respect and dignity, even if they are talking to themselves but don't have a bluetooth headset.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:53 PM on December 15, 2012 [16 favorites]

At some point I think we have to consider that instead of just lumping this under the category of mental illness....we need to understand that there is such a thing is evil. Evil is not equivalent to mentally ill. Most mentally ill people are NOT evil by any standard, for one. For another, one could be evil and totally sane.

Unless this shooter was totally delusional, or dealing with, say, paranoid schizophrenia (which we have no evidence for either at this point) we have to realize that sometimes the only answer we will have to something like this is someone chose to embody evil.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 1:55 PM on December 15, 2012

Oh, and before anyone jumps in I am very aware that most schizophrenic people are totally harmless to others.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 1:57 PM on December 15, 2012

> Is there even any basis for communication between the two sides in this debate?

Nope. And the winning side (those who just hold out until they're forced to shoot you down to shut you up) have us all at 6s and 7s.
posted by de at 1:59 PM on December 15, 2012

Murdering 20 small children is no proof that someone is mentally ill.

What possible definition of sanity includes someone who can randomly murder a couple of dozen people, mainly kids?

Wading in here against all my better judgement to just clarify something.

Sanity (at least for our current discussion context) is primarily a legal term and refers to the soundness of mind of an indivdual during the comission of a crime; it boils down to the question of "did the defendant know what he was doing, or, if so, that it was wrong?".

Mental illness and insanity are not the same thing; there are a tremendous number of people with mental health issues who are not insane. We all know and live with people (even if they haven't told you) who are working on mental health issues who are not a threat to anyone.

I have no idea what was going on with the perpetrator in this case (I've actually been avoiding the news because it makes me physically ill) and I'm not going to speculate, but this is one of those semantic things that makes life for those coping with mental illness a little harder.
posted by never used baby shoes at 2:01 PM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

This is a good series of links if you want to understand what has been found in studying mass murderers. I'm gradually going through the links (this is an area of particular interest to me, though my real obsession had been serial killers who have a very different morphology). This is the overview I started on last night which gave a framework for the four hypothesized 'types' of mass murder within adolescent populations and an overview of possible motivations.
posted by Deoridhe at 2:02 PM on December 15, 2012 [9 favorites]

we need to understand that there is such a thing is evil

Nonsense. "Evil" is not a useful term for discussion of matters of safety, crime, and punishment.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 2:06 PM on December 15, 2012 [35 favorites]

Aunt of Adam Lanza says he was raised in loving home, family had not noticed behavioral issues

The father's family is from Crystal Lake, IL. The mother grew up on a farm in New Hampshire and is "familiar with guns".

More on the New Hampshire ties.
posted by dhartung at 2:06 PM on December 15, 2012

I could not stop crying yesterday.

Today I'm trying to figure out how it is that I'm raising my sons and daughter in a culture where we teach our kids how to avoid being shot and avoid being raped, instead of doing the things that would have to happen to keep people from shooting or raping them. The burden is being put on the wrong parts of the equation here, and it is sickening.

Small children hiding in a cupboard, while someone murders their schoolmates, because we can't have it be too hard for someone to own a piece of machinery that only exists to main or kill? Disgusting.
posted by Lulu's Pink Converse at 2:06 PM on December 15, 2012 [13 favorites]

Newtown is also the home of the the firearms industry's trade assocition, the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
posted by warbaby at 2:07 PM on December 15, 2012

we need to understand that there is such a thing is evil

This has also popped up in my Facebook feed, too. I don't think it's a particularly sophisticated or insightful way to address what happened yesterday.
posted by KokuRyu at 2:09 PM on December 15, 2012 [12 favorites]

we have to realize that sometimes the only answer we will have to something like this is someone chose to embody evil

...and conveniently had a bunch of guns lying around.
posted by Sys Rq at 2:10 PM on December 15, 2012 [15 favorites]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
posted by MattWPBS at 2:15 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Metastitchers, http://www.ravelry.com/groups/600-monsters-strong-for-connecticut
posted by zizzle at 2:15 PM on December 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

> sometimes the only answer we will have to something like this is someone chose to embody evil.

Surely that translates to "nothing can be done"?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:15 PM on December 15, 2012

we need to understand that there is such a thing is evil

Nonsense. "Evil" is not a useful term for discussion of matters of safety, crime, and punishment.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 2:06 PM on December 15 [3 favorites +] [!]

Why not? Social scientists and psychologists study it. Philip Zimbardo is one.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 2:15 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I start to type - and I'm just dumbfounded. Would it really bother you as much to learn that your next door neighbor had 2000 pirated DVDs as to learn they had 100 illegal guns?

That wasn't what I was getting at.

Look, this kid tried to buy a gun and was denied. The system, to that point, as it exists, worked.

But like the analog hole, he just found someone who had the weapons he wanted, and took them; more or less trivially.

I mean, Anders Breivik even circumvented the highly rigid gun control laws of Norway to perform his attack, using a legally acquired handgun and hunting rifle.

That's not to say that there are fundamental weakness and problems with firearm legislation and culture in the US. There certainly is.

Fundamentally, there is precious little you can do if someone decides that they are going to fuck it all and take as many people as possible with them. The basic trust that is required to make a society is the biggest vulnerability.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 2:15 PM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

I think "evil" has perhaps too many connotations to be the right word (and, realistically, St. Alia, coming from you it's not even as neutral as it could be) but I think it is useful to be aware of our desperate need to classify and define as a way to control things, and stepping back and saying "bad things happen that we can't stop" balances that somewhat. I'm not saying, at all, that we shouldn't be thinking of steps to improve things in general, but there's a danger in trying to control everything ever in order to be safe - that's the mentality that leads us to stupid airport "security" and dangerous laws and, yes, stockpiling guns and ammo.
posted by restless_nomad at 2:15 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Somehow worse seeing the names and ages like that.
posted by MattWPBS at 2:17 PM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Oh God, reading those names
posted by angrycat at 2:18 PM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

I'm really surprised at the lack of rationality and logical argument here. Still a lot of raw emotion leading the charge.

My opinion will likely be unpopular, so I won't bother voicing it.

What I will say is that I reject the idea that something MUST be done when tragedies like this happen. I don't understand that need because I don't think it's rational.
posted by autobahn at 2:22 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

If people shooting other people is evil then America is the most evilest of all places but I learned in third grade that America was the most best place? I'll pray on it.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 2:22 PM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

The Lanza family will be holding a press conference at 6:00 p.m. (Eastern).
posted by ericb at 2:22 PM on December 15, 2012

All of those babies. And the adults caring for them. My kid is 7. I haven't talked to him about this. How can I? His vivid imagination will have him imagining gunmen in class immediately. Yes, there were "helpers" and heroes, but those kids are still dead, mowed down in a classroom, despite a security measure, despite drills. I can't honestly say to him "you're safe."
posted by emjaybee at 2:23 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Very brave of you, autobahn, but don't think you're alone. I also stand in righteous judgment of all present.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 2:24 PM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Yeah, ok, several of my brother's close friends' kids are on that list.

Somehow, the person I'm most furious with is Mike Huckabee, though.

Fuck you, Mike Huckabee. You go tell those parents "Well, this is your fault for not allowing prayer in school." Say it to their face, you fucking bible thumping coward. Some of those kids are from church going Christian families. Go say to their faces "I know she prayed at home and at church, but God killed her because he's really angry that prayer wasn't allowed in school. Oh, and all those kids he let live even though there is no prayer in school? Well, God spared them. He punished your daughter, though."

Seriously, Mike Huckabee, I never had much of an opinion about you before, but fuck you so hard for making this a TV talking point to bolster your own career. You are no true Christian. You are no true human being. You deserve to live a long life in obscurity and die naturally at a ripe old age forgotten by most and cursed by the rest.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:25 PM on December 15, 2012 [95 favorites]

we need to understand that there is such a thing is evil. Evil is not equivalent to mentally ill.

Evil is a perception or construct of the state of the world and/or its inhabitants. It is not quantifiable in any way that can assist in preventing itself, even if it was something other than some odd way we try to explain the un-explainable behavior and values of others.
posted by lampshade at 2:26 PM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

My god, all 6 or 7. My youngest daughter is 6 almost 7 and I am thinking of 20 children like this, my god. Those poor parents, sisters, brothers.
posted by torticat at 2:26 PM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

> But like the analog hole,

:-o

For most people, acquiring an illegal gun is nothing at all like copying a digital recording through your analog outputs.

> he just found someone who had the weapons he wanted, and took them; more or less trivially.

But you see, in the world I live in, that most people in the first world live in, it is absolutely not trivial to get guns, because of gun control. In my world, he would not have trivially been able to get guns - indeed, it's quite likely he wouldn't have been able to get them at all.

Your argument is "guns are easy to get, therefore restrictions on them are pointless." This is circular logic.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:26 PM on December 15, 2012

Fuck you, Mike Huckabee.

Yeah, that too.
posted by lampshade at 2:27 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

You know what, sorry for that rant. I won't delete it because I just posted it and want to respect the editing guidelines, but I am clearly too emotionally connected to this to participate rationally. Will back off this discussion for a bit.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:27 PM on December 15, 2012

demonic possession, now there's yer problem
posted by Flunkie at 2:28 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Interesting info on how other countries with military-oriented populations (specifically, Switzerland and Israel) handle gun control:

Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias
posted by zombieflanders at 2:29 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

sorry for that rant.

I don't see any reason that you should be sorry. Huck is being obnoxious and opportunistic. Probably to get more fish for his various religious scams.
posted by lampshade at 2:30 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

There's something about knowing the event and knowing that a girl named Caroline is dead for no reason. I am not a parent and have no plans to be one. But I do love kids that age and I remember that time of my life to be one of -- well, aside from some spankings after I started invading the boy's bathroom at school, it was just a pure happy time.

The other thing I was thinking of, is this has a feeling to it of Atom Eygan's movie The Sweet Hereafter. It is not the best movie in the world, but there was this idea nestled in it that reminded me of this event. The idea is that the children died because of the sins of members of the community, and there is an explicit reference to The Pied Piper. And it struck me that one thing about that age is stories like The Pied Piper, and fucking believing in that shit, because you are five or six or seven.

I'm just free-associating here, but it seems like there is something about this event that is just so unsettling, and it has to do with scary stories coming true. It has to do with this instinctive animal reaction when young ones are threatened. The urge to run, bite, hit, do everything to protect is very strong.

But there's nothing to be done. Except for policy change. I do believe in policy changes that can work. The other thought that struck me is that 9/11 was used to club liberals for a good eight years. We got two wars out of it. Fine. Let's turn it over: Use this to abolish (rescind?) the second amendment.
posted by angrycat at 2:30 PM on December 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

Memorial Facebook Page for the Victims at Sandy Hook Elementary.
posted by ericb at 2:34 PM on December 15, 2012

Joey Michaels: no, don't feel sorry. You're just saying what any decent person would feel.

> Fundamentally, there is precious little you can do if someone decides that they are going to fuck it all and take as many people as possible with them.

Yes there is. You can make it much harder for them to get the weapons to kill a lot of people. The fact that the systems that do this in other countries occasionally fail is no proof that these systems don't work.

> The basic trust that is required to make a society is the biggest vulnerability.

And owning guns is both a symptom and a cause of a breakdown in that trust.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:35 PM on December 15, 2012

I have a little habit that I've always enjoyed up until now. When I read a list of children's names (my daughter's classmates, an honor roll, a Little League team), I think about what they will become someday. Neurologist. Baseball player. Veterinarian. Opera singer. Judge. Mother of 6 kids. Ranch hand. Used car salesman. I didn't want to play that game with this list, but I can't help it. I just really hope they never knew what was happening.
posted by Rock Steady at 2:38 PM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

emjaybee, I absolutely feel for you, but talk to your son, it's better than that he hear from friends. My husband and I told our 6 and 9yo daughters this morning (we kept the news off last night). They had some questions but it was okay. We had heard yesterday from their school (which is in Hoboken) about security and discussed that with the kids. 9yo asked if someone still couldn't break a window and get into their school, and I said the answer is yes, but there are many dangers we face every day (car accidents and so on) and we just do everything we can to be safe.

I think children understand. I admit I'm afraid of their hearing details as they come out, though.
posted by torticat at 2:41 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

After my last post, I saw the list of names and ages and birth dates. My older son turned six at the end of October. One child on that list turned six about a week before him; another child turned six about a week after. There are 25 children in his class - there are 20 children on that list. It is the utter decimation of a group just like the one I spent last Wednesday morning with in the classroom. And now I'm trying to think of where his teachers could hide him and his classmates from someone with a gun.
posted by Lulu's Pink Converse at 2:41 PM on December 15, 2012

I respect you for proposing the repeal of the second amendment. Most people don't have the honesty or the guts to come out and say that's what they want.

I'd just settle for the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment, which is not the individual right the NRA wants you to believe it is.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 2:43 PM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

We wouldn't have to repeal the Second Amendment - we could do just what the Patriot Act did to the First, Fourth and Sixth Amendments, which is to temporarily suspend them for the duration of the emergency.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:43 PM on December 15, 2012 [9 favorites]

Your argument is "guns are easy to get, therefore restrictions on them are pointless." This is circular logic.

I'm sorry if I was unclear, but you have completely misunderstood my argument.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 2:48 PM on December 15, 2012

Fundamentally, there is precious little you can do if someone decides that they are going to fuck it all and take as many people as possible with them.

You can still make it harder for them. This is what happens when a Columbine admirer tries to kill a lot of people in a country where guns are difficult to purchase. Because he found it impossible to get guns, this guy tried to use explosives (140 kg) and got caught. In a nutshell: it's feasible (Breivik) but more difficult as it requires more time and dedication and it's more likely that the cops will get you.
posted by elgilito at 2:50 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I needed a break from the heartache. I found it here: 26 Moments That Restored Our Faith In Humanity This Year -- "Sometimes you need a reminder that people can do wonderful things."
posted by ericb at 2:51 PM on December 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

> I'm sorry if I was unclear, but you have completely misunderstood my argument.

Then what is your argument? I mean, here's what you wrote.

Look, this kid tried to buy a gun and was denied. The system, to that point, as it exists, worked.

But like the analog hole, he just found someone who had the weapons he wanted, and took them; more or less trivially.

You seem to be arguing that the rules were pointless, because he was trivially able to get a gun.

I mean, Anders Breivik even circumvented the highly rigid gun control laws of Norway to perform his attack, using a legally acquired handgun and hunting rifle.

You seem to be arguing that the failure of Norway's system implies that stricter rules would not prevent an attack.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:52 PM on December 15, 2012

We wouldn't have to repeal the Second Amendment - we could do just what the Patriot Act did to the First, Fourth and Sixth Amendments, which is to temporarily suspend them for the duration of the emergency.
is it bad that I can't really tell which side you're on
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 2:52 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

We have to do SOMETHING.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 2:52 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Aaaand cue family member advocating for more guns in schools and quoting Wayne fucking LaPierre. I sense an impending unfriending. I called her post stupid and insensitive because the rage just took over. She has four kids, two in that age group. I don't even know how she can live with that much cognitive dissonance.

I'm not taking it back. It's fucking stupid to say teachers being armed increases safety. Fucking stupid and fucking wrong.
posted by emjaybee at 2:56 PM on December 15, 2012 [12 favorites]

This is totally selfish at a time when I'm crying because an online friend went to school with someone who lost their son on Friday.

But two things are pissing me off today.

My son's school has lockdown drills. School shootings are incredibly rare in Australia (I think there's been maybe two in 20 years, and they were at universities). But my 11 year old and his friends have to be taught how to hide if someone with a weapon and violent intent storms their small rural school. That's just anti-childhood. When I was a kid, we were taught about 'stranger danger' (before the stats came out that paedophiles are more commonly known to their victims). Now we have to teach our kids how to hide from mad gun-toting lunatics, because there's a news story about yet another massacre in the US regularly?

The second thing is a conversation I had with a friend yesterday. She insisted that it wouldn't have happened if the teachers had been able to carry weapons. No matter what I said, she couldn't understand my point that these people are TEACHERS. On what level is it logical that a kindergarten teacher should have to carry a gun?

On preview: St Alia, hassle your politicians until they adapt something like Australia's gun control system. It ain't perfect, we still have gunshot deaths, but it works a hell of a lot better than the current US model.
posted by malibustacey9999 at 2:56 PM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Angrycat, I respect you for proposing the repeal of the second amendment. Most people don't have the honesty or the guts to come out and say that's what they want.
posted by autobahn at 5:35 PM on December 15

I am so fucking sick of all the conservatives darkly alluding (or outright saying) that liberals just want all the guns banned and leave us weak and unprotected against the Big Bad Government. You want to know why people think you're paranoid maniacs? Because of shit like this!

I wonder sometimes whether these pro-gun advocates have actually thought about the amount of damage one person can do with the more high-powered, automated firepower they're screaming to protect. In the Port Arthur Massacre--the one that precipitated Australia's stricter gun laws--approximately the first 10 people were killed in 5-10 seconds. That is the power of a semiautomatic--just a semiautomatic. More people with guns might have stopped him afterwards--but they would not have saved the first ten people, or the other people he'd continue to kill until our theoretical Heroic Gunman was able to pull out their own gun.

Then I remember that pro-gun advocates know these weapons better than anyone else, and are fully aware of their killing capabilities. And I find that chilling.
posted by Anonymous at 3:02 PM on December 15, 2012

What I will say is that I reject the idea that something MUST be done when tragedies like this happen. I don't understand that need because I don't think it's rational.

Yeah, let's wait until there are another 32 school massacres. That will be the rational time.
posted by dhartung at 3:04 PM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

You seem to be arguing that the failure of Norway's system implies that stricter rules would not prevent an attack.

In the case of the colombine admirer, he just resorted to building bombs, instead.

And he wasn't undone because he grew a conscience, or whatever. He was undone because he mentioned it on the internet and the police noticed. Had he kept his mouth shut....

Look - I'm not some "Live free or die" love my guns freak or anything. And I agree in the main that guns - particularly handguns - should be much harder to obtain. But that being said, I operate under no illusion that the solution to American Mass Murder is purely legislative. Even under the current legislative regime, flawed as it is, it would be possible to prevent further attacks.

But this : And owning guns is both a symptom and a cause of a breakdown in that trust.

Is stupid.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 3:04 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Many of us are sickened even more so about this tragedy because of its proximity to Christmas-it had totally escaped me until I did some browsing around elsewhere on the Internet and saw it mentioned- that in the original Christmas story there was also another slaughter of the innocents( King Herod's order having babies two years old and younger murdered in Bethlehem.)

What an awful, awful, awful irony. If I didn't want to throw up before I sure do now. Rachel weeping for her children, indeed.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 3:06 PM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

One thing that interests me - in a very dark and screwed-up way - is that whenever the Gun Rights advocates come roaring out, there is never any mention of gun responsibility.

None.

It's like the business plan for the Underpants Gnomes: get guns, ?????, COLD DEAD HANDS.

I'll happily go on the record here stating that I do not like guns. I don't want to hold them, I don't want to shoot them, I don't want to be in the same room as them. I am uneasy when I am around cops with sidearms because it's a goddamn gun and that is how much I dislike the things. They are machines designed to make killing easier, that is all, and that gives me one hell of an uncomfortableness.

That said - some people are into them. Okay. I don't get it but I will respect it. The problem that I have is that the only reaction The Gun Culture has to these mass shootings is an immediate othering. "That never should have happened." "That man is obviously insane." "Someone should have locked up the guns." "Arm the teachers." Whatever. There's never any mention of a collective personal responsibility to keep these things from actually being used to put holes in people. You never see anyone say "You know what? Screw this noise. Nobody needs a 100 round mag. I'm getting rid of mine, just in case."

To pull amendments into it: my right to free speech ends where it hurts someone else. I am completely okay with that, because hurting people is Just Not On. Ever. I would love to see gun laws tightened up. Spitbull has some great ideas about what could be done, from the perspective of A Person Who Knows Guns, which I appreciate, since I am not one.

I'd like to see some expectation of responsibility added to the equation, to make sure that the damned things are not used by unhinged madmen wrapped in Kevlar. But it's not there. I find that both telling and frightening.
posted by cmyk at 3:13 PM on December 15, 2012 [12 favorites]

spitbull, that's Connie Sullivan. She's a 3rd grade teacher.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:14 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Pogo_Fuzzybutt: "But this : And owning guns is both a symptom and a cause of a breakdown in that trust.

Is stupid."

I don't see why. If people right here in this thread have said that one reason they carry guns and other weapons is to protect themselves, and possibly others, in the event of an attack by another person bearing weapons, that's a sign of a fundamental societal distrust. Many people seem to have accepted this fundamental distrust of their fellow man as normal, but it absolutely is not. In a civilized society, although aberrant behavior can always occur, it should not be taken for granted that you might need to defend yourself with a deadly weapon at any moment. It's a symptom of distrust.

And of course, if nobody had weapons, the argument would carry less weight. Many people say that laws are useless because then only law-abiding people would be left defenseless. In this case, they're directly pointing to the cause of their fundamental lack of trust as the fact that many ill-intentioned people own, or have easy access to, firearms.

So saying that gun ownership is both as symptom and a cause of a breakdown in trust doesn't seem to me to be a partisan statement of position, but simply an objective description of the current situation.

The issue then becomes, how do we rebuild trust where it has eroded or been lost? That's the real heart of the matter.
posted by Superplin at 3:16 PM on December 15, 2012 [15 favorites]

XQUZYPHYR, thank you for injecting the note into this conversation is that what needs to happen is that we change the culture. An awful lot of discussion assumes that American gun culture is an immutable thing, that the absurdity of gun ownership in this country will remain in place forever. But we know, we've seen this happen with issues like homophobia, racism, and smoking, that cultural norms do shift. Slowly, on a generational time scale, but they can shift. I have no idea what the points of leverage are (putting on my Donella Meadows hat) on our cultural system, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
posted by Numenius at 3:16 PM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

I am watching Connie Sullivan being interviewed on MSNBC. Another angel!
posted by ericb at 3:17 PM on December 15, 2012

Earlier MSNBC interviewed a high school student whose family lives next to the school. He heard the gunshots and rushed to the school to locate his 9 y.o. sister. He was able to witness the police, teachers and others -- and was so impressed with how they managed the tragedy. He also mentioned that every teacher in the elementary school has called each of their students this morning to check up on them. "Our teachers are always there and concerned about us."
posted by ericb at 3:20 PM on December 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

Steal the pictures. Put them all over the internet.
posted by wrapper at 3:23 PM on December 15, 2012

I don't see why. If people right here in this thread have said that one reason they carry guns and other weapons is to protect themselves, and possibly others, in the event of an attack by another person bearing weapons, that's a sign of a fundamental societal distrust

I agree so far as you take it.

But I own guns. They aren't for protection, though. They're for hunting and target shooting. Are those uses symptomatic of societal distrust ? I don't agree that they are. Most people I know who have guns have them for the same reason.

Which is my roundabout way of saying that there are legitimate uses for firearms that get overlooked in a mad rush to paint every gun owner as a nutcase.

I've said, in this thread and others, there is much broken with American gun culture and legislation. That said, there is no panacea.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 3:28 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I hadn't yet seen this from Daily Kos. It's a very powerful argument.
posted by limeonaire at 3:31 PM on December 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

Seeing the names of all those little six and seven year olds, I keep going back to the news reports of how their parents had to wait in that fire station, watching other parents being reunited with their children, until they were told there were no more children coming home.
No human should ever have to endure that. No one.
posted by Dr. Zira at 3:32 PM on December 15, 2012 [33 favorites]

Best thing on my Twitter today: Public school teachers will lay their bodies over your children to protect them. Are you sure you want to cut their pay & benefits?

Worst thing: Stephanie Drury of Stuff Christian Culture likes retweeted several horrible messages she found saying "God needed more angels" and "those kids are celebrating Christmas in Heaven," and then I had to stop reading.
posted by emjaybee at 3:33 PM on December 15, 2012 [15 favorites]

Here is something I can share without losing my shit. Two places to donate if you feel that's something you'd like to do.

The Sandy Hook School Support Fund (via The United Way)

Newtown Youth and Family Service
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:37 PM on December 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

"God needed more angels" and "those kids are celebrating Christmas in Heaven"

This is what people tell themselves in order to not feel empathy. It's Heaven! How lucky!
posted by five fresh fish at 4:13 PM on December 15, 2012 [8 favorites]

I respect that you think we should publicize the horror as a strategy, but describing carnage in graphic detail is just not going to happen here, period.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 4:13 PM on December 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

One thing we know about mass murderers - they pretty much don't snap. Mass murder requires planning, usually at least a couple months though in some cases the planning went on for more than a year.
posted by Deoridhe at 4:27 PM on December 15, 2012

A lot of people seem really, really invested in re-defining "mental illness" to keep the people who kill people from being "normal."

i can't believe that anyone would ever define this kind of massacre as "normal" behavior - i don't even believe that you're saying that

we simply haven't come up with a good definition of what kind of illness we're dealing with - and i think it's pretty obvious that it isn't any other mental illness that we've already defined

i'm 100% percent agreed that we shouldn't stigmatize people with the currently set of diagnoses with the accusation that they might go off and shoot people, too

what these mass murderers are suffering from is something different and we need to find out what that is if we can

failure to try would be "fucking criminal"
posted by pyramid termite at 4:32 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am Jason Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help - One mothers struggle with a desperately mentally ill son.
posted by growabrain at 4:33 PM on December 15, 2012 [25 favorites]

One thing we know about mass murderers - they pretty much don't snap. Mass murder requires planning, usually at least a couple months though in some cases the planning went on for more than a year.

I don't mean snap in the sense that it was a crime of passion, but that he crossed some sort threshold where it became less of a fantasy and he started making tangible steps.

I do think that crimes like this can be committed by troubled, very depressed and isolated people who aren't "evil" or even incapable of empathy at other times in their lives. I know that's difficult for people to accept.
posted by timsneezed at 4:34 PM on December 15, 2012

People who see death up close are often changed by the experience.

i'm not sure that seeing it in the newspaper or on tv - or the net - really counts as up close, though
posted by pyramid termite at 4:35 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Uh, yeah it does. I was in Phoenix a few months ago for 2 weeks and in every restaurant and store I went into there was at least 1 person with a sidearm. Maybe I was in the bad part of town or something but it was still unnerving for me.

Ohhhh yeah. I went to Phoenix for the first time last year to visit friends who had moved there from California. And hoo boy, DO THEY LOVE GUNS NOW. They took me to a firing range they have a membership at within 24 hours of my arrival. And I'll admit it: I usually don't have aim IRL (unless I've been drinking and then my pool game magically improves), but with a gun, I had surprisingly good aim and it was fun. I could see the appeal of enjoying the ability to aim. But I could probably have as much fun doing the same with a water gun or a BB gun, I suspect.

Now, I've always been neutral about guns. Depends on who has them and how they are using them. The most important thing about guns to me is well, where they're being pointed and used. The folks I know who have guns are all responsible gun owners, nobody in the house is involved in crime or seriously mentally ill, I don't worry about them. I know two people with concealed carry permits. One of them works in a law enforcement field and after he told me how many folks he sees that he ah, dealt with professionally at the nearby mall, I can't say I blame him for carrying. One of the folks who moved to Arizona now carries because he got mugged while living in California. And the new Arizonans were telling me (as they were driving me up the highway) that there were areas of the highway that you did not stop for anything, did not use a rest stop, nothing, because you'd probably be killed due to the drug trade. I have to admit, that...gave me a new perspective on why one would be worried enough in that state to want to carry.

But yeah, it sure seems like everybody in that city has them. The friends told me that any business in Phoenix who tries to ban people with guns from entering loses a lot of business. On the other hand, I talked to one business owner who was all, "How the hell would I know if they had any guns?" And what with the concealing and all, the only person I saw the gun of was my friend, because he showed it to me.

I don't know what to think about gun control. A countrywide ban isn't likely to happen, so what else can you do? I'm fine with sane folks who are careful about their targets having guns, I am not fine with the mentally ill and homicidal having them. But how do we stop those people from getting guns? (Hell, in this case the guy got his mom's legal guns. But why did she need that many?) I don't know. I don't know if that is solvable. It sure seems like the "bad guys" seem to get their hands on guns when they want them despite regulations. Fuck if I know, and it's way beyond my power to solve anyway.
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:35 PM on December 15, 2012

Confronting the Reality of their Choices

Ms. Lanza was a gun owner, exercising her 2nd Amendment rights. As is often the case, the guns she presumably had for her own protection were used to kill her. That would be a sad irony usually, but in this case is a brutal tragedy because the guns were then used to murder an additional 26 innocent people.

So, how about this proposal: You know how “pro-life” people always want women to “confront the reality of their choices” by showing them ultrasounds and pictures of fetuses? Well, maybe we could make it a requirement that people buying guns be forced to watch a slideshow of the crime scene pictures from Newtown (or Aurora or any of the thousands of other gun murders per year). Maybe that would drive home the reality of the choice gun owners are making by indulging their gunfighter fantasies.

posted by zombieflanders at 4:40 PM on December 15, 2012 [30 favorites]

Respect but is an oxymoron and I think you did a disservice to the community. I was fortunate to read the message before it was vaporised, and I think it spoke truth to power. Complacency is based on ignoring reality and replacing it with happy thoughts like "they probably didn't suffer".
posted by five fresh fish at 4:40 PM on December 15, 2012

I was fortunate to read the message before it was vaporised, and I think it spoke truth to power.

I'm a lot more concerned with the friends and family of the victims - several of whom are members here - than I am with any hypothetical "power" that might be reading this thread. Feel free to take it to metatalk if you disagree.
posted by restless_nomad at 4:44 PM on December 15, 2012 [14 favorites]

Nobody here thinks they "didn't suffer." And we don't need to sink to the level of Rotten.com to get the point across.

I don't think the people HERE are the audience you really want to reach, anyway.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 4:46 PM on December 15, 2012

I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am Jason Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help -

People who think that "better mental health treatment" is going to solve this are, I'm sorry, naive. Now, I'm all for better health care all across the board. And I'm all for mental health care. And I do know that mental health care can help prevent tragedies. I'm certain of it.

However, stories like the one in the link above are all too familiar to me as a former teacher and youth worker. And even the most informed, concerned parents with the best, most expensive, most attentive care cannot find perfect solutions to their children's emotional troubles. Let alone parents with insufficient resources, education, time, access, or who have mental health challenges themselves.

We know very little about a lot of mental illnesses. That sad situation is likely to continue for some time. We could develop the most comprehensive mental health screening and treatment program and the world, and we could not, would not, catch every sufferer or predict or prevent every tragedy. There are too many unpredictables. There are too many mysteries. There are too many bumps in the road of tweaking medication and treatment, triggering events, and uncontrollable, unexpected traumas. We can't imprison people just because we are afraid of what they might do when they haven't done a single criminal thing? Who gets to decide that? For grown adults? (is that really a solution that the libertarian strain of gun nuts are advocating?)

So I'm all for advancing our health care system. It's great if that's one thing people are willing to take serious action on to reverse this national sickness. However, let us not be naive about the state of mental health treatment and about the complexity with which it manifests - or doesn't - before a homocidal attack is under way. Of course the overwhelming majority of people with mental illnesses will never do anything like this; I don't say this to stigmatize the mentally ill. I say it because anyone who has been around or dealt with mental illness knows for sure that there's a lot more to recognizing, attending to, diagnosing and succesfully treating mental illness than just providing access to some doctor visits. We don't even have a clinical definition for most of this behavior yet. We don't have much of a solid idea what causes it. We don't have good criteria for sorting people who will never go this far from people who could. We don't know what the hell it is. Andthere are already many people with clear, fairly well understood diagnoses that we aren't yet able to adequately help.

And yet the stressors and traumas and damages that trigger people in whatever the risk pool is to take that step over the line into murderous rages are human life events that are going to continue to happen to people as long as there are humans. And we'll have mental illnesses as long as we have minds. Other coutries have mentally ill people too; they deal with the risk of violent rage by reducing access to the tools of mass murder. That is a very pragmatic solution. Until we can look into the human brain and predict with near-perfect accuracy whether an individual is a risk or not, and until we can treat them in a way that is highly effective and ensure their compliance with that treatment, we don't have a healthcare-based solution to this.

Healthcare access will likely help a little. But it's not enough.
posted by Miko at 5:06 PM on December 15, 2012 [20 favorites]

Anyone who feels ordinary citizens need to be carrying a weapon to feel "safe" is basically admitting they live in a failed state. Truly. And that's okay, but if you're running a country like that, you'd better stop trying to run the rest of the world as well.

But I could probably have as much fun doing the same with a water gun or a BB gun, I suspect.

Exactly. Try god damn archery or something, it's more manly anyway.
posted by Jimbob at 5:08 PM on December 15, 2012 [30 favorites]

I think it's time for people who consider themselves reasonable gun owners with clear, safety-controlled purposes and contexts for their gun use (sport, hunting) to more vocally and clearly separate themselves from the "gun nuts" and protection fantasists.

I'm sorry that they sometimes feel unfairly lumped together, but as long as they employ the same variety of rhetoric, they will end up being lumped together. I'm willing to talk to the reasonable people, but no longer willing to talk to people whose ideological passion for gun culture means they are no longer able to be solutions-oriented.
posted by Miko at 5:10 PM on December 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

Carrying a gun in order to feel safe is like saying your way to deal with your lower back pain is to drink a fifth of vodka and pass out so it doesn't hurt anymore. Sure, you've eliminated the symptom, but how about addressing the cause of the problem, instead of papering over it with a "solution" that is likely to kill you?
posted by Rock Steady at 5:19 PM on December 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

From the Kos post linked above.

Update: Via DisNoir36 in the comments:

This is Victoria Soto, and although I didn't know her, she is my hero. I don't know too much about her, but I know a lot of people who do know her and she's amazing. Victoria was a Stratford high graduate and only 27. She was killed today after she hid her first graders in closets and cabinets and told the shooter they were in the gym. He killed her and not one of her children were harmed. I have never been more proud to be from Stratford or to be a teacher. God bless Victoria, her family and friends, and all of those who were involved today in anyway. Victoria is a true hero.

Just lost it at that.
posted by MattWPBS at 5:22 PM on December 15, 2012 [11 favorites]

Unless this shooter was totally delusional, or dealing with, say, paranoid schizophrenia (which we have no evidence for either at this point) we have to realize that sometimes the only answer we will have to something like this is someone chose to embody evil.

Charles Whitman, who killed his wife and mother and then went on a shooting rampage at the U. of Texas, apparently had a brain tumor that might have been a partial cause of his behavior. What he wrote in his suicide notes is completely bizarre. I wonder if in his case a psychologist/psychiatrist could have helped stop him.

I imagine it appears that I brutally killed both of my loved ones. I was only trying to do a quick thorough job [...] If my life insurance policy is valid please pay off my debts [...] donate the rest anonymously to a mental health foundation. Maybe research can prevent further tragedies of this type.

Maybe we could institute a massive gun & ammunition tax/licensing fee and use it to station retired police officers at schools and theaters as armed security guards - along with increased mental health coverage in ACA and gun violence victim assistance.
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:25 PM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

I could see the appeal of enjoying the ability to aim. But I could probably have as much fun doing the same with a water gun or a BB gun, I suspect.

I went to a church carnival with a friend, a few years back* and one of the attractions was a cork-gun gallery. They were these ridiculous little two foot long rifles with giant cartoonish corks stuck in the ends of them. If you knocked waxed paper soda cups off a shelf, you got a prize. Despite my screaming-meemies fear of guns - these weren't real Killing Machines, so I was all right - I did very well at this. It is fun to aim at things, and I did enjoy it.

When my friend suggested she take me to the firing range sometime, I turned the offer down. There are plenty of ways I could enjoy aiming at things without using machines made to kill people quickly. She totally did not get this, because her family is A Gun Family, and it's as ordinary to her as always having olive oil in the house is to me. I've known her for over half of my life, and I could not explain my aversion in such a way that she would not take it personally. I had to leave it at "you know guns give me the creeps."

This divide, this concept of guns as an extension of the self, has been deliberately engineered by the NRA lobbyists and whatever other schmucks they have working the propaganda. It needs to stop.

*The joke goes: A pagan-agnostic and a Jewish lesbian walk into a Catholic church fair. God does not strike them down. Plus, I won a bitchin' pimp hat at the cork-gun stand.
posted by cmyk at 5:31 PM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

We are still days, if not weeks, from the facts of the case.

I think this whole thread was premature. What was the big rush?
posted by mazola at 5:33 PM on December 15, 2012

I can't find the Kos link that is apparently relevant, but I saw that "Victoria Soto" story on Facebook this morning and was instantly skeptical that such a detailed story has emerged so soon.
posted by rhizome at 5:36 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

rhizome : http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/15/1170268/-Here-are-your-parasites-and-terrorists-m-therf-ckers#

I'm pretty open to detailed stories being out this soon, especially seeing as there were kids being interviewed about being shot at on the TV on Friday pretty much as they left the school.
posted by MattWPBS at 5:44 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

rhizome: Does it really matter?
posted by zombieflanders at 5:45 PM on December 15, 2012

I think this whole thread was premature. What was the big rush?

You must not have seen this thread, have you?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:51 PM on December 15, 2012

NYT: The body of Anne Marie Murphy was discovered in a classroom covering the smaller bodies of several of her students. She had tried to shield them from a gunman’s bullets, but there were too many.

“A first responder said she was a hero,” her father, Hugh McGowan, told Newsday in an interview published on Saturday.

Ms. Murphy, 52, a married mother of four, was the sixth of seven children and a special education teacher at Sandy Hook Elementary. Mr. McGowan described his daughter as “witty” and “hardworking,” an artistic and fun-loving painter.
posted by anastasiav at 6:12 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yeah, here's the apparent source other than the Facebook re-share:

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Victoria-Soto-Selfless-183655741.html

Does what matter? Whether people are embellishing stories in order to feel worse? However, if this is the place where we're OK with the kids being interviewed by TV as they left the school, I should probably just bow out now.
posted by rhizome at 6:12 PM on December 15, 2012

Well, isn't this just a whole barrel of special -

Shirley Phelps has just announced on Twitter that Westboro Baptist plans to demonstrate out front of Sandy Hook school soon.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:18 PM on December 15, 2012

Thought they wouldn't? They thrive on spectacle as much as shooters do.
posted by rhizome at 6:21 PM on December 15, 2012

That is sickening.
posted by limeonaire at 6:23 PM on December 15, 2012

Why not? Social scientists and psychologists study it. Philip Zimbardo is one.

There's something tremendously ironic about invoking Zimbardo as someone who 'studies evil'. I mean, he does and has had a very successful career doing so. But why do we know his name? A massive underestimation of the ability of average, non-evil person to treat others horribly when given power.
posted by hoyland at 6:25 PM on December 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

NYT says that all of the kids were shot with the .223 Bushmaster rifle.
posted by Mid at 6:28 PM on December 15, 2012

I can't comment much about the incident. Since both my husband and my mother are teachers I'm one of those irrational "arm everyone!" people at the moment. I need a week or two to come down to a more rational way of thinking.

But having read Columbine (superb book) I'm wondering how botched up all of this reporting is. A six year old witness is likely less reliable than a sixteen year old one, right?
posted by kimberussell at 6:29 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

mazola: I think this whole thread was premature. What was the big rush?

Because, for many, Metafilter is a safe place to express the powerful emotions this tragedy provoked. Reasoned analysis? that's for later, when there's more facts available. Right now it's all for comfort. There's little worse than feeling all dressed up and no place to go when you're sobbing uncontrollably.
posted by Pudhoho at 6:30 PM on December 15, 2012 [11 favorites]

Westboro Baptist plans to demonstrate out front of Sandy Hook school soon

Surprise, surprise.

Of course, we all of us understand that engaging these individuals is like crossing the street for the sole purpose of stepping on a dog turd.
posted by Pudhoho at 6:36 PM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Since both my husband and my mother are teachers I'm one of those irrational "arm everyone!" people at the moment.

what
posted by whyareyouatriangle at 6:45 PM on December 15, 2012 [9 favorites]

At this point the only things I'm willing to accept as facts are the names of the victims. Everything else is provisional, because yeah, Columbine proved how easy it is for well-meaning people to create & disseminate misinformation.

But a lot of the details wont make a difference to the central fact: there was yet another gun massacre, and it was in a school for little children. That is worth talking about.
posted by harriet vane at 6:49 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

what

I think the other two sentences of the first paragraph of kimberussell's comment say all you need to know.
posted by hoyland at 7:00 PM on December 15, 2012

except no, they don't.
posted by whyareyouatriangle at 7:02 PM on December 15, 2012

whyareyouatriangle: I admitted fully that I'm not thinking rationally right now. What I'm feeling now is not what I'll be feeling later, so I'm being wise and not raging all over the thread so it can be preserved for all time. That's all.

Mom's school had a lockdown drill earlier in the week. One of her kids - fifth grade - almost cried during it, even though he knew it was only a drill. I can't imagine the terror of the real thing.

And while I was "Donald Duck" raging about things, her concern was that her students are too big to hide in cabinets or closets if the real thing happened. I hope levelheadedness is either genetic or just comes with age.
posted by kimberussell at 7:15 PM on December 15, 2012

The discussion over at Crooked Timber is pretty good too. If you're looking for other sane places to hang out online.
posted by emjaybee at 7:17 PM on December 15, 2012

. glad metafilter is here.
posted by agregoli at 7:58 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

This thread has focused a lot of attention on gun control and on mental health care, but there's another factor that I find hugely chilling in the reporting, best epitomized by this quote from one Olivia DeVivo in a NY Times article about Adam Lanza: "Ms. DeVivo reconnected with friends from Newtown, and the consensus was stark. 'They weren’t surprised,' she said. 'They said he always seemed like he was someone who was capable of that because he just didn’t really connect with our high school, and didn’t really connect with our town.'”

It may be that Ms. DeVivo was quoted out of context, but even if she was, it was because her quote filled a need that the author of the article was seeking to fill: to frame Lanza as some sort of eternal outsider and hence dangerous. And I really feel that the attitude that dehumanizes the socially marginalized is an evil that begets evil.

Many of by best friends "didn't comment" with their high schools. They were "freaks," "geeks," "fags," "weirdos." Some were bullied. Many were depressed by their social marginalization; some felt very angry about it. Note that none of them became mass murders, counter to the quoted predictions of Ms. DeVivo's social circle--in fact, one of the things I cherish about them is the empathy for other marginalized folks that they were able to forge from their experiences. But for some tiny minority of people, facing self-righteous rejection and ostracizing can be the factor that pushes someone over the edge to become the monster they are treated as having the potential to be.
posted by DrMew at 8:07 PM on December 15, 2012 [25 favorites]

except no, they don't.

As I understand it, kimberussell recognises that their response is not rational and has excused themselves from the discussion because their current frame of mind is not conducive to it. I don't think it's fair to police people's emotional responses when they have just told you they recognise them as irrational and not constructive.
posted by hoyland at 8:23 PM on December 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

Children fucking died because a man had a fucking gun.

The fewer guns we have out there – I don't care how we do that, what laws we pass, what system we create to filter out gun owners without making the phallic-obsessed pricks who'd like their insecurities to make the rest of goddamn society feel unstable – the fewer opportunities crazy people will have to shoot those who don't deserve to get shot. Which, by the way, is almost everybody who ever fucking lived. The ratio of "people who should get shot" to "people who probably should not get shot" is close to absolute zero.

Some people have guns for practical reasons, like hunting. It says something fucked-up that we have parts of society where people need guns to stay goddamn fed. We should change that. I don't know how. My personal ideal would be to slash the defense budget, because there is so much tax money that could be spent on small insignificant things like not letting people starve. Instead of on guns. Juuuust sayin'.

A bunch of people, an ignorant fucking bunch, think they need guns to stop the government from taking over the world. Ignorant fucking bunch. Fascism is civilized, you stupid jackholes, civilization forced down your goddamn throat – and civilization hasn't needed to rely on gunplay for a long, long time. We see hints of it in unnecessary wars, in cops beating down on nonviolent protestors for the sake of convenience, but that's really just the fringes. The real fascism comes in the form of people who play a bloodless game that shakes the world to its fucking core, and those people don't need guns to rule. Those people wouldn't dream of making their rulership more explicit. Most of them don't even think of themselves as rulers. The sort of tyranny that involves actually declaring that you're in charge is rare, because that sort makes the tyrant into a target. Usually the only people stupid enough to declare themselves that are "revolutionaries", and they don't RUN the government, they OVERTHROW it. Kind of like some of your lot keeps mumbling about. Guns won't protect you from the real bad guys, or even ever point in their direction.

Obviously there need to be a lot of things changed in our society, and that's fine for some definitions of "fine". Certainly it's not fine for all the people who'll suffer along the way. But building towards an ideal takes time, whatever, we should expect any number of horrible setbacks. This is a complicated issue that requires a lot of nuanced thought.

Gun control requires next to no fucking thought whatsoever. Guns are hurtful horrible things that make it easier to kill things, including children. Any sane person, even a sane person who likes, respects, and appreciates guns, will want generally less of them to fall into people's hands.

To be fair, sanity's tough. Nobody's fully sane – not even me. But I worry when events like "child massacre" aren't enough to punch sense into people's skulls. That requires, like, next to zero empathy, but for some people that still seems to be too fucking much.
posted by Rory Marinich at 8:39 PM on December 15, 2012 [21 favorites]

But for some tiny minority of people, facing self-righteous rejection and ostracizing can be the factor that pushes someone over the edge to become the monster they are treated as having the potential to be.

I too am wary of a narrative that sets Lanza up as a monstrous "other" who didn't fit in with normal society and was marginalized as a result.

But I'm also skeptical - until we learn more - of deciding on a narrative that has Lanza as ostracized or bullied. I mean, maybe he was. But I remember in the days (and years, even) after Columbine that painted the shooters as these outsiders who were almost driven to murder by the bullying they endured. And how that turned out not to be true.

I read something earlier today that said that Lanza was homeschooled starting in, like, tenth grade. (And maybe this will turn out to be false later as well.) Maybe it's because other students made him miserable. Maybe it's because his brain chemistry didn't allow him to make connections. Maybe he was bullied. Maybe he was basically ignored. Maybe his parents thought home would be a better environment for him. Maybe a combination? I don't know.

I think people look for patterns, and part of that is the usual, "Hey, we always knew something was off about him," discussion. It's not always right, but it's natural. It's also natural to want to find a way to ascribe blame - see, look at how he was treated, it's no wonder he snapped when he was treated like a freak - but it's no more correct. I think it's simply *way* too early to make any kind of predictions about Lanza's experiences based on a single quote from someone who is probably shell-shocked and horrified and struggling to find words to put things together.
posted by Salieri at 8:42 PM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

I read it was because his mother was upset about the school district's educational plan for him. I have also read that his mother was a doomsday prepper but I can't find that link. Of course, with the rate of "success" the media has had on this story, I'm surprised they aren't trying to say she was a scientologist or a freeper.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 8:46 PM on December 15, 2012

Number of guns is increasing, but % of population owning guns is declining. Stats
posted by warbaby at 8:48 PM on December 15, 2012

So his mother was killed with a gun she bought for self defense, therefore more people should buy guns for self defense.

More gun stats based on geography
posted by warbaby at 8:53 PM on December 15, 2012

I dunno, the rate death by gun violence in Canada is at least twice as high as other OECD countries (excluding the US).
posted by KokuRyu at 9:07 PM on December 15, 2012

There are less than half as many guns per capita in Canada, and nearly exactly half as many in Switzerland. It's not outlandish to think that might have something to do with the number of people killed by guns.

Never mind that someone's already pointed out that people in Switzerland don't actually have automatic weapons lying around. Ex-military weapons are converted to not longer be automatics.
posted by hoyland at 9:09 PM on December 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

When terrorists attacked, we gutted the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments. When gunmen attack, the 2nd remains inviolable
posted by growabrain at 9:14 PM on December 15, 2012 [20 favorites]

As an American living abroad, I'll just state what might already be incredibly obvious -- non-USians just don't understand American gun culture.

By far the wealthiest nation in the history of the earth has a sizeable percentage of the population living in constant fear of -- what, exactly? Terrorists? The blacks? The browns? Fellow gun-nuts?

So they arm themselves to the teeth and feel proud about themselves for choosing to live like they're in Red Dawn.

I can't fully express just how simultaneously tragic and laughable this comes across as to the rest of the world.
posted by bardic at 9:29 PM on December 15, 2012 [27 favorites]

But I'm also skeptical - until we learn more - of deciding on a narrative that has Lanza as ostracized or bullied. I mean, maybe he was. But I remember in the days (and years, even) after Columbine that painted the shooters as these outsiders who were almost driven to murder by the bullying they endured. And how that turned out not to be true.

Yeah, as someone who was goth, and in ninth grade during Columbine, I remember getting pulled in for all sorts of questioning by school authorities for absolutely no reason because some of the other kids found us weird. Parents were called in. Some of my friends were forced to go to mandatory counseling. The vice principal decided we were a bomb threat, or a shooting risk due to the fact that some of us wore black. I was a happy kid with friends who happened to have purple hair. It was completely traumatic. I've already seen one account calling this kid "a goth." It's hard being a weird kid. I hope this doesn't make life harder for any weird kids out there now.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:38 PM on December 15, 2012 [23 favorites]

Yeah, I bet the FBI is getting some juicy tips of impeccable provenance.
posted by rhizome at 9:47 PM on December 15, 2012

This article from the Hartford Courant [warning self-playing video] has a lot of details about the shooting. It says Lonza killed all victims with the rifle (seems to be the .223) and he used three 30-round magazines. It says the shooting took about 10 minutes and that Lonza killed himself as the police began to arrive with sirens on. 14 of the kids were killed in the first classroom he entered, where he killed every single person.

This confirms for me that the most realistic practical thing we could do is limit magazine capacity. No, it's not a perfect solution, but anything we can do to slow the rate of fire and force the shooting to stop even momentarily will be helpful at the margins. It appears that several adults tried to confront Lonza - if he had been changing magazines more often, they would have had a better chance.
posted by Mid at 9:49 PM on December 15, 2012 [12 favorites]

bardic: "By far the wealthiest nation in the history of the earth has a sizeable percentage of the population living in constant fear of -- what, exactly? Terrorists? The blacks? The browns? Fellow gun-nuts?"

Our government. Or someone else's government.
I struggle to wrap my head around these fears, because the government is our own; we wrote a contract about 200 years ago which gave government certain powers and reserved all the rest to ourselves. Despite the fact that we have a constitution and a government which has survived 200+ years there are still people in this country who honestly believe that our own government will one day break the social compact that is our constitution and turn against us, and by golly when that happens we'll need small home arsenals to defend ourselves. There are also those who believe that the right to bear arms exists as another check/balance on the government to make sure government is never tempted to teeter into tyranny.

I find these views deeply, deeply disturbing, because they reveal fundamental lack of faith in our constitution. When people lose faith in the constitution and the fundamental rules governing our political process and our society, then there's a temptation to resort to other, more desperate means to fix the perceived problems.
posted by Dr. Zira at 10:04 PM on December 15, 2012 [11 favorites]

PLEASE IGNORE THE WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH. ALWAYS.
posted by young sister beacon at 10:06 PM on December 15, 2012 [9 favorites]

we need to understand that there is such a thing is evil

OK, I don't disagree, necessarily. Now what? Unless you're suggesting that exorcism or prayerful quietism should be the primary response to this event, it isn't clear how this understanding is productive of any meaningful effort to keep such evil from happening again and again.
posted by octobersurprise at 10:12 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Oh, and meanwhile, at about 5am Friday in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, just a few hours before the CT shooting, police arrested an 18 year old for allegedly plotting a school shooting, which involved an attempt to "recruit other students to assist him with carrying out a plan to lure students into the school auditorium where he planned to begin shooting them after chaining the doors shut."
I should note Oklahoma's new open carry law just went into effect a couple of months ago.
posted by Dr. Zira at 10:12 PM on December 15, 2012

But the "righteous fear of the US government over-stepping its Constitutional authority" or what have you is such utter bullshit. We all know this.

The "black helicopter" crap began in the 90's under a perfectly moderate, centrist Democratic president. Didn't hear much about it during the Bush II years when the Constitution was actually being re-written (wire tapping, indefinite holding of US citizens without trial, torture). And then along comes the Kenyan usurper and we've got people openly talking about secession.

I realize that I'm preaching to the choir on Mefi, but this is why I'm sick and tired of the imploration to take pro-gun USians seriously or, heavens forfend, possibly offending the hurt little fee-fees of people who think playing weekend warrior is actually a principled Constitutional stand.

We get it -- you like to play with guns and it makes you feel like a little He-Man or -Woman. But don't expect us adults to not laugh at you behind your backs as the paranoid, anti-social, and often racist fuckwits that you truly are.

Seriously, the movement torwards gay marriage didn't catch fire by calm and judicious negotiation. It changed when the culture shifted, and younger people didn't want to associate with their bigoted parents and/or grandparents any longer. The change came because being anti-gay was socially unacceptable for roughly 70% of the population.

And when a similar percentage realizes that outside of sports hunters, people own lots of handguns for the sake of owning lots of handguns really aren't people who deserve a place at the metaphorical table of civil society.
posted by bardic at 10:19 PM on December 15, 2012 [23 favorites]

I can't fully express just how simultaneously tragic and laughable this comes across as to the rest of the world.

heh....there are quite a few of us in the US who feel the same way.
posted by lampshade at 10:20 PM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

"chaining the doors shut"

Oy.
posted by bardic at 10:21 PM on December 15, 2012

young sister beacon: "PLEASE IGNORE THE WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH. ALWAYS."

I'd imagine it's near impossible to ignore them when they're right there within shouting distance of your loved ones' funeral. That's why I rather like the massive counterprotests that have been done where people hold up ridiculous signs like "ALL GLORY TO HYPNOTOAD" and "GOD HATES FIGS." Perhaps someone should organize one of those and drown out the WBC asshattery.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:22 PM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

You know what? Westboro shows up in Newtown, and I will BE THERE. There's no shortage of folks who will show up to stymie the efforts of those sick, opportunistic assholes. Here's a Facebook event already set up to plan the effort to counteract whatever they'll decide to do. If you can't see it, MeFi message me, link me to your Facebook account, and I'll friend you and invite you.
posted by houseofdanie at 10:44 PM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

By far the wealthiest nation in the history of the earth has a sizeable percentage of the population living in constant fear of -- what, exactly?

Everybody who isn't the wealthiest nation or sizeable percentage of the population, obviously.
posted by dhartung at 10:48 PM on December 15, 2012

I'd imagine it's near impossible to ignore them when they're right there within shouting distance of your loved ones' funeral.

I don't know about this one, but the last times I heard about WBC demonstrations they were kept 1/4 MILE AWAY. Here's a bit about Obama's directive about military funerals:

"The legislation prohibits protests within 300 feet of a military funeral and for two hours before and after such a service."

I doubt these will be any less.
posted by rhizome at 10:49 PM on December 15, 2012

bardic: "Seriously, the movement torwards gay marriage didn't catch fire by calm and judicious negotiation. It changed when the culture shifted, and younger people didn't want to associate with their bigoted parents and/or grandparents any longer. The change came because being anti-gay was socially unacceptable for roughly 70% of the population."

One of the things that I find reassuring about our government here in the U.S. is that after long periods of very divisive politics, you get a sweeping demand for change in law and policy that rises like a force of nature, resulting in a massive wave of change, thereby reminding the politicians that it's the voters who maintain power over this government. It starts a few states at a time who blaze the trail and change the culture; then more people grow accustomed to the norm and the BS arguments against change start to fall away as people start to realize that those arguments are no longer credible.
It's frustratingly slow sometimes, and hard to predict how it starts.
Maybe this time, it's ignited by seeing the pictures of the sweet little faces like Emilie Parker, or reading the story of Anne Marie Murphy, whose body was found lying on top of the tiny bodies she was trying to shield.
Who knows what change in law and policy will actually result from this? Maybe it will be a change in firearms control policy, or mental health care reform or education law and policy or all of the above. It's too early to know, of course, but I have to believe there will be a change somewhere because I'm just not cynical enough to believe that our voters can experience these horrors and not be moved to do something.
posted by Dr. Zira at 10:54 PM on December 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

the last times I heard about WBC demonstrations they were kept 1/4 MILE AWAY

There is a new federal law covering military funerals. Connecticut does not have a law protecting either military funerals or those of any other class of citizen from protests, although the issue was studied in 2007.

I believe the recent counter-tactic of human shields protecting the funerals from the protesters will have no shortage of volunteers.
posted by dhartung at 11:08 PM on December 15, 2012

dhartung: "I believe the recent counter-tactic of human shields protecting the funerals from the protesters will have no shortage of volunteers."

Guys, seriously, please don't waste energy even considering the Twitter troll. Acknowledgment of an empty threat only gives her what she wants - publicity. It's behavior that is so beyond the pale that ignoring it is the only way to discourage it. Any moment of conversation diverted away from the victims and toward the troll is heaping additional pain onto the existing horrors of the tragedy.
posted by Dr. Zira at 11:21 PM on December 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Dr. Zira: " It's frustratingly slow sometimes, and hard to predict how it starts. "

It's beyond frustrating. We just had a shooting last year that killed six and nearly claimed the life of a sitting congresswoman, but somehow that wasn't enough of a catalyst for any sort of change. It's hard for me to accept that we needed to wait for another nutcase with a gun to shoot twenty grade schoolers and six adults to get just a nibble around the edges of gun control, and even now it's still a long shot to get anything at all passed at the federal level.

The political landscape is very hostile toward change, but if it's to happen this time around, it's going to have to be a massive people-led movement that forces the hands of the political leaders. It will have to be a blitzkrieg at the federal, state, and local levels.

What the gun control movement probably needs more than anything this point is a vocal public face of the movement. I know Mark Kelly came out in support of gun control when he heard about Newtown -- maybe he could rise to the occasion? He'd certainly have credibility on the issue, and now that he's done flying STS missions, he's got to have some time on his hands. I don't know if his wife is still as pro-gun as she was before the shooting, but if she was on board, I think it would be pretty powerful to have her doing spots on TV asking people to write/call their representatives to get specific legislation passed.

It's not going to be enough to be sending emails to congressmen and sending checks to the Brady Campaign. The gun control movement needs a massive makeover if anything good is going to come out of this tragedy.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:31 PM on December 15, 2012

I just don't see a cultural shift happening any time soon. For example, five kids are abused to death every day, 80% of them under the age of 4, but I haven't seen any cultural shift happening on that front (and people love toddlers even more than guns...well, most people do). At least with gay marriage, loving gays are something people could see and experience in real life and in the media--versus abusive parents and psychopaths, who are only rarely exposed, and after the fact. I just don't know what the practical solution is; my wife's convinced forcing everyone to sell their guns to the gov't ("for like $700 apiece") and making it illegal to own one WOULD slowly begin to work. I just don't see that EVER happening, but she claims this is because I'm from the South.

I also don't know if limiting magazine capacity is realistic. There are already sooo many magazines out there (the Surefire 60rd mag is selling like hotcakes, and many are buying 100rd mags and 100-150rd drums ever since Obama mentioned the AWB in the debate and got reelected). The old AWB drove the prices of them up a bit (so only the rich and/or criminals had a lot), but I guess you could OUTLAW all high-capacity mags, not even grandfathering in the older ones. At $9-$15 for a 30rd mag & $150 for more, there'd be a lot of angry gun nuts with a lot of mags out there--probably the last people you want to really piss off.

Also, was it just me, or did it seem like Obama spokesperson, Jay Carney, came out even faster this time than after the Sikh shooting (when he came out to assure everyone that no anti-gun legislation was going to be drafted) to say 'there will be a time to talk about the gun policy debates, but today is not that day'?
posted by whatgorilla at 11:57 PM on December 15, 2012

Saturday Night Live opens with Silent Night. Warning: I cried like a waterfall.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:41 AM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

A lot of people in this thread have said they can't see a gun culture shift happening anytime soon. But a cultural shift towards gun culture has already happened, with schools starting out completely open and safe but now running school shooter drills on a regular basis and complaining that teachers and janitors don't have the training necessary to shoot people because there's not enough funding. That didn't used to be the culture of America. If it can shift towards a siege mentality that wasn't required before, it can shift away again too. See the links above about how the gun culture was created in the 1970s - it's not a permanent or necessary part of your national psyche.
posted by harriet vane at 12:52 AM on December 16, 2012 [11 favorites]

I will never understand how even a person with the largest private collection of assault weapons, the best fortifications, a huge stockpile of supplies and all the tactical training in the world would think for a moment that they'd be able to fend off the United States military if their crazy nightmare scenario of the government turning on its people came true. Obviously, people who are actually like that are a tiiiiiiny portion of gun owners, but this idea that the people need arms because the government could turn on a dime and they'd need to fight back is still a pervasive one and it's ridiculous all the way down the line. It's ridiculous to think that an armed citizenry would hold off a government with the military might of ours, it's ridiculous to think that someone could actually turn the ship of state around fast enough to do that in the US and get the bulk of the military to go along with it, and it's ridiculous to think that, even if they could, the survivalist freedom fightin' crowd would fight the oppressors past day one: they'd be at the top of the list of citizens a would-be dictator would either appease and co-opt or target and remove. That ship sailed when the revolutionaries stopped relying on the privately armed citizen militias and started stockpiling weapons and training soldiers. So yeah, it's a super dumb argument, and I only bring it up because, if there are any serious attempts at gun control legislation made, we're all going to hear a lot of it.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:54 AM on December 16, 2012 [12 favorites]

It's still headline news here in Australia, as more details are released. And watching the news tonight, I had a flashback... wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago that I read about a man in the US who took his guns to a gun shop to try to sell them, was unsuccessful, and then accidentally shot and killed his (I think) seven year old son as they got back into his vehicle?

And then I remembered reading about a gun show, I can't remember when and I can't bear to google, where some fruit loop allowed his young son to fire (I think) an AK47 and he fatally shot himself?

FFS, US, this killing of kids has to stop. If I lived over there, I'd be picketing the NRA at every opportunity with photos of all these kids, smiling and cheerful before they met their violent end, and quietly asking the NRA members how they manage to sleep at night with a clear conscience.
posted by malibustacey9999 at 12:57 AM on December 16, 2012

"accidentally shot and killed his (I think) seven year old son as they got back into his vehicle?"

"some fruit loop allowed his young son to fire (I think) an AK47 and he fatally shot himself?" (graphic video)
posted by bardic at 1:03 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

PLEASE IGNORE THE WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH. ALWAYS.

You can take my Louis Theroux docos about them out of my cold dead hands.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:13 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

It's nice to know that so many people think so many bad things about me simply because I own guns and defend gun ownership.
posted by autobahn at 1:15 AM on December 16, 2012

It's nice to know that so many people think so many bad things about me simply because I own guns and defend gun ownership.

Oh, that's nothing. You know who built the autobahns?

/joking
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:21 AM on December 16, 2012 [9 favorites]

"I will never understand how even a person with the largest private collection of assault weapons, the best fortifications, a huge stockpile of supplies and all the tactical training in the world would think for a moment that they'd be able to fend off the United States military if their crazy nightmare scenario of the government turning on its people came true."

-- I think they think they're going to do what the Afghans, Vietnamese and Iraqis did: fight guerrilla style with inferior weapons. It's even being taught at some of the tacticool schools that cater to these exact type of anti-gov't christian soldiers (schools like One Source Tactical, led by ex-con & ex-cop, Gabe Suarez, who admits he was on his way to engage in a killing spree when god spoke to him and he changed his mind). He generally posts on his blog after every incident and the message is clear: "Taking away guns only makes for easier targets" and "Be armed".

Fort Hood response:

http://www.warriortalknews.com/2011/09/lessons-from-jihad-in-america.html

and

Norway response:
http://www.warriortalknews.com/2011/08/the-norwegian-paradigm.html

(NOTE: I'm very liberal--basically a gay, black, kenyan, communist, muslim, atheist, antichrist--but I was raised by a LE dad in rural GA, and I think of owning my gun kinda like owning my Saber Saw or whatever--just a tool that you need when you need it. I'm not a hunter, not really into target shooting, but I'd rather not have to wait and hope the police can respond fast enough to save me and/or my family.)
posted by whatgorilla at 1:26 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's nice to know that so many people think so many bad things about me simply because I own guns and defend gun ownership.
posted by autobahn 43 minutes ago [+]

Ah yes, because your implication that all gun control advocates want to repeal the second Amendment was such a charitable and reasonable accusation. Poor you, how could anyone have concluded you might be extremist?
posted by Anonymous at 2:02 AM on December 16, 2012

It's nice to know that so many people think so many bad things about me simply because I own guns and defend gun ownership.

posted by autobahn

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have no problem with safe, secure, responsible gun ownership which won't result in any more massacres. That's all.

If your right to own whatever guns you want means more to you than laws aimed at ensuring that someone who wants to shoot up a school can't do it, that's your prerogative... but I don't understand it.
posted by malibustacey9999 at 2:19 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

autobahn, if you can defend gun ownership using facts and evidence in a way that doesn't treat school massacres as the necessary byproduct of your right to own deadly weapons, then I'm all ears. You haven't added anything to this thread yet except your wounded pride, but feel free to say something constructive anytime you like.
posted by harriet vane at 2:19 AM on December 16, 2012 [28 favorites]

It's not just about you, you see. Not always. In this particular instance the phrase "please think of the children" doesn't seem so cliched. A gun ban is not being called for. Gun control is, nationwide, and with as many resources as you have because this whole gun massacring thing is getting worse, whether it's acknowledged by you or not.
posted by h00py at 2:35 AM on December 16, 2012 [7 favorites]

Haha, the Americans are all asleep so it's up to the Australians to speak some sense ^^^
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:46 AM on December 16, 2012 [11 favorites]

‏@rupertmurdoch
Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy.
posted by madamjujujive at 3:12 AM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

The mix of alienated youth and easy access to guns is scary !

I just find it very difficult to understand why a parent would feel the need to have lethal weapons in their home unless they were poverty stricken and needed to hunt animals for food.

.
posted by hopefulmidlifer at 3:16 AM on December 16, 2012

One of our right-wing politicians replied to Murdoch: I suspect they will find the courage when Fox News campaigns enthusiastically for it.
posted by harriet vane at 3:19 AM on December 16, 2012 [17 favorites]

It's nice to know that so many people think so many bad things about me simply because I own guns and defend gun ownership.

Yeah, that sort of happens when you defend a completely unnecessary policy that leads to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths per year, just because you like your gadgets.
posted by Skeptic at 3:47 AM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

Newtown Patch is another Newtown specific news source - and one that I was not previously aware of. Along with the Newtown Bee, its another good source for how everything is being reported locally.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:26 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

I mentioned earlier that one of Newtown's symbols is the rooster weather vane over out meeting house. It was apparently taken down for repairs around 1915 and this photo was taken of it. Note the inscription on the photo:

For many years I've served the town
For many things I love it.
And though just now I feel cast down
I hope to rise above it. 1755-1915
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:39 AM on December 16, 2012 [6 favorites]

Tim McVeigh didn't need a gun to kill 600 people in broad daylight. - WhitenoisE

Actually, I'd argue that McVeigh had a LOT of guns in his training to become the type of man that would use a bomb to kill 600 people. Granted, he didn't use a firearm in the commission of his terrorist crime, but it was a firearm that partly got him arrested. And he was in the military when something snapped in him at the way the US government really worked (guns involved here… maybe he saw dead babies? not sure what happened to him in the army). He was also quite involved with guns as a youngster. And of course, there's Waco, where guns were also involved. And flirtations with militias (also gun-laden). It seems that not a single day of his life didn't have some connection to firearms. Is this a coincidence? Possibly. But my money is on the opposite.
posted by readyfreddy at 6:13 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

One of our right-wing politicians replied to Murdoch: I suspect they will find the courage when Fox News campaigns enthusiastically for it.

Yeah, that Murdoch tweet is one of the most despicable things I've ever seen, considering that Fox News is invariably among those pushing loudest against any restrictions on firearms ever. Either he doesn't really know how bad his own network is (I suspect it's Roger Ailes who's ultimately responsible for most of the worst of it), or he's just ludicrously hypocritical.
posted by JHarris at 6:14 AM on December 16, 2012

The next time Clint Eastwood speaks at the Republican Convention I hope he has 20 empty chairs on stage
posted by growabrain at 6:19 AM on December 16, 2012 [7 favorites]

Tim McVeigh didn't need a gun to kill 600 people in broad daylight.

Just to clarify the record because now it is repeated. Wikipedia: "The Oklahoma blast claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6, and injured more than 680 people."
posted by madamjujujive at 6:20 AM on December 16, 2012 [8 favorites]

I am Adam Lanza's Mother, the most harrowing thing I've read since yesterday. She's described as a single mom of four children with Ben being the eldest at 13.

I can't imagine trying to deal with something like this on my own.

I hope this woman gets the hekp she so desperately needs.
posted by Wilder at 6:24 AM on December 16, 2012 [11 favorites]

Either he doesn't really know how bad his own network is (I suspect it's Roger Ailes who's ultimately responsible for most of the worst of it), or he's just ludicrously hypocritical.

I doubt Murcoch even writes, reads or scans Twitter. It is all marketing. These tweets appear to be more of the type of carefully crafted adverts to sell more ad space, subscriptions, click throughs (or whatever they are called) and street sales etc.

Over the years, he has displayed an uncanny sense to post near-flamebait tweets on all sorts of subjects. at very pointed moments, that often contradict other tweets from months earlier. In the end, RM does absolutely nothing of value on these seemingly concerned messages other than sell more media.

He does not care a twit about social issues. He is more interested in adding digits to his bank statement.
posted by lampshade at 6:27 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Tim McVeigh didn't need a gun to kill 600 people in broad daylight.

Tim McVeigh wouldn't have done what he had done without the poisonous influences of rightwing gun culture in the US: the Turner Diaries style fantasies of a new civila war, the paranoia about black helicopters, Waco, Ruby Ridge, the militias undsoweiter. That in the end he chose to blow up a child care centre with fertiliser rather than storm in with an m-16 is irrelevant.
posted by MartinWisse at 6:40 AM on December 16, 2012 [13 favorites]

Murdoch signed on to twitter a few months ago. I've been following him and he tweets sporadically often weird old man shit. What it proves is that Ailes and Fox can spew anything that makes him money. His personal politics only concern the aquiring of more money.
posted by readery at 6:42 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's nice to know that so many people think so many bad things about me simply because I own guns and defend gun ownership.

26 people were slaughtered, the NRA can't even be bothered to give condolences, so it seems inappropriate for you to make this all about, well, you.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:57 AM on December 16, 2012 [49 favorites]

I think many here are missing the point about the McVeigh bombing. Yes, there are lots of ways to kill people. And someone with the mindset of killing loads of people, in addition to the time and resources to spend months plotting such an action, can create a bomb that will, in an instant, kill a number of people. But why is that the outlier? Why is it that the OK City bombing is an aberration from other massacres? Because guns are also extremely effective, and because they are readily available. How many massacres could be prevented if you set up the roadblocks necessary to pull off a bombing? The timing, the cooperation with others, the months of planning, the trial runs - each of those is yet another hindrance to seeing the action through.

Oh, and also? How many video games are there where the sole goal of the game is to create a bomb and then blow up a building? Stage 1: Buy the ingredients! Stage 2: Trial explosion! Stage 3: Scout the location! etc. I know of no games like that. Perhaps they are out there. And yet, there are very, very popular video games that provide exhaustive training for a gun massacre. Stage 1: Shoot a bunch of very realistic looking humans in the face. Stage 2: Keep doing that!

Everybody wants to talk about "I'm gonna stand up to gun culture!!" and "People with guns are just selfish little kids!!" and yet here is a forum where it is nearly verboten to say, "The 'game' that you enjoy playing is sick and perverted. I wish people would either stop making video games that mimic mass shootings, or else that people just choose to stop playing those games."

Free speech says those games should be legal and anybody can purchase them. No issue with that. Free speech also says that I get to say I think those games are sick and please, please, please don't play them. Please don't buy for them others. If you're so set on doing so, then go play your game this afternoon with the memory of Newtown still fresh in your mind. Try your best not to think about how people actually do what you're fake-doing, but they do it in real life, and sometimes instead of shooting "bad guys" it's little kids.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:00 AM on December 16, 2012 [11 favorites]

In case anyone's interested, Bloomberg is on Meet the Press this morning discussing this issue. I've watched just a few minutes so far but they've addressed the Supreme Court, mental health, and assault weapons bans thus far...
posted by youandiandaflame at 7:21 AM on December 16, 2012

Back to Newtown, there are lots of stories flying around as we all know. Snopes has set up a page to track rumors and what verifications there are. When you see something, look there too.
posted by emjaybee at 7:46 AM on December 16, 2012 [11 favorites]

This story has so far spawned a remarkable number of reported details which turned out to be completely wrong.
posted by localroger at 8:13 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

emjaybee, thanks for the link to the Snopes page. I just know I'm going to be referring someone to it in the next few days.
posted by JHarris at 8:18 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

jason_steakums: "I will never understand how even a person with the largest private collection of assault weapons, the best fortifications, a huge stockpile of supplies and all the tactical training in the world would think for a moment that they'd be able to fend off the United States military if their crazy nightmare scenario of the government turning on its people came true."

Second Amendment Scoreboard.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:33 AM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

At what point do schools, or society begin to have mandatory mental health screenings? Who or how can people be involuntarily sent to mental ?rehab? ? Will classes be offered to teach the correct answers to this NCLB/GED/GRE/ACT/MAT/(insert acronym for new 'are you mentally ok enough to own a firearm' exam) ?

Lanza was not even supposed to have a pistol under CN law. Being denied a purchase; does society have to ?follow? such a person; every one of them, for a period of time to make sure they are stable? ?Mando mental health eval because they decided not to make a POS purchase due to the waiting period? What about anybody that actually checks the ~'Are you mentally stable" box on
the list? Should they be rounded up and forced to undego an exam? Tracked?

I am concerned for all the 'normal' people that might be any combination of shy, intelligent, nervous, don't make eye contact, don't socialize much, belong to extreme right or left wing goups, have relatives with prior felonies or that are incarcerated, stutter, on meds, worship a different deity or no deity at all, or just be different getting grouped into a newly formed "Mental" risk category not unlike what the TSA has for its no fly list.
posted by buzzman at 8:37 AM on December 16, 2012

Newtown School Shooting: Remembering the Victims
posted by zarq at 8:39 AM on December 16, 2012

buzzman, I would just refer you to the landmark Supreme Court case of Perfect v. Good. Right now, 40% of gun sales take place with no background check whatsoever. If even a cursory screening were being applied universally, we could then maybe start quibbling about how much screening is too much, the Minority Report style scenario you've concocted, etc.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:43 AM on December 16, 2012 [14 favorites]

kellybird, I've been thinking about your earlier comment, and have often wondered the same thing. I think it's got to do with Dunbar's number, or, as Cracked put it so well, our Monkeysphere.

I've spent my whole morning reading this thread. I saved it, in order to saturate myself and to try to process it mindfully, and I still have nine tabs open but I need a break. Because I work in a school, and twice in three weeks we've been asked to review our lockdown procedures for a good and specific reason (the most recent, a week ago Friday), and I can picture last Friday's incident all too well. The procedures worked as well as they could in Sandy Hook, and those teachers were amazing. If I were working in a kindie classroom, as I sometimes do, they might work too. But if it were just me and my co-worker in the gym as a lunchroom/breakfast club/recess, with between 30 and 60 and 80 kids from Grade 1-6 in our care, with four entrance and exit points and no place, really, to hide them? So, in a way, this is in my Monkeysphere.

I am always carrying some sadness about the state of affairs for children the world over - but right now, in my mind, I am stuffing "my" children into locker rooms and my tiny office... I often say to them: "There are 250 of you in the school, and I know all of your names - it's part my job." I remember my graduates too. In the list of the deceased children at Sandy Hook, there is one with my daughter's name, and one with my maiden last name. Those are two more that I've added to the roster of names of hundreds of children that takes up a lot of my brain space. The sadness I feel for them is not too different from what I feel for those elsewhere in the world, but it has been named.
posted by peagood at 8:51 AM on December 16, 2012 [12 favorites]

buzzman: these mentally ill young men do not live in a vacuum. If we look at recent cases (Tuscon shooting, Aurora, Newtown, VA Tech, Columbine), the young men who carried out these acts lived with and/or around others who noticed a pattern of behavior that was either ignored or was dealt with inefficiently. How about this: if you have a young adult male in your house or under your guidance who shows either mental illness or anti-social and/or violent behavior (the profile of nearly all gun massacre perps), then follow some simple steps. First, find a way to get him help, if possible. Second, don't take him to the shooting range and don't litter your house with guns. Third, understand what sort of media he is soaking in and what sort of relationships he is cultivating online. Obviously it is a tragedy that Mrs. Lanza was killed by her son, but I am also upset with her that she aided in the even greater tragedy of the massacre at the school. The link posted above from the mother with a violent, difficult to understand young boy is excellent. That mother clearly understands there is a problem with her son and she is trying to get him help. I highly doubt she will be signing him up at her gun club and working to make him familiar with assault rifles.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:54 AM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Tony: Lanzo did not buy the guns he used. Technically, he stole them and used them to murder the owner. I am reading too much news usage of Mental to be comfortable with.

I too hate the once a week or month massacre and try to avoid discussing it in the real world due to an overreaction of how irresponsible I think gun laws are, and a profound distaste concerning the ?idiocy and uselessness? of the assault rifle clones that are so prevalent in sales and ownership. And I had *no* idea that weapons such as the FN5.7 even existed until a massacre occured.

But with the "Mental" word leading so many articles; classes ( where they teach correct answers ) will probably be the first answer to literacy in gun ownership. That being said; Lanzo was not the owner of the weapons used in this tragedy.
posted by buzzman at 8:57 AM on December 16, 2012

Only stupid people think the threat of a gun ban is a reason to not have gun control. No one is going to be prevented from going hunting, ffs.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:58 AM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

I find the total lack of discussion about Adam Lanza's father, deafening. There are very valid questions posed about the mother's role - but that no questions seem to be asked about the father's role (or lack thereof), is telling just how much we normalize blame on mothers, and write off the fathers.

In this case, I think it's because he was living with his mother, and hadn't seen his father for two years. But you do have a point. I'm sure there is more to the story.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:04 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

raztaj, I don't know if that's fair. We don't have any idea about Adam Lanza's relationship with his father, if he even had one. It's been 48 hours.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:04 AM on December 16, 2012

we normalize blame on mothers, and write off the fathers

Yes, especially when it's the mothers who buy the guns used in mass murders.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:05 AM on December 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

Raztaj,
in the link I gave above, the I am Adam Lanza's mother I too was concerned about the absence of a father.

The least controversial thing I can say is that mental illness is hell on families, I'm sure family breakdown is a feature of many of these cases.
posted by Wilder at 9:07 AM on December 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

So then what was the father's influence in his son's interest in guns? Why didn't the son live or spend time with the father? Did the father just try and pay off responsibility and interest, in large alimony checks? It isn't that I think questions posed about the mother are invalid - they are important and should absolutely be asked. But that there are virtually zero questions publicly posed about the father's influence (or lack thereof), is telling.
posted by raztaj at 9:08 AM on December 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

buzzman, this is one incident of many. You can't use Lanza's acquisition of his mom's guns as an argument against trying to do better background checks for purchasers. Of course there will be opportunities for people who aren't the registered owners to get their hands on firearms, but we don't give up on driver licensing because someone's 13 year old might get in the car and go on a joyride.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:09 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Oh, did someone mention vilifying the mother?

Mother shared her gun obsession with school shooter Adam Lanza.

She created a monster.

Adam Lanza’s mother taught her son how to become a killing machine who used what he learned from her about firing guns to commit one of the worst massacres in American history at a Connecticut elementary school.

Weapon-loving Nancy Lanza regularly took her awkward loner-son Adam to shooting ranges, where the painfully shy boy — who suffered from the autism-related Asperger’s syndrome — blasted away targets using his mom’s small arsenal of guns.

Ain't that a beauty of a column?
posted by kimberussell at 9:12 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Lanza was 20 years old. A grown man. Chances are, Nancy Lanza wasn't receiving child support for him.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:12 AM on December 16, 2012

I find the income factor salient; one would not imagine folks of such sums to have any of the more pressing problems that would cause actual hardships... ability to pay rent, healthcare, food, transportation, and even clothing. And with such an income amount; quality ( as compared to typical welfaresque overburdened case load levels ) Mental health care would have been easily affordable.

I too am awaiting details about the father; a parental separation could be due to many causes... child simply did not want to spend time with father might be one. And there is no way to shove a 20 year old into a booster seat to spend time with Daddy... Another factor is the income amount of the father; jobs of such level to tend to lead a person away from 'home'.
posted by buzzman at 9:13 AM on December 16, 2012

buzzman, I would just refer you to the landmark Supreme Court case of Perfect v. Good. Right now, 40% of gun sales take place with no background check whatsoever. If even a cursory screening were being applied universally, we could then maybe start quibbling about how much screening is too much, the Minority Report style scenario you've concocted, etc.

Well, right. But, look, this kid was denied a purchase of a firearm, because the ban and background checks worked.

What failed, ultimately, was his mother's mis-assessment of the threat her son posed. She presumably owned them for "protection" and as is too often the case, that failed spectacularly. She underestimated his capacity and willingness for violence, and abetted him in it.

As a famous movie once pointed out - if you have your shit secured, there'd be no thievery in this world.

So, the failure here - I think - lies with his mother. She kept the guns and enough ammo insecurely. She didn't think her son was capable of this, probably despite evidence. She believed her own hype about her guns making her safe.

So, when we talk about gun control, I don't think bans are going to be very effective. We need for gun advocates to take more seriously the potential firearms have, and to take more steps to make firearms secure. Higher penalties for accidental discharges, more effective registration and most importantly, actual acknowledgement that some people should not have access to guns at all. And so on.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 9:14 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

raztaj, I don't think anyone is arguing that there shouldn't be questions asked. I think what people are saying is that the reason why the focus has been so squarely on the mother so far is that she was the one who died, she was the one who (maybe) had a connection to the school, the guns were hers, and she was the one who took her son to the shooting range. I don't think this case is a good one to use if your point is that the media and society immediately jumps to blame the mother instead of the father, because there are a lot of really valid reasons why the focus has been on the mother. In time, I'm sure we'll learn a lot about the father.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:15 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Pogo_Fuzzybutt: " Well, right. But, look, this kid was denied a purchase of a firearm, because the ban and background checks worked."

As I've already pointed out, this is one case of many. The existence of cases where someone acquires a gun through means other than legal purchase does not undermine the case for doing the background checks for the legal purchasers.

We need for gun advocates to take more seriously the potential firearms have, and to take more steps to make firearms secure. Higher penalties for accidental discharges, more effective registration and most importantly, actual acknowledgement that some people should not have access to guns at all. And so on."

Why not "all of the above"?
posted by tonycpsu at 9:19 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Justice Dept. Shelved Ideas to Improve Gun Background Checks:

It is far from clear whether any of the proposals — which centered on improving the background check system, and did not call for banning weapons — could have prevented the massacre at a Connecticut elementary school on Friday. But the recommendations could provide a blueprint if the Obama administration chooses to take more aggressive steps to curb gun violence....The Justice Department’s list included several measures that, even if Congress did not act, Mr. Obama could enact by executive order...

The Justice Department’s study...focused on ways to bolster the database the F.B.I. uses for background checks on gun purchasers, including using information on file at other federal agencies. Certain people are barred from buying guns, including felons, drug users, those adjudicated mentally “defective,” illegal immigrants and people convicted of misdemeanor offenses related to domestic violence.

For example, the study recommended that all agencies that give out benefits, like the Social Security Administration, tell the F.B.I. background-check system whenever they have made arrangements to send a check to a trustee for a person deemed mentally incompetent to handle his own finances, or when federal employees or job applicants fail a drug test. It also proposed setting up a system to appeal such determinations. Although advocates for gun rights and privacy protection would probably object to the sharing of such information among agencies, the Justice Department concluded such activity would be lawful and appropriate...

The recommendations also included asking Congress to enact a law to expand the list of transactions subject to background checks — currently required only for purchases from a licensed firearms dealer — by requiring private sellers to check buyers’ backgrounds too; the idea was to require them to go to a dealer and use its background check system for a small fee.
posted by mediareport at 9:20 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

It's so weird to me that people even bring up hunting in this situation. Yes, many people in the U.S. like to hunt. X percent rely on that to feed their families. Fine, I think even the most anti-gun person in this thread would want to carve out an exception so you get your normal hunting rifle or whatever.

And as far as not insulting gun-owners, I'm down with the idea of civility and therefore I don't want to insult any person in this conversation. But, as a former smoker, I'm all for public shaming. Public shame was a significant component in my decision to quit. If supporters of NRA are aware that they are despised and ridiculed, well, a significant number are looney enuf to be all U.S. OUTTA U.N. or whatever. But they're unreachable anyway, don't we think? And maybe the percentage of NRA supporters who are not /deliberating insulting/ complete paranoid morons will be moved. And thus we can get policy change.

I dunno, I've just the left rolled so often because we're all for the soft touch. Sometimes I say, let's go punk rock.
posted by angrycat at 9:23 AM on December 16, 2012 [6 favorites]

*raises hand*

I don't think that we should normalize hunting. Maybe that's just me, but it freaks me out to see pictures of Dad taking their kids to kill animals for sport.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:25 AM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Far too simply, especially because of how horrific this event has been; Lanza might have been a victim of a horribly expressed tweenage hormone fit. Goes bonkers, kills mother. Angry with self; rushes to a school and continues to anger at the kids which were so close to his mother. Then kills self.

Disgusting to do a quasi-objective analysis of the events; but 20 year olds do throw hormone heavy rages - witness many a bar fight among young people, or the correct channeling of a tween heavily into athletics.

Using the firearm as a means of expression is violative of what I am sure Lanza's mother taught him at the firing ranges; and as a 'prepper'; she probably was not a wildcard at a firing range with aim or safety.

If only people would do these outrages in reverse order; i.e. Columbine and VT.
posted by buzzman at 9:25 AM on December 16, 2012

I'm no legal scholar, by any stretch, but a friend of mine who is has published an article about how it's a mistake to look at the First and Second Amendments in isolation. The ways in which we have discussed and legislated based on interpretations of the First Amendment necessarily impose limits on the Second Amendment as it is often framed, with the "right to bear arms" as protection against government tyranny.

From the abstract:

Many gun rights advocates have long urged that the Second Amendment serves a collective interest in deterring—and, if necessary, violently deposing—a tyrannical federal government. That theory of Second Amendment insurrectionism marks another point of contact with the First Amendment, because constitutional expressive freedom serves the conceptually similar function of protecting public debate in order to enable dynamic political change. Professor Magarian contends, however, that we should prefer debate to insurrection as a means of political change and that, in fact, the historical disparity in our legal culture’s attention to the First and Second Amendments reflects a long-settled choice of debate over insurrection. Moreover, embracing Second Amendment insurrectionism would endanger our commitment to protecting dissident political speech under the First Amendment. Professor Magarian concludes that our insights about the First Amendment leave little space for the Second Amendment to develop as a meaningful constraint on government action.

I wonder if arguing this perspective would help us make some headway into gun control legislation.
posted by Superplin at 9:28 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Oh, did someone mention vilifying the mother?
Mother shared her gun obsession with school shooter Adam Lanza.
.....(snip).....
Ain't that a beauty of a column?

No surprise though, considering the source (NY Post). Given the talk about Murdoch's tweet a little earlier, it just points up the conflicting points he allows to be published in his media.
posted by lampshade at 9:29 AM on December 16, 2012

Angrycat; any mention of 'gun control' in *any* context among NRA folk; eh, not making light of the current situation; but I have received many a hateful if not life threatening silent staredown in return.

Polarized does not begin to define most gun show, 2nd ammendment, and NRA opinions among gun owners.
posted by buzzman at 9:30 AM on December 16, 2012

If supporters of NRA are aware that they are despised and ridiculed, well, a significant number are looney enuf to be all U.S....And maybe the percentage of NRA supporters who are not /deliberating insulting/ complete paranoid morons will be moved. And thus we can get policy change.

I think you should understand that not all gun owners are members of the NRA. I own guns, and I think the NRA are whackjobs.

The NRA does not represent my interests as a gun owner, in fact, almost all of the people I am close to who own guns think similarly. I think that there are more gun owners like me than you probably care to admit.

Which is to say, a bunch of us are already with you.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 9:36 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

But, as a former smoker, I'm all for public shaming. Public shame was a significant component in my decision to quit.

Well, that's you, and that's fine - whatever works for you.

As a current smoker, various levels of blame, shame, despise & ridicule have done nothing except piss me off. But I'm perfectly willing to accept that a majority of my fellow citizens want to restrict my ability to smoke wherever & whenever, for a variety of reasons. I'm a big boy, I can deal with it.

Which I think is basically spitbull's point - blame & shame pisses people off, while treating them as adults who are capable of accepting restrictions on their behavior for the good of the whole will be more productive.
posted by soundguy99 at 9:37 AM on December 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

Which is to say, a bunch of us are already with you.

maybe it's time to start your own organization - "the responsible gun owners of america" or something
posted by pyramid termite at 9:40 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Oh, if you want to see the mother blamed, just wait until the Newtown PD releases the "motive" they've apparently obtained from evidence at the home and school. There will almost certainly have been a precipitating incident triggered in the home--I'm guessing Adam Lanza was asked to enroll in college, get a job, or otherwise begin the transition to adulthood, and was unwilling.

The choice to attack six- and seven-year-olds who were neighbors but not apparently otherwise connected to his family suggests affiliation. Someone who felt (but demonstrably was not) as powerless and terrified as a little child, lashed out at mommy, and at other little children, and finally at himself.

Some day, professionals will produce an interesting analysis of this tragedy. But not small town cops under siege from international media, sorting through reams of rumor, now with a President on his way.
posted by Scram at 9:40 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Ain't that a beauty of a column?

I don't think so.

Look, I'm as in favor of gun control as anyone. I don't think people need lots of guns, I think they should be used with a lot more care, I think they shouldn't be as easy to go to them as an early step towards dealing with problems, I think they should be kept where others can't take and use them.

But I don't think we necessarily can point to the mother here and say BLAME. She may have made bad decisions. Like any of us haven't. Lots of people probably treated their children worse than she did and not gotten killed for it.

She introduced her son to the weapons that he would ultimately use to end both her life, his own, and those of many other people, many of them small children. That is a senseless tragedy. But, lots of people use guns who don't turn them against others. I don't think Nancy Lanza knew she was creating a monster. She probably introduced her son to guns to try to help him, to give her misfit son something to enjoy, to find some way to bond with him.

It was a bad decision. But could she know how bad when she was making it? Is it reasonable to assume that she could possibly have known that it could have come to this? It's easy to declare these things in hindsight.
posted by JHarris at 9:40 AM on December 16, 2012

Not being counter to cause problems; but the NRA as it stands is; well, not as wacked out as the Republican party currently is; but it is a little extreme for most members; but they will stay with and support it. Why? Because it is adamant about the rights of proper gun ownership and the enforcement of current laws.

Far off topic; but having read/scanned many an NRA publication; I have asked the question "are there any NRA people that are not white" due to the pics in the mags being, uhhh... I've never seen a single non-white ( whatever that means ) person in a NRA magazine. - Females did begin to appear about a decade ago, so good for that; but otherwise... -zip-

Answer to that from two different heavy NRA supporters in two different enviroments was to name several elected officials and NRA officials that were of what I had asked about. NRA folk *do* know their organization. To me, stuff like this does define a serious and united community.
posted by buzzman at 9:44 AM on December 16, 2012

curuinor:
I can't imagine the gun-owners of today's America handing in their weapons in the belief that it would make the country a better place.

S. F., Oakland gun buyback nets hundreds

Arturo Hurtado of Richmond was still stricken with grief over the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 schoolchildren dead when he awoke Saturday morning.

So he decided to get rid of his gun - "that darn thing," he called it - and purged it from his home.

"I've got kids, man," said Hurtado, who works at Waste Management in Oakland and has children ages 14, 10, 6 and 1. "Kids are curious. Kids don't know any better. I had it locked in a toolbox, so I don't know. ... I just know it had to go."

[...]

Tony Vaughn, 52, who had a flower sticking from his .22-caliber rifle, said he had hidden the gun behind a water heater years ago. After Friday's shooting rampage in Connecticut, he remembered where he put it and decided to turn it in.

"Not just better for this city," Vaughn said of the weapon that will be destroyed, "but for the whole world."
posted by aws17576 at 9:46 AM on December 16, 2012 [25 favorites]

I don't think that we should normalize hunting.

I'm pretty NRA-unfriendly and by their standards, would be a gun control nut. But hunting animals that you kill and eat is normal to me. The question isn't normalizing hunting, it's making hunting abnormal, and that's a lot harder to do.

(For me hunting, particularly with slower-firing guns, is also a low priority compared to handguns and however you want to correctly term assault/automatic/etc weapons that are in civilian hands in urban/dense population areas. That and the gun show rule seem to be the easiest things to address, if you could actually get any legislation to pass constitutional muster in the current judiciary.)
posted by immlass at 9:46 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

In the same vein as aws17576's posting:

Baltimore's "Goods for Guns" - 449 firearms surrendered.

This would be a great holiday program in cities nationwide to honor these deceased little people.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:50 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Hey, guess what Gander Mountain is offering for sale this weekend?
posted by edgeways at 9:52 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

I mentioned this upthread, but buyback and eventual prohibition of extended magazines would seem to fall into the "low-hanging fruit" category of regulations that could do a lot to limit the fatalities in these incidents without causing any problems for most gun owners.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:54 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Newtown School Shooting: Remembering the Victims

Those stories are heartbreaking, but I'm troubled by how many of them involve a reporter attempting to contact the families of the victims and being rebuffed. How can anyone think that is remotely appropriate, especially do soon?
posted by apricot at 9:54 AM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

here in Europe we have our occasional shootings but we don't have these regularly occurring massacres and carnage.

The only gun I've ever seen or used is a rifle at a funfair (to shoot at balloons blowing in a cage or try to score a bull's eye on a target)
No-one I know owns a gun or wants to own a gun.

Having guns just increases the number of violent deaths, guns are made to maim and kill.
posted by hopefulmidlifer at 9:55 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

maybe it's time to start your own organization - "the responsible gun owners of america" or something

It's crossed my mind. Here's the thing - I lack any real passion about owning guns.

I like them, and use them for what they are; tools for hunting and training hunting dogs. I mean - I have a sawzall and a chain saw and an axe, and I feel the same about them, too. They are nice, and I like using them for their intended purchase, but I don't think I need to form a "Responsible Axe Handlers of America" club or anything.

That's a big part of why the NRA baffles me so. Gun culture in this country is pretty seriously broken.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 9:56 AM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

It was a bad decision. But could she know how bad when she was making it?

Yes. There is more than enough literature to come to an informed understanding. The possibility of something like this happening existed simply because she was in possession of the weapon.

Had Adam Lanza been schooled in mass EZ Bake Oven Baking, we would not be here in this thread. The baddest part of the decision to teach him EZBOB would have been a few calories.
posted by lampshade at 9:56 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

" "the responsible gun owners of america" or something "
Yep.

immlass, the last time I purchased a weapon I was surprised at how smooth and efficient the store owners call was to do the background check. It would be something to innitiate at shows; but not impossible nor cost-prohibitive; and would probably add no more than 30-45 minutes to the process.

Legislating this will probably not happen in my lifetime.
posted by buzzman at 9:56 AM on December 16, 2012

Nope, spitbull, sorry, I do not think that taking your children hunting or target shooting is ever a good idea. Clearly, it wasn't in this case.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:57 AM on December 16, 2012

the NRA as it stands is; well, not as wacked out as the Republican party currently is; but it is a little extreme for most members; but they will stay with and support it. Why? Because it is adamant about the rights of proper gun ownership and the enforcement of current laws.

As far as I can tell, the NRA is "adamant about the enforcement of current laws" mostly because the gun manufacturers don't want current & future customers in jail. As in, "These laws are a TRAVESTY! but they are actually laws on the books, so don't get busted for violating them"

Also, as spitbull (if I'm reading him correctly) points out, there's a certain amount of cultural inertia at work, plus the NRA is kinda the only game in town.
posted by soundguy99 at 9:58 AM on December 16, 2012

But could she know how bad when she was making it? Is it reasonable to assume that she could possibly have known that it could have come to this? It's easy to declare these things in hindsight.

Okay, fair enough, then let's focus on foresight. What is the "profile" of most gun massacre perps? A young white male from a privileged background and a broken home. Mental illness or anti-social behavior. Plays violent video games. Etc. I'm sure we could draft a list of attributes. And of course there are caveats - not all the young men are white, some come from two parent homes, etc. But for the most part, we're not exactly drawing from a very diverse well here. It also doesn't mean that if a young man fits this profile, that they will definitely go shoot up a theater or a school. However, how about a national campaign to identify and counsel young men who might fit this profile. Hey, parents! Does this describe your son? Will you do what you can to keep him away from firearms, to provide him with mental help if he needs it, to provide healthy creative outlets? There is this really weird lack of discussion of the types of people committing these actions. I don't want to take away people's guns, but I definitely want to try to keep guns away from and out of the hands of people who might commit these crimes. Maybe Mrs. Lanza didn't think her son was capable of doing what he did, but it sure sounds like other people did. I want the next Mrs. Lanza, or a person like Mrs. Lanza (or heck, Mr. Lanza!), a person with a son that fits the profile mentioned above, to wake up this morning and go, damn, I need to sit down and talk with my son and figure out if he's ok and what's going on in his life right now.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 10:00 AM on December 16, 2012

Soundguy: Yep.
posted by buzzman at 10:00 AM on December 16, 2012

Nope, spitbull, sorry, I do not think that taking your children hunting or target shooting is ever a good idea. Clearly, it wasn't in this case.

These things still exist in countries where there is tight gun control. You can go deer hunting in Scotland or target shooting in England. It hasn't stopped us from becoming a low gun violence country.
posted by Jehan at 10:01 AM on December 16, 2012 [9 favorites]

The other thing to keep in mind is that an unhappy young man is much more likely to use a gun for an impulsive suicide than for a mass killing. That seems to me the number one reason not to have guns in the house if you have a late-teens, early-twenties son living with you.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:04 AM on December 16, 2012 [15 favorites]

The other thing to keep in mind is that an unhappy young man is much more likely to use a gun for an impulsive suicide than for a mass killing. That seems to me the number one reason not to have guns in the house if you have a late-teens, early-twenties son living with you.

Very good point, LM.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 10:05 AM on December 16, 2012

Not introducing a child to hunting is not the same thing as institutionalizing a nerdy loner kid. Come on.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:06 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

It's crossed my mind to wonder whether Nancy Lanza acquired her arsenal because she was afraid of her son, Adam, since she did not take up this hobby until after her marriage ended and she was living alone with him. Or, if he was interested in guns, perhaps it was a tragically misguided effort to find common ground with him. In a similar vein, it strikes me as strange that neither the father nor the brother, Ryan, had contact with Adam since 2010. Maybe they were afraid too?

BTW, Adam's effort to buy a weapon three days before the event failed because he walked away after being informed of the mandetory waiting period and background check requirements. The system worked only because he lacked patience; we don't know if he would have passed the background check and been approved for firearm purchase.
posted by carmicha at 10:07 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

carmicha, he was also too young to purchase a gun in CT.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:09 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Nope, spitbull, sorry, I do not think that taking your children hunting or target shooting is ever a good idea. Clearly, it wasn't in this case.

Hunters tend to be huge conservationists and form real resistance to a loss of habitat in the face of urban sprawl and development. And you can't ignore the cultural significance of it, particularly for Native Americans.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 10:10 AM on December 16, 2012 [11 favorites]

Look, I'm basically a vegetarian but I know folks who eat primarily deer they've hunted and butchered less than an hour from Philadelphia, and I really don't have a problem with it. There are far too many deer (habitat turned into exurban developments, lack of natural predators, some easy winters) and people who need to eat. I would rather have that than more feedlots and I think it's probably healthier to have kids who know the realities of meat and where it comes from than kids who have never known what death looks like. (Also it's mainly crossbows.) When I've been in Montana, people owned guns for safety because a lot of the wildlife can kill you, and I'm okay with that. That doesn't hold for sport hunting or trophy kills, but it's clear we're not looking at a hunting family in a wealthy Connecticut enclave so I think this really is mainly a small detail in terms of gun safety laws.
posted by jetlagaddict at 10:15 AM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

I don't have a problem with people who hunt for food or religion. I find hunting for sport unnecessary and grotesque.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:20 AM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

There's a lot of people who find pornography unnecessary and grotesque. Let's ban it!
posted by autobahn at 10:22 AM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

"Never point a gun at another person".
"Always treat a weapon as if it were loaded".

Lines #1 and #2 in any good Young Hunters safety class.

If adult gun ownership and mentoring needs such a simple plain basic reboot; then maybe having a ?permit? ( not registration of firearm ) is a positive idea.
posted by buzzman at 10:22 AM on December 16, 2012

Porn doesn't kill anything.
posted by Chutzler at 10:23 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

no porn derail plz kthxbai
posted by tonycpsu at 10:24 AM on December 16, 2012 [14 favorites]

again, hunting is relevant whhhhhhy
posted by angrycat at 10:26 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

spitbull: "And dammit, I can make a statistical, not anecdotal, case that "taking your children hunting" in many Native American communities is in fact the best way to keep them from committing suicide or killing themselves with addiction."

Isn't this really just due to a correlation between "taking your children hunting" and "being an involved parent", though?
posted by tonycpsu at 10:26 AM on December 16, 2012

David Gregory: No Pro-Gun Rights Senators Would Go On 'Meet The Press'.

Fucking cowards!
posted by ericb at 10:28 AM on December 16, 2012 [10 favorites]

Our Moloch, by Gary Wills

The gun is not a mere tool, a bit of technology, a political issue, a point of debate. It is an object of reverence. Devotion to it precludes interruption with the sacrifices it entails. Like most gods, it does what it will, and cannot be questioned. Its acolytes think it is capable only of good things. It guarantees life and safety and freedom. It even guarantees law. Law grows from it. Then how can law question it?
posted by Chutzler at 10:28 AM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

angrycat: "again, hunting is relevant whhhhhhy"

I'm fine with spitbull standing up for the rights of those who want/need to hunt for food. I think there's room for better enforcement of existing regulations, some new common sense regulations and restrictions, and protecting the rights of people who need firearms so they can feed their families. I don't think we should center the discussion around the needs of this small population of people, but we should definitely keep them in mind, and I think the outsize representation of that viewpoint in this thread is just because spitbull's an expert on the subject and wants to make sure that viewpoint is represented.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:29 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

oh really people are hunting with these automatic things? subsistence hunters need the automatics? would love an explanation, sincerely, as to how that is the case.
posted by angrycat at 10:30 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Victoria Jackson's Connecticut School Shooting Post: Former 'SNL' Star's Tone Deaf Comment Hours After Tragedy.
posted by ericb at 10:30 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

A bunch of little kids are dead.

As a non-parent who knows relatively few 6 to 7 year olds, one thing that made me see this in perspective is that the top cause of preventable death for children is still car crashes, and you'd need 10 shootings of the Connecticut scale to equal the amount of children 6 to 7 that have died in car accidents on an average year in the US.

I don't think that will reassure parents, because for them their child is a very real (and vulnerable) person, and I guess if parents can get worked up over things like vaccines, then random spree shootings seem very, very real. The other reason I don't think this will reassure parents is because this will probably only get them scared about both cars and guns.

This whole thing is just sad.
posted by FJT at 10:31 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

I find hunting for sport unnecessary and grotesque.

The thing is, though, is one of the only ways we've ever gotten any traction in gun control laws here in the US is by making a distinction between "guns as a hunting tool" and "guns whose primary or sole purpose is killing humans."

So basically I think a lot of people feel that continuing to make this distinction is the best way to get gun control laws passed relatively quickly.
posted by soundguy99 at 10:31 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Bill Bennett, Former Education Secretary, Says Schools Should Consider Arming Employees.
posted by ericb at 10:31 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Hunting is just as relevant as any other argument. I don't get why hunting is a valid reason to own a gun but every other reason is not.
posted by autobahn at 10:32 AM on December 16, 2012

Wait, there's a difference between guns for hunting and guns to kill humans?

Explain exactly what those differences are.
posted by autobahn at 10:33 AM on December 16, 2012

We've just been over the issue of subsistence hunting in pretty intense detail.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:33 AM on December 16, 2012

Lots of hunters don't seem to need 20 or 30 round magazines.
posted by soundguy99 at 10:34 AM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

Honest question: so how many of these kids (or adults) that go on rampages and kill come from a background where they have hunted, or hunted specifically for food? Does hunting itself give some idea of what it really means to kill another living creature? Or does it harden the hunter about death and killing?
posted by dilettante at 10:37 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Maybe we can agree to set aside the issue of subsistence hunting, stipulate that whatever equipment is needed for that is exempt.

People who are on the more gun-familiar side of this, are there restrictions that you would endorse, assuming that subsistence hunting is protected?
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:37 AM on December 16, 2012

So, when we talk about gun control, I don't think bans are going to be very effective. We need for gun advocates to take more seriously the potential firearms have, and to take more steps to make firearms secure.

If the police are unable to keep guns in safe places, why do you think individuals would be more capable of it?

Wait, there's a difference between guns for hunting and guns to kill humans?

Explain exactly what those differences are.

It wouldn't need to be easy to fit in the glove compartment or generally be lightweight or easy to hide. It wouldn't need to look badass to the animal. It wouldn't need to fire multiple rounds, reload quickly or shoot bullets that destroyed the meat. Hunt with a hunting rifle. Handguns and automatic weapons were invented for killing humans. You can use them to kill animals, but that's not what they were designed for.
posted by mdn at 10:40 AM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

autobahn, spitbull, and others, I'd like to hear your opinion on the five points in Slap*Happy's highly-favorited comment above. My position is that none of those five measures would have a major impact on anyone using guns for hunting, self-protection, or any other purpose, but could go a long way towards reducing casualties when the guns are used to kill many people.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:41 AM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

Lobster, instead of focusing on the guns themselves, I think we need to focus on better background checks, mental health provisions, etc....

I actually wouldn't be against requiring a background check for private sales as long as there was a convenient, FREE way for private citizens to do this.
posted by autobahn at 10:41 AM on December 16, 2012

> Did you know that without human hunting, the Arctic caribou herd would suffer enormous population pressures via starvation and disease and devastation of their habitat? Human hunting is part of *nature.* It's buying meat in plastic that's unnatural.

Boomerangs and clubs, I think ... arrows, spears ...

There's very little natural about a rapid fire, high capacity, smoking assault weapon.
posted by de at 10:41 AM on December 16, 2012

No one needs a semi-automatic weapon to hunt for food. They should never have been made legal.
posted by zarq at 10:42 AM on December 16, 2012 [6 favorites]

again, hunting is relevant whhhhhhy"

Because it is easy to advocate regulations on things you don't do or practice and so have little regard for the practical effects of those regulations on people you don't identify with.

Poorly crafted laws are poor laws.

People who are on the more gun-familiar side of this, are there restrictions that you would endorse, assuming that subsistence hunting is protected?

Well, registration and increased requirements for training. Increased penalties for firearms violations. Increased rebates/incentives for gun safes and locks. Magazine limitations (weapons used for hunting are already limited - deer rifles and shotguns can only carry so many rounds if you hunt with them). Ammunition purchase limitations. Easier, faster background checks.

There are a lot of things that can be done that don't involve outright bans and wouldn't affect hunters/ranchers, etc that much.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 10:44 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

I have no problem with people who perform subsistence hunting, especially if it's part of a bigger cultural identity that keeps family groups together and kids out of trouble.

I do have a problem with the guy who wears BDUs to the Neighborhood Watch meetings and has half an island nation's armory's worth of guns proudly mounted to his living-room wall.

There's a hell of a difference.
posted by cmyk at 10:44 AM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

Functionally, exactly the same as an AR-15. It's just made out of wood so it's less scary.

You know, autobahn does bring up an interesting point. When the 2nd Amendment was made, there were no weapons that had 20 round magazines in existence. and people still hunted and formed militias. Maybe it's kind of like patents, in that the rapid march of technology has once again left our old laws and regulations in the dust.
posted by FJT at 10:45 AM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

> The other reason I don't think this will reassure parents is because this will probably only get them scared about both cars and guns.

And school.
posted by de at 10:47 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Surely the Connecticut State Police and FBI are leading the investigation, Scram, not the Newtown PD.

The Connecticut State Police are leading the investigation. At this morning's press briefing Lt. Paul Vance made it clear that he is the official spokesperson for all law enforcement and that everything he releases and speaks about is the official word. He did say today that misinformation posted to social media websites is becoming a major concern following the school shooting. There are some who are posing as various people (e.g. victim family members, town and state officials, etc.), posting information online that is incorrect. He said official info is available at the Connecticut State Police website.
posted by ericb at 10:51 AM on December 16, 2012 [6 favorites]

I actually wouldn't be against requiring a background check for private sales as long as there was a convenient, FREE way for private citizens to do this.

Free, schmee. You wanna play with deadly weapons, you gotta pay up.
posted by soundguy99 at 10:52 AM on December 16, 2012 [28 favorites]

"Functionally, exactly the same as an AR-15"

Except they don't jam; unlike the typical AR15/M-16.

Fwiw; the Mini-14 was the weapon used by the _A=Team_ TV series guys.
posted by buzzman at 10:53 AM on December 16, 2012

I don't find "gun control" to be a useful term. Gun laws are complicated and, on a national level, contradictory. Accordingly, revising these laws is a complicated proposition and "gun control" is an exceedingly simple and unspecific phrase. It doesn't mean the same thing to everybody. As just one example, there is disagreement in this thread by people who explicitly favor "gun control" as to whether or not that means eradicating all guns.

Several people have alluded to the fact that gun owners appear to stand in at least some degree of solidarity when gun laws are discussed. That's partly untrue, but it's partly true. There are a few reasons why it happens. First, the discussions often come with a heavy dose of condescension and dislike. "Guns are ridiculous, and you're an idiot if you own one." It's understandable that somebody may not feel inclined to engage in constructive conversation with someone who doesn't bother to hide his/her personal-level contempt.

Second, and probably more importantly, the gun owners who show up to these discussions tend to be the ones who follow existing law. They took the requisite classes, purchased their firearms from licensed retailers, and store their firearms locked away. These people make the effort to follow gun laws—and that's not a small thing because again, gun laws are complicated. During gun-law seminars it's not uncommon to see raised hands from people who identify themselves as licensed dealers and ask, "It's not clear to me whether I can legally do X or Y, and I received conflicting answers from my local police department and the state agency." (Yes, that happens.)

By contrast, the people who tend to show up to these discussions calling for revisions to gun law aren't as exactingly familiar with current law. Having gun-related statistics to cite is qualitatively different from having the experience of working and/or complying with gun laws on a daily basis. And that disparity is compounded when the discussion centers nebulously on "gun control" rather than specific revisions like, for instance, the suggestion in this thread that X-capacity magazines could be outlawed completely over a period of time, with no grandfathering, with a possible buyback period up front, and with possessory penalties as enforcement.
posted by cribcage at 10:54 AM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

soundguy99: obviously you don't LIKE guns and you have made that clear.

I'm trying to make a rational argument how sane provisions can go through and how you can get gun owners (who are politically very powerful) to maybe go along with some of your ideas.

Instead, you're dismissive and snarky. Do you think that's going to help your cause at all?
posted by autobahn at 10:54 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Not introducing a child to hunting is not the same thing as institutionalizing a nerdy loner kid. Come on.
posted by roomthreeseventeen

And come on, teaching a kid to hunt does not a mass murderer make. It wasn't *that* long ago when every family ate what they grew/hunted.

I've been trying to process all this since it happened, and I'm still not sure I can articulate how I feel about it all.

On the main, I tend to agree with Spitbull regarding hunting.

However.

This is, I think, where pro-gun ownership had better get on the ball. You are seeing a societal sea-change in real time. It doesn't matter whether you think it is right or fair or constitutional - your society is telling you a line has been crossed, and unless the pro-gun ownership community shows up en mass with reasonable ideas to reduce the amount of bloodshed, you're going to see more and more pressure to pass laws that reduce or eliminate anyone's access.

I don't own a gun. I don't shoot anything, paper or otherwise. I think the gun culture in the US is insane. ABC did a short statistical article back in August:

"According to ATF reports, in 2010 there were 5,459,240 new firearms manufactured in the United States, nearly all (95 percent) for the U.S. market. An additional 3,252,404 firearms were imported to the United States.
[...]

Violent crime rates have been falling in recent years, but the number of people killed by firearms in the United States remains high. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, between 2006 and 2010 47,856 people were murdered in the U.S. by firearms, more than twice as many as were killed by all other means combined."

So I looked it up on the FBI website. The most used weapon after guns is "knives or cutting instruments" and the total number of those crimes in 2011 was 1,694.

1,694.

Gun owners - don't tell me access to guns doesn't result in more people dying. I would be willing to bet real money that Adam Lanza's mother considered herself (and if the subject ever came up, called herself), a responsible gun owner. Every person I've ever known who owns guns thinks they are a responsible gun owner.

If the NRA isn't the organization that should be leading your cause, you damn well better create one that is.

I actually wouldn't be against requiring a background check for private sales as long as there was a convenient, FREE way for private citizens to do this.
posted by autobahn

Why? Why should it be simple and free for you to do this? Why is it not simply one of the steps you need to take in order to be sure that the gun you want to sell/buy doesn't end up in the hands of someone who shouldn't have it? If you are serious in that responsible gun owners agree it should be more difficult for those who shouldn't have access to guns to get them, a small fee/registration/process should be a small price to pay for your ability to continue to responsibly own weapons.

It *shouldn't* be easy, goddamnit. That's the point.
posted by faineant at 10:55 AM on December 16, 2012 [37 favorites]

And there's the rub, when you have a political system that is explicitly weighted towards giving representation to square footage over people, combined with a fetishism for a faded old founding document and a largely obsolescent model of pioneer liberty. It allows gun extremists to hold democracy to ransom.
posted by holgate

Your refering to the Magna Carta, yes?

first off, America is not a democracy. And I believe a document gives the right to have arms so they can overthrow a corrupt gov't.

how are things in Bottle street.
posted by clavdivs at 11:00 AM on December 16, 2012

Worshippers hurry from Newtown Conn. church, citing bomb threat.

Oh, great. I hope they capture the perpetrator and 'throw the book' at him/her. Asshole!
posted by ericb at 11:01 AM on December 16, 2012

clavdivs: "And I believe a document gives the right to have arms so they can overthrow a corrupt gov't."

Let us know how your semi-automatic weapon fares against a Predator drone armed with Hellfire missiles.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:01 AM on December 16, 2012 [7 favorites]

I'm glad you live in a political fantasy world where you get everything you want. Meanwhile, I'm back here in the real world saying if you want private background checks to fly, they have to be free.

That's the political reality. Telling people who collect, buy, and trade guns (it's a LEGIT hobby even though people will dismiss it with a hand wave) that they have to pay $40 every time they want to sell one of their guns to another collector will NOT fly.

Currently there is NO background check for private sales. So do you think a law saying "We're implementing background checks for private sales, and oh yeah you're going to have to pay an FFL $40 every time you do it" is going to fly? No, it's going to get the Democrats voted out of office and 8 years of another all-republican government and the laws will be repealed anyway. Is that what you want? Is that a win in your book?
posted by autobahn at 11:01 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

The New Yorker: Making Gun Control Happen.
posted by ericb at 11:02 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

tonycpsu, as I've pointed out many times, that argument is silly, because we're having a really tough time in Iraq and Afghanistan against poorly-trained individuals with small arms.
posted by autobahn at 11:03 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

I don't have much opinion about "guns" as a general category.

I have strong opinions about the availability of guns, especially certain kinds of guns.

I have strong opinions about the idea that we have to pander to a minority of American citizens in order to even discuss gun laws.

Some people's, yes, entirely legit hobby, might cost them more money. They need to put on their big boy pants and deal with it.
posted by soundguy99 at 11:05 AM on December 16, 2012 [10 favorites]

If Guns Were As Regulated As Cars.
posted by ericb at 11:06 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

autobahn, I'll be happy to engage you on that point if you can answer the question I posed to you above. I don't like engaging with people who cherry-pick which points they'd like to respond to so they don't have to answer the tough questions.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:07 AM on December 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

tonycpsu, it's not a tough question. those restrictions are ridiculous. I have to leave now but I'll be back later to address.

Also, I didn't see your question before, nice suggestion that I'm cherry picking things.
posted by autobahn at 11:11 AM on December 16, 2012

Violent crime rates have been falling in recent years, but the number of people killed by firearms in the United States remains high. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, between 2006 and 2010 47,856 people were murdered in the U.S. by firearms, more than twice as many as were killed by all other means combined."

Gun murders in the US average about 26 or 27 a day. The only exceptional thing about 14 December is that they all happened in the same place.
posted by Jehan at 11:13 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

autobahn, so are you saying that the free requirement isn't really based on say common sense but instead an ideology? Because it seems to be saying that many gun owners are so (ahem) blindly clinging to guns, rather than being reasonable people.

Which makes me wonder why policy goals need to be held hostage by an ideology.
posted by angrycat at 11:13 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm assuming you're responding to me, autobahn? I am not sure what political fantasy world you think I'm inhabiting, "where I get everything I want."

I am not anti-gun ownership. I am not anti-hunting. I have not hand-waved the idea that there is a legit hobby involved.

It is a hobby. *Many* hobbies require training, licensing, renewal, and yes, fees.

Gun murders in the US average about 26 or 27 a day. The only exceptional thing about 14 December is that they all happened in the same place.
posted by Jehan

Some of us are saying 26 or 27 a day is too many.
posted by faineant at 11:16 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

FJT: "As a non-parent who knows relatively few 6 to 7 year olds, one thing that made me see this in perspective is that the top cause of preventable death for children is still car crashes, and you'd need 10 shootings of the Connecticut scale to equal the amount of children 6 to 7 that have died in car accidents on an average year in the US."

OK, but let's not minimize the scale of the problem with guns and children -- it goes well beyond massacres like Sandy Hook and frankly, it boggles the mind that the following numbers do not already present an unanswerable case for much tighter gun control and enforcement of such control as already exists:

"In 2008, 2,947 children and teens died from guns in the United States and 2,793 died in 2009 for a total of 5,740—one child or teen every three hours, eight every day, 55 every week for two years.

The 5,740 children and teens killed by guns in 2008 and 2009:
• Would fill more than 229 public school classrooms of 25 students each;
• Was greater than the number of U.S. military personnel killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan (5,013).

The number of preschoolers killed by guns in 2008 (88) and in 2009 (85) was nearly double the number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 2008 (41) and 2009 (48).

34,387 Children and Teens were Injured by Guns in 2008 and 2009 [including over 1500 children under 10]" source

Incidentally, what would be the numbers of children dead from car crashes if mandatory child seats was not the vigorously enforced law and, incidentally, the strongly peer-pressured cultural norm -- child car seat culture, if you like, has swung enormously since I played lego in the back of my parents 1961 Valiant on long road trips.
posted by Rumple at 11:18 AM on December 16, 2012 [18 favorites]

I pay around $140 a year for registration on a hobby motorcycle, it's purely for entertainment not commuting. Asking gun owners to pay $40 for a background checks is completely reasonable.
posted by M Edward at 11:18 AM on December 16, 2012 [19 favorites]

autobahn, so are you saying that the free requirement isn't really based on say common sense but instead an ideology? Because it seems to be saying that many gun owners are so (ahem) blindly clinging to guns, rather than being reasonable people.

I think he's trying to say that since so many gun sales are private transfers, that making it free or low cost - in other words, lowering a barrier - is instrumental in compliance.

Some people's, yes, entirely legit hobby, might cost them more money. They need to put on their big boy pants and deal with it.

Childish much ?
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:19 AM on December 16, 2012

People who are on the more gun-familiar side of this, are there restrictions that you would endorse, assuming that subsistence hunting is protected?

Minimum length, either barrel or overall (overall would be with stock in the collapsed or folded state).

The purpose of carbine-length and shorter is combat. There are no two ways about it. An exemption for mercy-killing of wounded animals or the backcountry hiker worried about bear would be needed, but is easy.

Magazine capacity maximums. While changing magazines while varminting is a pain, they'll get over it.

Probably the next step is the action of the weapon - and regulating this would be much harder.

Don't get bogged down in flash-hiders, pistol-grips, "the shoulder thing that goes up," and others. Address the functionality of the weapon, not cosmetic features.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:20 AM on December 16, 2012 [9 favorites]

What happened Friday was a tragedy, but Thursday 25-30 people were murdered with by guns, yesterday 25-30 more, 25-30 more will be murdered today and tomorrow and the next day and on. Of course most of those killed are minorities so maybe they count less. If you’re really interested in lowering the number gun deaths in the US maybe it’s time to end the War on Drugs and move the resources used there to fight poverty. Or we could push for another ineffectual assault weapons ban; even though they’re rarely used in murders they sure do look scary.
posted by the_artificer at 11:25 AM on December 16, 2012 [8 favorites]

autobahn: "I have to leave now but I'll be back later to address."

I look forward to your response. In the mean time, with respect to Afghanistan, I'll just point out a few differences between our situation there and the hypothetical mass revolt of gun owners in the United States.

In Afghanistan, we're trying to control a country of roughly 30 million people with a military force of tens of thousands, plus some contractors. In the domestic insurrection, how many do you think you would get to take up arms against the United States?

In Afghanistan, we are seeing a replay of other conflicts where the invading force has a tough against the natives who know the lay of the land. In the United States, the armed insurrectionists would have to operate without control of supply lines, communications infrastructure, roads, bridges, etc.

In Afghanistan, we don't know who the good guys and bad guys are. In the U.S., authorities would know a lot about who the insurrectionists are and what they're doing.

I could go on, but I've already spent too much time on this fairy tale scenario.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:28 AM on December 16, 2012 [6 favorites]

I think autobahn was trying to make a practical suggestion that background checks for private gun sales will be politically more likely to happen if the background checks are free.
posted by LobsterMitten

You may be right LobsterMitten, and so might autobahn. But his response didn't make *me* sound like the one living in a political fantasy world. My point is, don't tell me you're serious about helping to curb gun violence if you're going to balk at paying a small fee to have a background check run when you make a private gun sale.
posted by faineant at 11:29 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

I haven't commented before now, because I just couldn't process this tragedy. My son is the same age as those kids. When I got home from school with him, and I looked at our Christmas tree, and I thought of all those parents with their presents still on closet shelves, the empty bedrooms scattered with toys and papers, the place setting unused...I lost it. I've been crying for days, when I think of it.

And the sad thing is; we lose upwards of 30,000 people in the US every year to gun violence. about 12k in homicides and about 18k in suicide. In Chicago alone, there have been 5,000 gun deaths in the last 10 years. One city.

I own guns. I have owned guns since I was in elementary school, I got my first Winchester repeater .22 caliber rifle when I was 8. I've trained with guns, I've fired my guns at targets and at varmints. I can field strip and reassemble any gun I've ever owned. I have taken police training with those cardboard figures that pop out; and I tell ya; I made a lot of mistakes. A lot. Expecting someone who hasn't had the training to make life/death decisions about *who* to shoot in an emergency is absurdist beyond belief. I cannot believe people are seriously suggesting it.

And I stand with Slap*Happy, it's time to eliminated high capacity magazines and significantly increase the cost of both gun ownership and ammunition. I think trigger locks, at the very minimum, should be mandatory.
posted by dejah420 at 11:30 AM on December 16, 2012 [23 favorites]

If you’re really interested in lowering the number gun deaths in the US maybe it’s time to end the War on Drugs and move the resources used there to fight poverty. Or we could push for another ineffectual assault weapons ban; even though they’re rarely used in murders they sure do look scary.

How about all of the above? Plus improved mental health care? They're not mutually exclusive.
posted by immlass at 11:31 AM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

I think there's a line between balking for oneself (saying "I wouldn't pay a fee") and predicting that others would balk and that policy should take that likelihood into consideration.

I have no position on the fee/no fee issue myself, I just think we could stand to de-personalize this a little.
posted by LobsterMitten at 11:33 AM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

I don't disagree, LobsterMitten, and I wasn't meaning to single out autobahn in particular - these are arguments made by many gun owners, and however sloppily, I was intending the universal 'you.' Apologies that I wasn't clearer.
posted by faineant at 11:36 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

47 guns.

Indiana Man Arrested After Threatening To Shoot Up Elementary School

A man equipped with a 47 gun arsenal was arrested on Sunday after threatening to kill children at a local elementary school.
[...]
This incident comes right on the heels of the arrest of an Oklahoma man planning a school shooting and the horrific murders in Newtown, Connecticut.

47 fucking guns.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:41 AM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

I live in a rural area where owning a gun is pretty normal. Most every farmer I know has at least one to deal with critters and other issues with domesticated animals. In the fall hunting is huge in this area. Deer, wild turkey and water fowl seasons. I learned this fall that there are specific, bow hunting weeks, black powder and regular rifle type weeks. There are also specific times and rules for the rather large First Nations groups in the area. I happened to be working in a restaurant where a lot of hunters came in both local and visiting so learned quite a bit from chatting and overhearing conversations.

For this area where the economy is largely based on the summer season with it's influx of cottagers and tourists, hunting season is important for the overall economic health and businesses in the area. I didn't realize how much until I was out working in the service industry.

Out of the dozens of conversations I was involved in or overheard I don't recall one where the (mostly) men talked about their actual guns. The closest one I heard was when I asked what black powder meant and a conversation where a group was laughing at a guys skill with some type of gun. (he sucked) but apparently was looked at as being one of the most skilled with a bow.

A good many conversations centered around conservation and population issues it seemed. Comparing last years with this year and things like that. Surprisingly I heard quite a bit of conversation centered around the effects of climate change, especially from old guys who had been hunting in the area since they were young. They were like catalogs of observed history of the ecology of the area.

The local gun club down the road consists mostly of hunting types and the groups that use it are big players in helping with environmental issues. Some are experts on the migratory birds and rare birds in the area and help track their populations. Have for years it seems.

It was hunters who were one of the main supporting groups in a program that re-introduced wild turkeys into the region. The introduction has been very successful and there are turkeys every where now.

It's all pretty impressive when put all together.

I grew up in the city and moving here was a bit of a cultural shock. The first year during the fall it was freaky hearing guns go off back behind my house. During duck season the marsh was full of constant boom boom it seemed. Hearing guns regularly was quite disturbing at first.

Over the years my views on hunting, hunters and guns has changed. I have no problem admitiing my stereotypes. Most seemed to be wrong. The main thing I've learned is that for the majority of people I've come across that use guns is that the 'gun' or using the gun is not the thing. It's just the tool for the actual 'thing' to be accomplished and is to be respected. People might be excited and into hunting but it's not about being excited and into guns. That's different then the stereotypical gun nut types where the gun is more the end goal it seems.

Some I talked too about gun control seemed to be perfectly fine with it. The gun registry here (Canada) was a big deal her for years and had a lot of opposition from people, especially in rural areas. I learned that it wasn't about people being against control as a general policy but control done without consideration for issues specific to different areas and use and some general logistical stupidity. The concerns made sense when looked at in context, something that makes a whole lot more sense now that I have been living in that context for several years now.

My point I guess is that I do think that there is a large population of gun owners and users that are entirely reasonable about guns and gun control policies but context matters in how it's done.
posted by Jalliah at 11:43 AM on December 16, 2012 [17 favorites]

The 3-d printer topic has yet to even enter public knowledge yet; and just about as many are aware that some basic metal hand-crafting can make a copy of the semi-auto / fully auto switch that differs a civilian AR15 from a military M-16; or a civilian AK47 from a military AK47.

Guns are not complicated machines. There is no voo-doo or magic involved. Patents such as those for a basic 1911 pistol have been public domain for decades. A hammer, a nail, and a device to hold a shell can make a round of ammo fire. An explosive charge can take many forms, ammonia and fertilizer being a simplistic one. A strong chamber and barrel to direct; and a firearm is made. As much as the Home Depot would have all the supplies for a single shot weapon; a more readily armed pirate would have three or more pistols so as to allow for more firing. The machine can be regulated; but not eliminated from the gun scenario.

Thinking past the initial OMG Gun Control reaction, a little familiarity with the pro-gun and anti-gun extreme sides; and the firearm topic differs only in name ( and headline grabbing scale ) from many other topics; of taxes, health care ( hello Baker Act? ), welfare, and abortion; ...abortion and health care involve life, with both perhaps involving parties that might lose loved ones due to anothers choice... ie. should get their organ donation, or please don't abort my child... thousands of lives are lost one after another in these processes, yet the suddeness factor keeps it off the front pages; or perhaps the fact that it has been going on for decades. And it could be concluded that individuals involved in these processes have literally killed hundreds if not thousands.

The sickness of the individuals that choose to terrorize others en masse via a firearm is a disgust overload that de-sentisizes to the slower creep (and individuality or singularity of victims ) mentioned above.

No solution, but control of the rights of others is and will always be a sensitive and divisive item to be legislated, and what people do with these rights is the human factor that will always be impossible to fully predict.
posted by buzzman at 11:44 AM on December 16, 2012

In addition to gun control, I have been thinking about how the media report on these things. I do think this particular shape of crime (mass shootings, and the places people choose for them) are encouraged by the media coverage, the scorekeeping (body count, "worst ever", "second-worst"), the attention paid to the shooter's life story and motives and picture.

Has anyone seen any other good suggestions for how to curb that?

There was an effort in Aurora to remove focus from the shooter's name, but that seems to have been set aside here. Anybody have insight into whether that's a conscious choice based on something?
posted by LobsterMitten at 11:46 AM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

The 3-D printer "anyone will be able to build a gun" argument is just an attempt to get gun control advocates to give up on regulating them until that day comes. If we can put a dent in the 12,000 gun fatalities per year number for a number of years until then, it will be worth doing, regardless of whether technological changes will make it more difficult in the future.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:48 AM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

This argument to arm teachers and principals in elementary schools is one of the weirdest crazy things I have ever heard, and that is really saying something in today's political culture.

Armed teachers and principals! I just can't even get my head around the idea. And I really don't want to, to be honest.

I wouldn't let my kid within sight of such a school (and I am not a home-schooling enthusiast; in fact, my husband is a public school teacher). I also don't have a problem with people having a gun to hunt with. But guns in schools? I seriously can't believe this is being proposed by anyone, even gun fanatics. That is CRAZY TALK.
posted by theredpen at 11:51 AM on December 16, 2012 [15 favorites]

LobsterMitten, while I appreciate any efforts on the part of individual media outlets to talk less about the shooter, we can't really tell the media what to report on or how to report on it. The only way it happens is if we the consumers of the media stop watching when they focus on the criminals, and there's clearly an interest in knowing why they do what they do.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:52 AM on December 16, 2012

What about calling it "gun licensing & registration" instead of "gun control" - that might help mitigate the threat aspect to hunters, etc. Automatic weapons could be one of the type you don't license.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:53 AM on December 16, 2012

Sure, I'm not thinking of government-imposed restrictions but more of voluntary ones like how the media handle suicides (similar kind of silence about details, I believe because of evidence that suicide can be contagious).
posted by LobsterMitten at 11:55 AM on December 16, 2012

five fresh fish: Only stupid people think the threat of a gun ban is a reason to not have gun control. No one is going to be prevented from going hunting, ffs.

There have been repeated assertions in this thread that all gun owners are right-wing nutjobs, that the only reason anyone purchases any type of firearm is an intention to kill people, that all gun owners are obsessed with power and "playing god", and that no one in the US actually hunts for food. This is despite the fact that a number of hunters and gun owners have spoken up strongly in this thread in favor of gun control, and some of them have outlined ideas about how they think restrictions should be implemented.

Hunters and people who know hunters have responded to that here by saying that they and people they know are not like that and that some people in the US do in fact hunt for food. Not a single person in this thread — I repeat, not a single person — pointing out they that they know people who hunt for food, or defending hunting, has used this as an argument against gun control. Almost all of them have argued in favor of it.

Your claim that all such comments were made by "stupid people" who "think the threat of a gun ban is a reason to not have gun control" is a reflection of your own class bigotry. You're blatantly misrepresenting what people have said here, and lies like yours about what other people have said and that everyone can easily scroll up in the comments and read are not helping us have a conversation about gun control.
posted by nangar at 11:57 AM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

autobahn: "This was the firearm used in the Norway massacres. Functionally, exactly the same as an AR-15. It's just made out of wood so it's less scary."

Yes, the 2011 Norway shootings were perpetrated with a legally-obtained hunting rifle that is functionally similar to an AR-15. What is that supposed to prove? I think you would have to look at all the other shooting sprees in Norway to conclude ... oh, wait ...
posted by brokkr at 11:57 AM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

...aaaaand the fun never stops.
posted by sfts2 at 12:17 PM on December 16, 2012

Three Presidents. Three Speeches.
posted by zarq at 12:21 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

FWIW, I went ahead and ran some quick numbers on arming school employees:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that there are at least 7.2m teachers and 250k administrators, so including all the support staff, let's just say 8m just for schools, almost 5 times the number of active duty soldiers in the US. BTW, I'm assuming this is both public and private, but if not, the number would be higher.

Now, for the costs of outfitting the school staff with military/LEO-level support. Again, no real numbers, but estimates for the US armed forces range from over $150k to $850k (or possibly $1.2m) a year for salaries, training, health care, benefits, and equipment for each soldier. Let's lowball it and split the difference and say $450k a year including hazard pay. Run that through the magic numbers machine and we come up with: $3.6 trillion per year. Of course, that number could be as low as $1.2 trillion, or it could be as high as $9 trillion based on the uncertainty of the numbers, but you get the picture. For comparison's sake, the total expenditures for the US government this year were $3.8 trillion, so with the middle-ground estimate we're essentially doubling that. And we haven't got to any other service sector yet!

Any bright ideas on where to come up with that kind of scratch, guys?
posted by zombieflanders at 12:26 PM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

What about calling it "gun licensing & registration" instead of "gun control" - that might help mitigate the threat aspect to hunters, etc.

Because one of the classical arguments against gun control is that registration gives the gubmint a list of all the people who have guns. First on the chopping block, etc.
posted by rhizome at 12:27 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

...aaaaand the fun never stops.

Copycats are entirely predictable, and should be for the next couple of weeks at least.
posted by rhizome at 12:28 PM on December 16, 2012

Because one of the classical arguments against gun control is that registration gives the gubmint a list of all the people who have guns.

Do most lawful gun owners, hunters, self-protection people care about that? I am asking, I don't know. I'd like to hear from mefi gun owners.
posted by madamjujujive at 12:44 PM on December 16, 2012

Three Presidents. Three Speeches.

I remember Clinton's speech after Columbine; I remember thinking that the line, "We must do more to reach out to our children and teach them to express their anger and to resolve their conflicts with words, not weapons," while entirely true, was also pretty damned hypocritical considering the US, alongside its its NATO allies, was rather indiscriminately bombing the shit out of Yugoslavia at the time.

Ditto for Obama, crying for American kids while bombing Pakistani ones. Not to say they weren't real tears -- I have no doubt they were -- just, you know, please learn from them.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:50 PM on December 16, 2012 [11 favorites]

FYI - there is another press conference going on right now from CT police.
posted by lampshade at 12:51 PM on December 16, 2012

I've been one of the more contentious anti-gun posters here, my favorite uncle owns or owned a handgun, and my two favorite ex-boyfriends were hunters. I didn't like my uncle's ownership and the fact my dear boyfriends hunted. But I didn't think they were bad people in any way, shape, or form.

I think that the NRA is a very bad organization. I think that U.S. gun culture is very bad. That is very different from saying that everybody owns a gun is shit.
posted by angrycat at 12:53 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Do most lawful gun owners, hunters, self-protection people care about that? I am asking, I don't know. I'd like to hear from mefi gun owners.

Not really. I mean, when get a hunting license, you have to tell them where you live, and it sort of implies what sort of gun you might have. So, most people I know think registration of firearms is sort of a no-nonsense approach that could be helpful to law enforcement.

That having been said, there is a vocal contingent that are adamantly against it.

There are reasons to oppose it, though. It makes it harder to buy and sell, or move, and it's yet another thing to keep track of. And another cost of ownership and so on. Like registering your car, or whatever, it's sort of a pain in the ass - and if poorly implemented could be a big enough pain that people don't bother or seek to avoid it.

And the benefits are kind of murky - firearm tracking is only useful in particular contexts, and usually after the fact anyway.

So, I think most hunters wouldn't be opposed to a well crafted, low-cost, registration requirement. I think most gun-nuts would be, and where those two intersect is that set of hunters that would oppose it. But it would depend on the details of the implementation.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 12:55 PM on December 16, 2012

The USA today images of victims shows mainly smiling little girls .

..........................
posted by dabitch at 12:55 PM on December 16, 2012

New Poll Shows NRA Members Strongly Support Common-Sense Gun Laws
posted by whyareyouatriangle at 1:12 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

That's the Frank Luntz poll mentioned upthread. I'd really like to see some of the better pollsters from the recent election asking those same specific questions right now about moderate changes to gun regulations.
posted by mediareport at 1:22 PM on December 16, 2012

Okay, before I share this....let me just state for the record I never really felt strongly about guns one way or the other. It was never an issue personally important to me. I could certainly see why each side on the gun control question saw things the way they did. And unfortunately for my ability to choose a side I could always find valid arguments for each position. My parents own firearms, my husband and son own firearms. I myself haven't shot one in years, not even target shooting, altho, pretty much up till now I wasn't particularly averse to it either.

Now, having said that, I am going to post part of a posting made by one of my loved ones on the topic. This individual is against gun control in any form or fashion. Some of you here are expressing a desire to understand what people like him are thinking, so here goes.

Having been born in (redacted), Colorado in the 1950′s contributes (Open carry from the days of the old west did not end there until 1952) When I lived with my father I grew up in a household that had a rifle or shotgun behind every door. I received my first firearm at age 8. My father was incessant about safety and having clean firearms, I still enjoy cleaning them.

And like a lot of young men my age I roamed the west slope of Colorado imagining defending our homes from the ravages of the invading Soviets. Many a communist squirrel, raven. crow or magpie did not live to tell the tale. But every mining town in western Colorado was armed enough to give any liberal a coronary. In one mining town of 300 people there were over 6000 guns. Granted one collector had over 4500 but 5 guns per person is no exaggeration. This was a town that Billy Sunday evangelized himself! There were no murders in this town. There was no need for law enforcement. There was a part-time cop, a County Sheriff, and on the second day of hunting season the federal game warden checked a few tags. Occasionally a state trooper would ride through town. But there was no need for law enforcement.

Recreational shooting included shooting the rats at the dump. (Imagine doing that today!)

In fact we carried our guns to school at the behest of the principal for our NRA gun safety class. (Though limited to one box of ammo, and no .30 calibers)

All mining towns were loaded with firearms because of hunting, and another darker reason. In San Miguel County, a mere hundred years ago, and only 54 years before I was born, government and mine management from New England conspired to machine gun down miners and forbade the survivors to go back to town and get their wives and children. To this day you can see the remains of Ft. Peabody built to enforce death. This happened in the 20th century. An armed society is a polite society.

Okay, me again. Please consider that to people who grew up in the West, guns represent a lot of things. I'm a back Easterner myself but I have learned that a lot of people out there share a disdain for anything the federal government does, and they actually have decent reason for their opinions. Whether or not you think they are wise to think they need firearms just in case the gubmint gets stupid or simply because bitter memories passed down after incidents such as the one mentioned.....well, they think what they think.

I personally don't see why anyone needs to be able to keep semiautomatics at their home, particularly in a rural Connecticut town for Pete's sake, but to people who are of the mindset of my family member, it is a kneejerk reaction to reject those sorts of regulations.

All I am saying myself is be gentle when you try to persuade people like him. They aren't insane idiots, they do have reasons for believing what they believe, and approaching them like they are just stupid ignorant fools is going to be counterproductive. And maybe, all of you, gun owners and gun haters alike, can come up with some fresh ideas, some practical ways of keeping firearms out of the hands of people like the Newtown murderer.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 1:31 PM on December 16, 2012 [6 favorites]

I must say that when I read the speculation here that the gun lobby would spin this, I reckoned it for a straw man. This was before I read that Larry Pratt, director of the advocacy group Gun Owners of America, has pinpointed the problem -- the foolish idea that people teaching kindergarten should go unarmed: “Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands."

Then I noticed that an old friend of mine (who despite being otherwise intelligent maintains an unshakeable belief in the Law of Attraction) had posted something on Facebook about this. I gather from her comments that the Law of Attraction community was shaken by the events in Connecticut last week -- how did a bunch of primary schoolers wind up murdered in this wonderful world where everyone gets what they really want? Notwithstanding that The Problem of Evil has been addressed by thinkers at least as far back as Mesopotamia, it looks from following her links that those folks never considered this before about noon last Friday.

There was some doubt and confusion in the comments, but I notice that a calm and reassuring voice of authority stepped in:

The one thing that came up for me after releasing all the fear and judgement that came from the shooting was that KIDS KNOW!!!!!

Kids know so much more than we do. They can’t tell us because either we make them shut up or we tell them they are crazy.

But that does not mean they don’t do what they know to do.

They do things like get killed, get molested, get hurt so that “other people don’t”. They know to attract those that could hurt the ones they came to protect.

Now, please understands that these kids CHOOSE this. They don’t see themselves as Victims. Ever. So don’t go there.

They may come back and do it again. Or they may choose something different.

As for the person who did it, I wonder if he picked up on something we so easily create…. fear?

What energy can we be that would transform all of this with ease right away?

Much gratitude for you,

Sophie

Everyone was much reassured that the kids chose to help out their friends and loved ones by being shot to death. I lack the words to adequately express how appalling I find this.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:33 PM on December 16, 2012 [24 favorites]

And arming principals and teachers is a recipe for more tragedy, not less, especially in high schools. Setting aside whether these people would have the skills/wherewithal to use a weapon correctly in the confusion and horror of an assault situation, keeping a gun in a safe, secure place, separate from the ammunition as per recommendations for homes with youngsters, means it's not easily accessible when needed... which is why I've never understood the "self-defense" pro-gun ownership argument.

And I agree with your main point about teachers, which is why I favorited it... but here locally a woman stopped two men breaking in to her apartment just this week because she was armed. So again, I am torn. (There have been a lot of break-in rapes in this town this past year.)
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 1:33 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

> I'm glad you live in a political fantasy world where you get everything you want. Meanwhile, I'm back here in the real world saying if you want private background checks to fly, they have to be free.

They can be free in a way that a lot of things are "free:" by passing the cost along to whomever wants to buy it. Instead of costing $500, a gun in a private sale now costs $550. We do this all.the.time in other buyer/seller arenas, so why not here?
posted by rtha at 1:37 PM on December 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

http://www.americanrifleman.org/BlogList.aspx?cid=25&id=21

http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/first-armed-citizen/

A long running feature in the NRA's "Armed Citizen" column; which is a draw of news articles concerning citizens properly using firearms to defend themselves.
posted by buzzman at 1:48 PM on December 16, 2012

but here locally a woman stopped two men breaking in to her apartment just this week because she was armed

That's a funny thing to bring up in a thread about a woman who was well armed in self defense - in preparation for societal breakdown - who apparently fell victim to the fact that the calls were coming from inside the house.

And it sort of went downhill from there.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 1:59 PM on December 16, 2012

Certainly there are instances where armed citizens intervened to stop or lessen a crime in progress. However, the people saved in these events pales in comparison to the number killed by guns each year. if our goal is to minimize the "collateral damage" loss of innocent lives, we'll do better by curtailing gun access than by encouraging more people to arm themselves.
posted by carmicha at 2:01 PM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

But what do we do?

I want to say, "turn the other cheek" but that's not too helpful, so I'll ask, how does such a strongly Christian Nation square gun culture and ultraviolence with the teachings of Christ? Genuine question, is there debate around this in a WWJD sense?
posted by Rumple at 2:15 PM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

We are evolved to hunt. We've been making weapons for at least 100,000 years to do it. It's why we walk upright, have language, and have eyes in front of our face and ears off to the sides.

Cites for this? What evidence I've read paints us as clever scavengers. We got better at hunting as we got intelligent, but from the beginning, we did a lot more gathering than hunting. Meat was almost always an extra, not a staple. Even with our current tools, we are often shitty hunters; we're slow, our hearing and sight are subpar especially in the dark, and we're clumsy. Agriculture is what allowed us to take over, not hunting. In the meantime, there are a lot of idiot hunters out there, and a lot of competent ones who still miss their kill.

Hunting is a sport, for the vast majority that do it, and that's good because there's not enough wild game to feed us all. If you don't like feedlot meat, the logical answer for most people is not shooting deer, but raising your own chicken or pigs. Or eating vegetarian. Hunting remains dangerous even today; every year, people shoot each other or have other accidents out in the woods. It's a sport played with a lethal weapon, and those weapons get used to hurt other human beings deliberately quite a lot. The fact that hunting is emotionally fulfilling is great, but it doesn't mean it's a fulfillment worth sacrificing everyone else's safety.

I don't think we have to ban hunting, though; I do think some of the weapons/ammunition we should ban are currently used by hunters who will be unhappy about being restricted to a smaller group of weapons. I think that sacrifice is worth asking them to make.
posted by emjaybee at 2:20 PM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

But what do we do?

Vote for more effective law enforcement that can get there in less than 30 minutes.
Or maybe move 30 minutes closer to law enforcement.
posted by lampshade at 2:21 PM on December 16, 2012

pyramid termite: i can't believe that anyone would ever define this kind of massacre as "normal" behavior - i don't even believe that you're saying that

And I can't believe people keep making the lives of people with diagnosed mental illnesses, who don't commit crimes at a rate higher than people without diagnosed mental illnesses more difficult by insisting that whenever a tragedy occurs we immediately blame THEM.

I've made a serious effort to put a lot o information at the fingertips of people who know jackshit about mental illness and keep going on and on about how killers must have them. If you chose to not educate yourself and continue to scapegoat people with mental illnesses I can't stop you, the gods know, but I do deal with the side effects of your effort to further stigmatize people with mental illnesses by labeling them people who kill so that you can distance yourself from killers. The stigma is no joke. It leads to difficulties getting housing, difficulties getting comprehensive health care, and difficulties building a community - all things which actually help to stabilize people with mental illnesses.

"Normal" people without mental illnesses kill. Some of them we call soldiers, some of them we call criminals, some of them we call mass murderers. 2/3 of mass murders have no significant contact with mental health services before their crimes. Read the fsking evidence [link 1 link 2]. You replied to the second, so you should be able to find and read it.
posted by Deoridhe at 2:26 PM on December 16, 2012 [10 favorites]

Vote for more effective law enforcement that can get their in less than 30 minutes.
Or maybe move 30 minutes closer to law enforcement.

so, rural people can tax themselves broke paying for a police state or give up being rural

you don't even begin to understand the problem here, do you?
posted by pyramid termite at 2:27 PM on December 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

But what do we do?

Make a data-based decision without assuming that one's own abilities or circumstances trump statistics. Risk of owning guns > risk of not owning guns.
posted by carmicha at 2:27 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Am I happy that they probably need firearms? Along with everyone else that lives out there? No, I am not. But what do we do?

Well, for starters you can't pretend a right to self defense exists without acknowledging the context that almost all murders happen between people who are known to each other.

And clearly, women and children die to men who are not armed with guns, too.

Still, things like background checks and waiting periods help. Training helps. Gun locks and gun lockers help. And of course, the usual domestic abuse interventions, and resources.

We, as a society, could be doing a lot of things to make gun ownership safer and saner - without even talking handgun/assault weapon bans. We aren't doing that for a variety of political reasons, mostly a lack of imagination and willingness to consider next best options.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 2:29 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Well, carmicha, my parents live in a rural area. What should they do if they have a break-in or someone threatens them?

I don't - maybe what everyone else in every other rural area in the rest of the world does?

This is not a problem unique to the United States, St Alia. You're not exceptional. People get threatened everywhere - it's part of life, and you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for examples ("Oooh but what if you live a long long way from the police, and someone violently invades your home... what then??!")

As far as I can see, it's all a matter of probabilities, relative risk, ease of access. This happened because a young man could obtain a semi-automatic weapon from his mother's house.

If this young man was feeling this way where I live, Australia, or I imagine in Britain or New Zealand or Ireland or France or whatever, he wouldn't find any guns at his mother's house. Because she wouldn't feel the need to own them, and those types of weapons would be illegal anyway. He wouldn't find them at his father's house. He wouldn't find them at his brother's house. His friends might be able to tell him were he could score some weed, but they won't be able to tell him were he can get a gun. His uncle, who is a farmer who lives 300 miles away might have a gun - a simple bolt-action rifle he uses for euthanasing injured animals, but that's no use for a killing spree. And if he decided to buy a gun himself, he would have to undergo extensive training, apply for a licence, go through a waiting period, and then he'd be able to buy that same bolt-action rifle.

So what might this disturbed young man actually end up doing? Probably throw himself of a bridge. A tragedy. But not the same kind of tragedy.

Add all those factors together, weigh up the relative risks, and I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that greater access to guns might in anyway reduce the chances of these events happening.
posted by Jimbob at 2:29 PM on December 16, 2012 [49 favorites]

"Normal" people without mental illnesses kill.

Well, the DSM is a social document. We have decided that certain kinds of behavior are mental illness requiring adjustment, and certain kinds of behavior are criminal requiring some combination of punishment and rehabilitation.

My personal feeling is that killing someone -- especially spree killing -- is some sort of marker of mental illness, but this is both problematic in defining mental illnesses that are not criminal, and problematic in that the wider culture prefers to define killing as criminal due to a preference for the punishment model.
posted by dhartung at 2:30 PM on December 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

Am I happy that they probably need firearms? Along with everyone else that lives out there? No, I am not. But what do we do?

If restrictions were passed, you could still buy your gun and pay the taxes or insurance like you do on your car, though you would have access only to those that passed certain safety standards, as with pretty much every other product. Since the aim of the tool is to kill, the safety standards would likely be how fast or how easily it worked.

In truth, it is probably paranoid to think you "need firearms" though. The likelihood of an intruder is not that great, and if you have decent security, a weapon could just be more trouble than it's worth. But it would still be your choice - just one you have to take responsibility for.
posted by mdn at 2:30 PM on December 16, 2012

so, rural people can tax themselves broke paying for a police state or give up being rural

Once again - apparently this issue only exists in the United States, and rural people in the rest of the world have come up with solutions that are impossible for Americans?
posted by Jimbob at 2:32 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

you don't even begin to understand the problem here, do you?

Actually I do. But I assume you won't even begin to understand that I do. cya
posted by lampshade at 2:33 PM on December 16, 2012

Well JimBob, what if I do live a long way from the police, and somebody violently invades my home; ... what do you suggest people do?

....listening to crickets is not an answer ....
posted by buzzman at 2:40 PM on December 16, 2012

Once again - apparently this issue only exists in the United States, and rural people in the rest of the world have come up with solutions that are impossible for Americans?

our crime rates are generally higher here - also our rural areas are generally bigger and more isolated
posted by pyramid termite at 2:42 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Am I happy that they probably need firearms? Along with everyone else that lives out there? No, I am not. But what do we do?

Where I grew up (and where my mum still lives) quite a lot of time the police would have been well over an hour away (there were local stations closer, but only manned for a few hours a week, and for quite a few of those the guys would just be sitting on the wall outside the station in their bunny slippers chatting to folk).

The idea of owning a gun for self defence would have seemed absurd (not that there aren't plenty kicking around for foxes and the like), even locking the door at night would be a bit weird. It wasn't even unusual to have the odd people knocking on the door at 3 am after being lost on the hills, and it's kinda nice that they could do that and get hot tea and a lift into the village rather than shot in the face by someone scared they were going to be murdered in their beds.

Not saying I know how you achieve that in the U.S. (as I realise it's an apples and oranges situation) with the current sort of culture of belligerent paranoia that exists among some, but it seems to happen quite naturally here, so... other ways are possible (and I would hesitate to suggest, preferable).
posted by titus-g at 2:42 PM on December 16, 2012 [6 favorites]

our crime rates are generally higher here - also our rural areas are generally bigger and more isolated

Firstly, if your crime rates are higher, I'll bet you'll find that's because of gun crime. Secondly, I highly doubt your rural areas are "bigger" than Australia's. I lived for 3 years in a place where the nearest police presence was a 50 minute drive away and I was man enough not to be scared about it.

Well JimBob, what if I do live a long way from the police, and somebody violently invades my home; ... what do you suggest people do?

Get down, shut up, let them take whatever the fuck they want, and hopefully live, which I think you'll find is what the police would recommend you try to do.
posted by Jimbob at 2:47 PM on December 16, 2012 [13 favorites]

how does such a strongly Christian Nation square gun culture and ultraviolence with the teachings of Christ? Genuine question, is there debate around this in a WWJD sense?

Well, yeah. Every day gun owners sit around going "Gosh, Jesus was such a peaceful guy. Maybe I should get rid of my guns!"
posted by telstar at 2:48 PM on December 16, 2012

Well, carmicha, my parents live in a rural area. What should they do if they have a break-in or someone threatens them? Law enforcement would take probably 30 minutes at the very least to get out there.

Am I happy that they probably need firearms? Along with everyone else that lives out there? No, I am not. But what do we do?

Do your parents have a home defibrillator? It's no more expensive than many guns, and people over 65 are far more likely to die of a heart attack than be murdered in a home invasion. (For that matter, so are people under 65.) And a 30 minute wait for police also means a 30 minute wait for medical help. If not, why not?

Of course, I'm assuming here your parents live in rural America or rural Canada or rural Finland, as opposed to, say, rural Yemen or rural Pakistan or rural Somalia.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 2:50 PM on December 16, 2012 [17 favorites]

And I can't believe people keep making the lives of people with diagnosed mental illnesses, who don't commit crimes at a rate higher than people without diagnosed mental illnesses more difficult by insisting that whenever a tragedy occurs we immediately blame THEM.

no, i'm blaming the mental health establishment for not coming up with a good diagnosis for behavior that is self-evidently not "normal"

2/3 of mass murders have no significant contact with mental health services before their crimes.

that's a failure of the system, isn't it? - thanks for proving my point
posted by pyramid termite at 2:50 PM on December 16, 2012

From ages 11-17, I lived, along with my mother, in a ghetto neighborhood in Fort Lauderdale that was so violent and dangerous that people in other bad neighborhoods called it "Vietnam." I heard multiple gunshots nearly every night. One night I heard what sounded a lot like a weapon on full auto-fire. A great many block parties, outdoor concerts, and various other large gatherings were broken up by gunfire while I was there.

We never owned a gun nor felt the need to own a gun. The only time we had anything stolen, it was from our mailbox.

Had anyone broken into our house then, I would have done what I would do now that I live in a much, much, much nicer neighborhood: give them my stuff. Take my tv, my jewelry, whatever else I have that you want, even the stuff that I worked hard to acquire. It's yours if you feel you need it that badly. It's just stuff, no need for you to harm me nor I you over it.

Had anyone threatened my safety or my loved ones back then, I would have done what I do now: fight until I couldn't fight anymore.

I feel like that's all the planning and preparedness I need to do. In the meantime, then as now, there are no weapons in the house that could be used against me or that might accidentally harm anyone.

I really don't understand what about America makes us so unable to do so many things for the common good. I constantly hear from politicians of all stripes that we are the best country in the world ever in all things and that we can do stuff that other nations can't even dream of doing. But somehow we are utterly incapable of doing things that other nations have done and proven can be done and that increase the quality of life for all their citizens: when it comes to healthcare, guns, green energy, etc, it seems I mostly hear, "It just can't be done here, because there's something different about America."

I hate that I'm having the same reaction to this shooting that I have after the police (or overzealous citizens) kill a young black man: "This is absolutely horrible; will we even make it six months before it happens again?"
posted by lord_wolf at 2:58 PM on December 16, 2012 [52 favorites]

Well, carmicha, my parents live in a rural area. What should they do if they have a break-in or someone threatens them? Law enforcement would take probably 30 minutes at the very least to get out there.

Am I happy that they probably need firearms? Along with everyone else that lives out there? No, I am not. But what do we do?

My parents also live in a rural area. It would probably take police 20 minutes to get to them in an emergency, but armed police would, I imagine, take twice that. My parents would be baffled by the idea that they need guns to protect themselves.

If the reason for these different perceptions is that there is much more violent crime in rural communities in the USA, then it seems that the idea that high levels of gun ownership result in a polite, safe society is prima facie incorrect.

I'm very sympathetic to a strong fear of crime and to the difficulties in reducing rampant gun ownership without leaving criminals with an advantage. The part I don't understand is the claims that having lots of guns around makes for a better place to live.
posted by Busy Old Fool at 3:01 PM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

So it's not strictly hunting, but have you heard of the ruger Mini-14? Primary use is as a ranch rifle to control critters and such. Completely "legit" non human killing purpose. Comes with a 20-rd magazine.

This was the firearm used in the Norway massacres.

Functionally, exactly the same as an AR-15. It's just made out of wood so it's less scary.

It's not the only gun out there for that purpose. Does someone need a carbine-length semi-auto weapon with a 20 round magazine for pest control? No - those features are convenient, but convenience isn't much of an argument against restrictions on things like magazine capacity, minimum length and/or semi-auto weapons. I varmint hunted for pest control on family farms plenty in my youth. None of those features are necessary.

Well JimBob, what if I do live a long way from the police, and somebody violently invades my home; ... what do you suggest people do?

....listening to crickets is not an answer ....

...I'm not JimBob, but: maybe you let people keep weapons in the home for self-defense as long as they meet reasonable restrictions on features that would make the weapon a highly efficient murdering machine in the wrong hands, such as magazine capacity and rate of fire, and are stored safely so as to minimize the risk of accidental discharge or theft, as has been suggested numerous times in this very thread.
posted by jason_steakums at 3:11 PM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

And I'll just say that when an event is so rare and unique as to have a lengthy Wikipedia article written about it, it wouldn't be a the forefront of my mind as something I have to change my lifestyle and paranoia level to worry about. Quitting smoking and drinking seems like a much more productive way to live longer.
posted by Jimbob at 3:26 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

There has been a minimum of macho posturing in this thread, which has been good. Please let us continue with that trend.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 3:28 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Being willing to die for one's stuff -- what could possibly be more American than that?
posted by tonycpsu at 3:29 PM on December 16, 2012 [9 favorites]

[Sorry, restless_nomad. Imma go take a break from this thread.]
posted by Jimbob at 3:32 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Being willing to die for one's stuff -- what could possibly be more American than that?

Much as I like my stuff, dying or killing just for one's hoard of stuff is something I picture animals in the wild doing - not human beings.
posted by raztaj at 3:33 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

And I'll just say that when an event is so rare and unique as to have a lengthy Wikipedia article written about it, it wouldn't be a the forefront of my mind as something I have to change my lifestyle and paranoia level to worry about. Quitting smoking and drinking seems like a much more productive way to live longer.

Don't forget to build yourself a reinforced roof for your house, too - just in case a jet engine falls off a plane, like in Donny Darko.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:35 PM on December 16, 2012

Yeah I travel (in a wheelchair) at night on the street in the hood. I have some tear gas, but mostly my plan is: Here is my wallet. Okay? Here is my iphone. Okay? I can't keep my ipad? Okay. Here you go.

Then I will go home and miss my stuff
posted by angrycat at 3:38 PM on December 16, 2012 [21 favorites]

Being willing to die for one's stuff -- what could possibly be more American than that?

Westboro Baptist Church picketing the funerals of children killed by legal semi-automatic weapons?
posted by fullerine at 3:41 PM on December 16, 2012

dying or killing just for one's stuff is something I picture animals in the wild doing

Animals in the wild are pretty good at not getting into fights to the death where they are evenly matched: more. (unless protecting their offspring is involved).
posted by titus-g at 3:42 PM on December 16, 2012

A grim catalogue of child murder (Infant, child, and teenage murders by weapon type in 2011 [US]).
posted by mazola at 3:49 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Being willing to die for one's stuff -- what could possibly be more American than that?

Westboro Baptist Church picketing the funerals of children killed by legal semi-automatic weapons?

No, neither of those things are "American," esp Westboro or anything about it, can you cut that the heck out?
posted by sweetkid at 3:50 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

So it's not strictly hunting, but have you heard of the ruger Mini-14? Primary use is as a ranch rifle to control critters and such. Completely "legit" non human killing purpose. Comes with a 20-rd magazine.

The "Assault rifles only look scary, they're really harmless and fuzzy, look here's a semiauto in a wood stock it's the same thing, and what's an assault rifle anyway?" argument is annoying, and also correct. The enthusiasts should be able to buy and shoot rifles that look just like the ones third world warlords use to enslave the locals with.

The emphasis needs to be on high-capacity magazines. Anything holding more than six rounds... well, you can hoard 'em mountain man, but you can't buy any new ones. No more eight round revolvers or 10 round shotguns or 12 round lever-actions or even 10 round .22 plinkers. (The sweet and lovable .22lr has killed more than its fair share of innocents.)

Also, the emphasis needs to be on controlling the supply of ammunition an individual can stockpile. 16 rounds is all you need for any given purpose, from self defense to bear hunting. Target shooting and gun maintenance - sighting in a new scope for instance - can eat through more. That's why there's no restrictions at the gun range. Outside the range? You will be made to account for every bullet you buy. Big fine for losing your spent brass, enough to discourage "oops, I lost it" dishonesty to stockpile or illegally sell the round.

For those who live out in the sticks, maybe a gun-range permit can be made more readily available, maybe with a government subsidy or free help with filing and submitting the paperwork, so those with a lot of acreage to work with can run one easily for themselves and their neighbors. Also, exceptions can be made for extended hunting trips. Tell the cops where you're headed, how many people in the party, and how much ammo you're taking, and then bring back the spent cartridges when you're through. We don't need to be draconian here - we just want accountability and sensible precaution.

An explosive charge can take many forms

Modern smokeless gunpowder requires a hobbyist with a deep understanding of chemistry and some serious lab skills. If he's going to turn that into a round, he's also going to need to be an accomplished machinist to turn the brass and make the mold for the bullet. We should totally give up on gun control, because such an individual might be out there.
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:05 PM on December 16, 2012 [8 favorites]

From the UK, and this is an honest (if slightly tangential) question, because I don't know the answer. The 'arms' part of the right to bear arms thing - what counts there?

I mean, this is all talking about guns, but could I walk around with a broadsword instead? And is there an upper point with guns, could I mount a tank cannon to my car or something if I wanted?
posted by MattWPBS at 4:05 PM on December 16, 2012

The WBC, as far as I can tell, is basically just one family. They are quite a hateful bunch, but they don't seem to have any support of the wider community. They may be pretty good at getting media attention, but I don't understand why they should be considered representatives of any community except their own family (and even then, minus those who left it).
posted by vidur at 4:07 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

I think he's trying to say that since so many gun sales are private transfers, that making it free or low cost - in other words, lowering a barrier - is instrumental in compliance.

See, I read that and I think that the problem can be solved in a better way by doing away with private transfers of gun ownership.

Humans and other hominids have hunted since, oh, forever. We are evolved to hunt.

Actually, no. If we were truly "evolved to hunt" we would be able to subsist on an entirely carnivorous diet, like cats - and that is simply not the case. ....I don't buy evolutionary psychology for gender issues, and I also don't buy it here.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:08 PM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

Interesting - apparently Anonymous has been monkeying with WBC since the rumors started up about a WBC protest in Newton.

In some fascinating way seeing an Anonymous v. Phelps matchup is kind of like watching the Internet version of the Sharks vs. the Jets.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:12 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

I don't - maybe what everyone else in every other rural area in the rest of the world does?

(Deep breath)

My parents have been broken into (when they weren't home) and lots of valuable stuff has disappeared from their sheds and etc. The rural area they live in looks oh so peaceful but everybody knows that there are tons of drugs out there. We are talking cocaine, and other stuff, white rural dealers, people who you would never guess are in the trade. Young people with nothing to do but try to grab stuff out of your yard.

And some (mind you not all but some) deputies on the take that look the other way. Rarely one actually gets caught at it. I have a story-amusing or not depending on your perspective-whereupon my dad took his stolen hitch trailer back literally at gunpoint-I mean by that he held up the guy with it at gunpoint in the middle of the freaking road. Turns out that man was innocent but the fence was connected to law enforcement. Believe it or not my dad didn't get in trouble with the law, they simply advised that next time he maybe shouldn't do that. When I heard the story I almost had a heart attack.

I tell you this-no one goes to a home in his area unexpected without calling first. They have reasons.

None of you need to tell me that this is....shall we say, not ideal. It is what it is. My parents are in their seventies and they do not want to wind up dead like some rural old people do when miscreants break in. If all this was about was stuff, it's one thing. But they feel they need firearms to be safe.

I do feel like since my dad got his trailer hitch back he feels that next time that isn't the route he will take. Thank God.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 4:16 PM on December 16, 2012

My parents are in their seventies and they do not want to wind up dead like some rural old people do when miscreants break in.

Except (1) carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed

(2) Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study

(3) Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home

I'm happy that they feel safer, though.
posted by whyareyouatriangle at 4:24 PM on December 16, 2012 [17 favorites]

It is what it is.

That's so defeatist, though. It is what it is everywhere else, too. I live in a semi-rural area, backing onto farmland. I've had stuff stolen from my shed. My guinea pig cage (without a guinea pig, by the way) was stolen from my yard last week. My previous next-door neighbours were selling meth, and the woman who lives in that house now still has people knocking on her door at 2am wanting to buy. My other neighbour's house was broken into last year, and they took her medications. And no-one has guns.. It would never occur to me to go after someone who took my trailer with a gun. It would occur to me to report it to the police, then call my insurance company. And when a guy from across the street who I've never met before came into my yard at 7am on a Sunday morning, it's lucky I didn't have a gun ready to shoot him with, because he was just asking if I could jump start his car.
posted by Jimbob at 4:26 PM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

(4) Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.
posted by whyareyouatriangle at 4:27 PM on December 16, 2012 [13 favorites]

Am I missing something, or has hardly anyone seriously considered a strong but peaceful march on the NRA headquarters? Those fuckers got their folks all riled up and flashing their hardware over the Republican health care plan of the mid-90s, us liberals should be capable of making a large showing on their doorstep with empty hands but loud voices, no?
posted by zombieflanders at 4:37 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

I'd love it if every member of the NRA board were to receive a crowd-sourced onslaught of one photograph of one of the victims in Newtown every day for the rest of their ~~lives~~ endurance on the board.

I suppose that makes me an enemy of free speech or freedom or something like that.
posted by dhartung at 4:45 PM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

sweetkid: "No, neither of those things are "American," esp Westboro or anything about it"

In which other countries on this planet do religious sects picket funerals of soldiers and murdered children with messages of hate directed at the family while getting mainstream media coverage?
posted by brokkr at 4:45 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

(5) Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership

During the study period, 803 suicides occurred in the two counties, 565 of which (70 percent) took place in the home of the victim. Fifty-eight percent (326) of these suicides were committed with a firearm. After excluding 11 case subjects for various reasons, we were able to interview 80 percent (442) of the proxies for the case subjects. Matching controls were identified for 99 percent of these subjects, producing 438 matched pairs. Univariate analyses revealed that the case subjects were more likely than the controls to have lived alone, taken prescribed psychotropic medication, been arrested, abused drugs or alcohol, or not graduated from high school. After we controlled for these characteristics through conditional logistic regression, the presence of one or more guns in the home was found to be associated with an increased risk of suicide (adjusted odds ratio, 4.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.7 to 8.5).

(6) The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether purchase of a handgun from a licensed dealer is associated with the risk of homicide or suicide and whether any association varies in relation to time since purchase. METHODS: A case-control study was done among the members of a large health maintenance organization. Case subjects were the 353 suicide victims and 117 homicide victims among the members from 1980 through 1992. Five control subjects were matched to each case subject on age, sex, and zip code of residence. Handgun purchase information was obtained from the Department of Licensing. RESULTS: The adjusted relative risk of suicide was 1.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4, 2.5) for persons with a history of family handgun purchase from a registered dealer. The adjusted relative risk for homicide, given a history of family handgun purchase, was 2.2 (95% CI = 1.3, 3.7). For both suicide and homicide, the elevated relative risks persisted for more than 5 years after the purchase. CONCLUSIONS: Legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.

(7) Rates of Household Firearm Ownership and Homicide Across US Regions and States, 1988–1997

Objectives. In this study we explored the association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide across the United States, by age groups.

Methods. We used cross-sectional time-series data (1988–1997) to estimate the association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide.

Results. In region- and state-level analyses, a robust association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide was found. Regionally, the association exists for victims aged 5 to 14 years and those 35 years and older. At the state level, the association exists for every age group over age 5, even after controlling for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and nonlethal violent crime.

Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide.

(8) Firearm Availability and Homicide Rates across 26 High-Income Countries

Background: Among developed nations, the United States has the highest rate of civilian gun ownership, and the highest homicide rate. We examine whether the United States is merely an exception, or if a relationship between gun availability and homicide exists across all developed nations.

Methods: Homicide rates for the early 1990s come from 26 of 27 of the highly industrialized or high-income countries with greater than 1 million population as classified by the World Bank. Two common proxies for gun availability are used, the percentage of suicides with a firearm, and theCook index, the average of the percentage of suicides with a firearm and the percentage of homicides with a firearm.

Results: In simple regressions (no control variables) across 26 high-income nations, there is a strong and statistically significant association between gun availability and homicide rates.

Conclusion: Across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides.
posted by whyareyouatriangle at 4:46 PM on December 16, 2012 [16 favorites]

Crime rates in non-metro counties are lower. (PDF, Census)

A lot of the shootings that take place in my decidedly metro county are gang-related. The participants probably assume that each party - shooter and shootee - is armed. And yet that does not keep them from shooting each other.

I've lived in rural areas and in urban. The only gun I've ever had is my grandfather's WWI-era .22, which lives taped up in a box somewhere. And hasn't had ammo anywhere near it in 70 years.
posted by rtha at 4:52 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

My parents have been broken into (when they weren't home) and lots of valuable stuff has disappeared from their sheds and etc.

They were probably looking for guns... no joke. It's easier and more profitable to steal and sell firearms than just about anything else of value: electronics, jewelry, tools, instruments, bicycles. The pawnshop has to check in with the cops, you know? People look on craigslist for their stolen stuff. No-one gives a fuck at a "gun show" - it's a fence that funnels money to thieves and guns to violent criminals. Legally.

And the thieves aren't going to be armed - they're just going to check to see if the cars are gone from your driveway, and if anyone answers the door if they knock. If no-one answers, they'll go right in and help themselves. If someone does, they'll try to sell you a magazine subscription, hit you up for a donation to some charity or other or ask for directions or some shit, and try again another day.
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:53 PM on December 16, 2012 [10 favorites]

It is what it is. My parents are in their seventies and they do not want to wind up dead like some rural old people do when miscreants break in. If all this was about was stuff, it's one thing. But they feel they need firearms to be safe.

Then your parents do not understand math, owning a gun makes it more likely they will be shot, simple as that, no twisting of facts, no two ways to read it, plain.

If Adam Lanza's mother had not glorified guns, collected guns, collected insane amount of ammo, taught her son to shoot, taught her son that the end times were nigh...

It's so fucking simple, IF YOU OWN A GUN YOU INCREASE THE CHANCES THAT YOU WILL SUFFER THE EFFECTS OF GUN VIOLENCE.
posted by Cosine at 4:55 PM on December 16, 2012 [8 favorites]

A response to "I Am Adam Lanza's Mother".
posted by drezdn at 4:57 PM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

Did you know that without human hunting, the Arctic caribou herd would suffer enormous population pressures via starvation and disease and devastation of their habitat? Human hunting is part of *nature.*

BRAHAHAHAHAHAHA, that's a golden oldie for sure, a classic.... I just can't figure out how those caribou made it for millions of years before man started hunting them.
posted by Cosine at 4:57 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Why we don't know more about the root causes of gun violence.
posted by Superplin at 4:57 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

A response to "I Am Adam Lanza's Mother".

Well, she was using this tragedy to create attention on herself so I can't say the info in this link comes as much of a surprise.

Why we don't know more about the root causes of gun violence.

I think it might be the bullets, seriously.
posted by Cosine at 5:00 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Cosine, the problem is, MY parents don't care about the math. Neither do any of their rural neighbors. I think they think since everyone knows that everyone has guns at home then people will at least wait till they aren't at home to do any thievery. And I kinda sorta understand that.

What I think we all want to avoid is them having nothing to protect themselves whilst the bad folk have illegal weaponry. If I could snap my fingers and every single gun in the world would disappear, well, then I would go a' snappin'. But that isn't reality.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:02 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Then your parents do not understand math, owning a gun makes it more likely they will be shot, simple as that, no tiwisting of facts, no two ways to read it, plain.

That's actually really, really not how statistics work. You don't know anything about the parents or the particulars of their circumstance.
posted by ftm at 5:03 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

That's actually really, really not how statistics work. You don't know anything about the parents or the particulars of their circumstance.

Clearly I don't, and clearly I never said I did. Therefore I am clearly talking about the average person, and for the average person introducing a firearm into the home increases the chances of suffering gun violence, this is not opinion, not up for debate and is EXACTLY how statistics work.
posted by Cosine at 5:05 PM on December 16, 2012

What I think we all want to avoid is them having nothing to protect themselves whilst the bad folk have illegal weaponry.

Ah, ok, now I see you don't understand either, a confrontation where both parties are armed is dramatically more likely to end up with weapon discharge than a confrontation with one armed party only.

This is what part of what is being referred to by the stats about owning a gun increasing the chances of being shot.
posted by Cosine at 5:07 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

If it makes you feel better, Cosine, my parents are careful with the guns, and they get along great. That incident with the trailer hitch was years ago, and an outlier.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:09 PM on December 16, 2012

Oh, and Cosine, I was taught that there are three main types of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:11 PM on December 16, 2012

Folks, you can do what you want but I'd strongly suggest not turning this into a conversation about St Alia's parents.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:13 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Seeing the young Muslim (I think?) boy get up at the memorial service and offer a prayer (is that the right term?) is both moving and heart breaking.
posted by booksherpa at 5:14 PM on December 16, 2012

If it makes you feel better, Cosine, my parents are careful with the guns, and they get along great. That incident with the trailer hitch was years ago, and an outlier.

Nice try.

If you use a gun you own to attempt to defend yourselves you increase the chances of being shot, I am saying this again because I assume if someone broke into your parent's house that your parents would attempt to use their wonderful guns to defend themselves.

Maybe it's just because I am not American but my parents taught me that if someone breaks in you cooperate with them, let them take what they want, and phone the police after they leave. I know there are fuckers out there who are going to shoot you either way but I still maintain that in the average break in they are looking for guns or money or items of value and their secondary desire is to be gone with as little drama as possible.
posted by Cosine at 5:14 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

[Folks, you can do what you want but I'd strongly suggest not turning this into a conversation about St Alia's parents.]

Indeed, for if St Alia does not care—and such has been made apparent over the last few of his/her posts—then why should we?
posted by whyareyouatriangle at 5:15 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Alia,what makes you think that sensible gun control laws wold stop your parents from protecting themselves? In case you've forgotten, we're trying to prevent nuts from stockpiling weapons capable of killing 20 kids in less than 30 seconds.
posted by harriet vane at 5:20 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Apologie, didn't preview. No need to respond.
posted by harriet vane at 5:21 PM on December 16, 2012

Earlier on a comparasion and question was asked and answered re: AUS and USA; and yes. Apples and Oranges.

Although some research cites the post gun seizure crime in AUS as the same, and a few as rising slowly; the majority have it increasing after guns were turned in.

Suicide is high in Japan, and not using guns either. I think if that is somebodies solution; they will find a way be it auto, building, exhaust, cliff, noose, or otherwise.

Of gun shows; yeah, kinda skeery. And I've been a lifelong raised around the firearm person... yeah. The large, prolific amount of assault rifles...egads. Tasteless. Cheap, as defined properly; and just wow. Ok. Legal, but wow. Zombie attack paranoia??? Accuracy for hunting with a 16" barrel? Uh, no.

"It's so fucking simple" ... yeah, the common knowledge about rural folks being armed keeps wackos at bay.
posted by buzzman at 5:22 PM on December 16, 2012

Maybe it's just because I am not American but my parents taught me that if someone breaks in you cooperate with them, let them take what they want, and phone the police after they leave.

Aagh I am American and learned this too and so did everyone else I know in America they even talked about it in school in America, can people please stop posting these "innocent" comments about "shruggo I'm not American" it's rude and really doesn't come across as genuine in this very long thread about a tragic event. Americans are diverse and different and don't all think the same way.
posted by sweetkid at 5:22 PM on December 16, 2012 [6 favorites]

Note: Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the
issues, topics, and facts at hand—not at other members of the site.

.
posted by buzzman at 5:23 PM on December 16, 2012

Wow, that "response" to the "I am Adam Lanza's mother" blog post was... yeah, I don't even know how to describe it beyond using words like shitty and cherry-picking and misguided. I'd guess the author of the response doesn't have children, hasn't been exposed to the mommyblog world before, and basically has some major axes to grind. That was pretty damn toxic.
posted by palomar at 5:23 PM on December 16, 2012 [10 favorites]

Indeed, for if St Alia does not care—and such has been made apparent over the last few of his/her posts—then why should we?

Lets not be a douche about things.

There is a mindset - prevalent in america, sure - that going down fighting is better than living in fear.

And there is a measure of typical human exceptionalism - sure, the presence of guns increases the odds of being shot; for other people. Sure, driving too fast is dangerous; for other people. And so on.

The inescapable fact is that of the shootings that have occurred - the bulk of the weapons were acquired for protection. And that didn't work. But it didn't work For other people.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 5:23 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

John Cole: True Stories in Gun Control

When we were in Camp Doha in Kuwait, we would have rotations. Alpha troop (my unit), would go run border missions in Iraq while Bravo troop would do maintenance on their vehicles (the sand just killed tanks and wore down our equipment), while Charlie troop be in what we called Z-phase, which was running the security for our base. We had towers and gates and 12 foot walls, and armed troopers at every gate with mirrors to look underneath cars and plenty of folks to investigate people coming in as civilians to run base operations (cook, give haircuts, etc.).

So why am I telling you this? Because in the middle of one of the most dangerous regions in the world, even with clear Rules of Engagement, every time I went on gate duty, there was a piece of tape over my ammo clip on my M-16 and M1911 .45. Why? Because the most heavily armed military in the world did not want accidental shootings. If a situation arose, I would have to eject my ammo clip, remove the tape, and reinsert and work the action before I could fire.

This was in a combat zone. Yet I have spent the last two fucking days dealing with armchair commandos telling me they need unlimited firepower to be safe in… Connecticut.
posted by dhartung at 5:24 PM on December 16, 2012 [68 favorites]

I'm pretty sure one thing that will not reduce gun deaths is being a dick on a website.
posted by lrobertjones at 5:25 PM on December 16, 2012 [13 favorites]

What I think we all want to avoid is them having nothing to protect themselves whilst the bad folk have illegal weaponry. If I could snap my fingers and every single gun in the world would disappear, well, then I would go a' snappin'. But that isn't reality.

For whatever it's worth, the argument "if you make guns illegal then only the bad folk will have guns" has played out interestingly down under.

About the only good thing Australia's former Prime Minister John Howard ever did was to organise a mandatory buyback of (many / most) weapons after nutter Martin Bryant killed a bunch of people at a tourist site.

Since then, the bad guys still have guns but they seem to spend all their time shooting at each other, not at members of the general public. There's been a recent spate of underworld drive-bys in Sydney over the past 6 months or so, but it's just shots being fired at houses of certain families "known to the police". It's not as if the weapons are being used to terrorise oldies in rural home invasions, for example.

I have no idea if this would translate to America, though. There are far, far, far more guns to begin with, and a larger & more desperate underclass with little or no welfare safety net.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:25 PM on December 16, 2012

buzzman: " Although some research cites the post gun seizure crime in AUS as the same, and a few as rising slowly; the majority have it increasing after guns were turned in."

[citation needed]

posted by tonycpsu at 5:29 PM on December 16, 2012

a larger & more desperate underclass with little or no welfare safety net.

Yup, but for some reason the members of said underclass seem rarely to be shooting up schools...
posted by Cosine at 5:31 PM on December 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

palomar-thanks for saying that about the "response." I agree with your conclusion entirely.
posted by miss-lapin at 5:32 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Although some research cites the post gun seizure crime in AUS as the same, and a few as rising slowly; the majority have it increasing after guns were turned in.

This has been an NRA talking point for the last 15 years - "They took Aussies' guns away and there was an explosion of crime and people no longer feel safe in their homes!" The numbers they cite generally (a) don't take into account increasing population size (b) ignore that Aussies didn't really have guns in the first place, in the way Americans do. Unless you've got some new studies showing multi-victim massacres have increased in Australia in the last 16 years I'll continue to regard this old meme as the NRA propaganda it originally was.
posted by Jimbob at 5:32 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Here's Snopes on the Australian gun control thing.

Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because "criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed" are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buy back.

posted by Jimbob at 5:35 PM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

FYI, Obama is speaking at the memorial/vigil right now.
posted by yasaman at 5:37 PM on December 16, 2012

Yup, but for some reason the members of said underclass seem rarely to be shooting up schools...

Not sure what your point there was, but that's essentially what I was saying. Overall, if only criminals have guns, then they'll mostly use them in little wars over drug fiefdoms that honestly don't affect the general public, except that some members of the public might buy their drugs from dickhead A instead of dickhead B.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:37 PM on December 16, 2012

Not sure what your point there was

I was agreeing with you, and highlighting that these shootings overwhelmingly come from one slice of society, and maybe we should looking harder at why this is.

I tell my rural parents, again and again, how I am more afraid of suburban high school boys than I am of the junkies that live in my neighborhood but it never quite gets through to them.

I have no answers, and a thousand thoughts. I really don't know anything. I keep thinking, is this what happens when you tell young, relatively affluent, white men that their voice, their opinion, trumps all? That they WILL be heard, that they matter, and then they find out that they don't? Is this these young, affluent white men being heard?
posted by Cosine at 5:43 PM on December 16, 2012

Slap*Happy: "The emphasis needs to be on high-capacity magazines."

That is exactly the wrong emphasis. Handguns are used in the vast majority firearms homicides so the emphasis should be on reducing their numbers. Eliminate person to person sales on handguns. All transfers would need to be through a dealer with the associated background check. Have penalties for failing to report stolen handguns. Increase handgun buyback programs. Unfortunately without a Constitutional amendment this would likely need to be done at the state level. Also since almost 60% of firearms deaths are suicides better care for those who may be suicidal would be nice.
posted by the_artificer at 5:45 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Live stream of Obama's address in Newtown
posted by whyareyouatriangle at 5:46 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

The guns were not assault weapons, they were owned by a responsible gun owner.

I would love to hear your definition of responsible gun owner.

To me, someone who knows her son is an extreme danger to himself and others, who spends most of her time dealing with this, and then chooses to have this amount of firepower and ammo AVAILABLE to this child, and teaches him how to use it... maybe not such a responsible gun owner.

But hey, opinions vary right...
posted by Cosine at 5:48 PM on December 16, 2012 [13 favorites]

they were owned by a responsible gun owner

What, by definition?
posted by Flunkie at 5:48 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Dasein: "they were owned by a responsible gun owner"

So responsibility doesn't include ensuring that your firearms aren't accessible by a son who's not allowed to legally purchase them himself?
posted by tonycpsu at 5:50 PM on December 16, 2012 [15 favorites]

Just so we're clear, here: gun control would not have prevented this.

People elsewhere make comments explaining how the events that led to this would not have been possible in their countries that have adequate gun control, they give examples of how cultural and legal restrictions in their countries mean a suburban mother would not ever have a semi-automatic weapon in her house...you make a comment outlining how prevalent guns are, and yet apparently"gun control would not have prevented this".

What exactly do you mean?
posted by Jimbob at 5:50 PM on December 16, 2012 [9 favorites]

Dasein - The fact that you feel this woman meets your standards for a person who should have this amount of firepower in her home is pretty much the reason these events will keep happening.
posted by Cosine at 5:51 PM on December 16, 2012 [8 favorites]

"Just so we're clear, here: gun control would not have prevented this. The guns were not assault weapons, they were owned by a responsible gun owner. The US will never ban semi-automatic rifles and handguns. Automatic weapons may be banned, along with large capacity magazines; they should be banned. And it may get tougher to buy a gun, but that wouldn't have stopped this guy's mother from buying them."

The same old mantra... you'll hear a lot of this in the coming months folks... let's hope that the truth overwhelms this kind of distracting rhetoric.
posted by HuronBob at 5:52 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

If I had a son with the issues her son apparently had, I don't think I would have wanted those guns in my house, period. Guess we will have to wait for more information to come out, to be fair. But I'm not feeling particularly fair this evening.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:55 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

That is exactly the wrong emphasis. Handguns are used in the vast majority firearms homicides so the emphasis should be on reducing their numbers.

I was speaking specifically about long-guns, there. Sidearms are another topic, and yes, they need special attention.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:56 PM on December 16, 2012

The President just read the names of all the dead children. The twenty 6 and 7 year olds killed on Friday. Out of the whole speech, I think that touched me most.
posted by booksherpa at 5:56 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Well....speaking of that mom....
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:58 PM on December 16, 2012

Although some research cites the post gun seizure crime in AUS as the same, and a few as rising slowly; the majority have it increasing after guns were turned in.

Aw, lets have a look at some cited stats to check that.

Total number of gun deaths in Australia:
1996 - 516
2008 - 225

Total number of gun homicides in Australia:
1995 - 67
1996 - 104 (Port Arthur aberration)
1997 - 79
2008 - 19
2009 - 30 (a slew of gang shootings)

Unintentional gun deaths:
1996 - 30
2008 - 5

Risk of dying by gun death per 100,000 people.
1996 - 2.82
2008 - 1.05
posted by Kerasia at 5:58 PM on December 16, 2012 [19 favorites]

I just can't figure out how those caribou made it for millions of years before man started hunting them.

BAHAHAHA unlike in the past all their other natural predators are now endangered species, next question.
posted by elizardbits at 5:59 PM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

St Alia, you really can't read anything from the Daily Mail and take it as having any foundation in any kind of truth.
posted by devinemissk at 6:00 PM on December 16, 2012 [13 favorites]

Kerasia: Aren't facts funny things? Thanks.
posted by Cosine at 6:00 PM on December 16, 2012

No, we do not link to the Daily Mail on Meta, we are better than that.
posted by Cosine at 6:00 PM on December 16, 2012

...and I don't say that to be snarky; you honestly may not know. But the Daily Mail has, basically, zero credibility as a legitimate source of journalism.
posted by devinemissk at 6:00 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Slap*Happy: "I was speaking specifically about long-guns, there. Sidearms are another topic, and yes, they need special attention."

And yet long arms, used in less than 10% of firearms deaths seem to get the majority of attention.
posted by the_artificer at 6:01 PM on December 16, 2012

And yet long arms, used in less than 10% of firearms death seem to get the majority of attention.

Because you have to start somewhere, and getting buy-in from average Joe is far more likely with the scary big guns.
posted by Cosine at 6:03 PM on December 16, 2012

Man those WBC kids is so fly! I wanna stand around with a dayglo sign saying "GOD IS YOUR ENEMY".
posted by telstar at 6:07 PM on December 16, 2012

Just so we're clear, here: gun control would not have prevented this. The guns were not assault weapons, they were owned by a responsible gun owner.

My definition of a responsible gun owner includes the requirement that their guns won't be used to murder 20 young schoolchildren. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this requirement.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 6:10 PM on December 16, 2012 [10 favorites]

Sorry, didn't know about Daily Mail. But in fairness to them I can't say that the rest of the media have been all that great on THIS story.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 6:16 PM on December 16, 2012

Did anyone else watch the memorial service? I thought the President did a good job with a nearly impossible speech. I was also quite moved by the passion and emotion in the Rabbi's sung prayer that came through despite the language barrier.
posted by booksherpa at 6:17 PM on December 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

I thought the interfaith memorial was all very moving and incredibly inclusive. They did a great job.
posted by sweetkid at 6:18 PM on December 16, 2012

Cosine: "Because you have to start somewhere, and getting buy-in from average Joe is far more likely with the scary big guns."

And we all know fear mongering gets us the most effective legislation. But I'm sure we'll get the 'Sandy Hook Bill' and it will be the "Assault Weapons Ban" reincarnated and the politicians will pat themselves on the back for doing something and we'll keep having 30,000 gun deaths a year.
posted by the_artificer at 6:20 PM on December 16, 2012

Wrapping my head around a list of twenty dead children is impossible. I keep picturing the kindergarteners and 1st graders I work with. I'm hoping that when I go to school tomorrow, my kids don't know about the shooting.
posted by booksherpa at 6:23 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

And we all know fear mongering gets us the most effective legislation

I am aware that tough times made bad laws, really I am, I'm just out of ideas tonight.
posted by Cosine at 6:23 PM on December 16, 2012

As entrenched as the gun culture is; and aside from the 'right to bear' debate; what effect would it be should the gun manufacturing and bullet pressing industries be regulated in production...

I'm not up to researching the economic impact of millions of guns being sold each year and millions x millions more bullets, but even without doing so; I am certain a lot of decent paying jobs would be lost.
posted by buzzman at 6:25 PM on December 16, 2012

I am certain a lot of decent paying jobs would be lost.

Well in that case...
posted by Cosine at 6:28 PM on December 16, 2012

I couldn't make it through the list of names. Not strong enough -- had to leave the room.
posted by gaspode at 6:29 PM on December 16, 2012

.....I watched the whole vigil. I listened to Obama's remarks closely. And I was struck by what sounded like his hinting that finally, FINALLY, he was going to start the ground work to lay a smackdown on the NRA. It was striking enough that I came in here thinking that surely everyone would be talking about that.

But we're all still nitpicking over "u don't understand statistics" "no, u don't" or talking about other people's parents or talking about the life cycle of the caribou, or....just nitpicking.

I think i know the real reason why we haven't gotten anywhere with solving gun violence, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the government.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:30 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

I'm not up to researching the economic impact of millions of guns being sold each year and millions x millions more bullets, but even without doing so; I am certain a lot of decent paying jobs would be lost.

On their paystub, they can see how much hourly pay, vacation time, 401k matching funds, and murdered children have accrued this week.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:31 PM on December 16, 2012 [11 favorites]

I'm not up to researching the economic impact of millions of guns being sold each year and millions x millions more bullets, but even without doing so; I am certain a lot of decent paying jobs would be lost.

Not to mention the gravediggers! That's a job you can never offshore.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 6:32 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

And let's not forget about the t-shirt and bumpersticker makers
posted by whyareyouatriangle at 6:35 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

But there will be lots of new jobs as cold-dead-hands priers.
posted by the duck by the oboe at 6:38 PM on December 16, 2012 [8 favorites]

Humanity is in a car barreling towards a cement barricade and we are debating using the brakes or not because we can't afford to buy new brakes.

I used to think that statement was referring to our treatment of this planet, I guess it also applies to how we treat each other, losing gun jobs indeed.
posted by Cosine at 6:39 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

EmpressCallipygos: I got that, too. I imagine that after meeting the families today and as a father too it would be incredibly hard for him to walk away from that thinking anything other than, Jesus, we have to stop this somehow. Couple that with the fact that he's had to visit the grieving in this capacity no less than 4 times in 4 years and well...

I hope that's how he feels after walking away from that, anyway.

[Also, maybe I'm being overly-sensitive and I know everyone is processing this differently but maybe could we not with the whole humor in re: to the economic impact of whatever gun control we're debating?]
posted by youandiandaflame at 6:40 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

I think i know the real reason why we haven't gotten anywhere with solving gun violence, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the government.

well, the government is us. They represent us. When they don't get things done, it's not usually because they have decided to all maverick out at once. It's because they're accurately reflecting their constituents...

Finding compromises that everyone hates is when government is working.
posted by mdn at 6:40 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

well, the government is us.

I don't want the derail but no, gov't is not us at all anymore, if it ever was. Government is the mechanism of control for big business, the military-industrial complex and the 1%.

"Government is nothing more than the shadow cast over society by business."
posted by Cosine at 6:43 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

A [much better] response to 'I am Adam Lanza's Mother'.
posted by schmod at 6:44 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Am I missing something, or has hardly anyone seriously considered a strong but peaceful march on the NRA headquarters?

There's this tomorrow at noon - I don't know how big a deal it will be, but I was thinking about possibly going.
posted by naoko at 6:44 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

schmod: Thanks for the link.

From the link: "The sort of quasi-solidarity expressed... appropriates the experiences of people who are unheard, in this case the victim of a mass homicide, and uses that to bolster a narrative"

This is what I said above, basically, and is how I felt towards the writer BEFORE I read her other blog posts, I do not like the vibe from her at all.
posted by Cosine at 6:47 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

well, the government is us. They represent us.

yeah, that kind of "I have met the enemy and he is us" was kind of my point.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:50 PM on December 16, 2012

Yeah, unfortunately stuff like I pointed out will be discussed. Sorry to remind of the other side of the sickness of the massacre; but there will be many a yowl and howl about job loss in the coming debates about gun control, and the numbers will be on TVs, magazines and papers; especially during our kinda fragile economic cycle that we ( the USA ) are in. And people will point out the appropriate disgust; and others will point out that so-and-so many living families will lose their sources of income. Not a pretty scenario; one side blunt bloody and fast; the other slower, yet perhaps just as painful as lives and families slowly rot due to unemployment.

But if it seems to be a source for reverse humour already; well, we've just beaten the late night Lettermen and Leno crowd to it; so laugh it up.

Flailing humor indeed.
posted by buzzman at 6:52 PM on December 16, 2012

An illustration and account by Mother Jones contributor and Newtown father Ross MacDonald.
posted by gladly at 6:53 PM on December 16, 2012 [10 favorites]

Sorry to remind of the other side of the sickness of the massacre; but there will be many a yowl and howl about job loss in the coming debates about gun control, and the numbers will be on TVs, magazines and papers; especially during our kinda fragile economic cycle that we ( the USA ) are in.

And promptly get smacked down with a chorus of angry shouts about "FIRST GRADERS. All shot to death. First graders. TWENTY OF THEM." and it ain't gonna fly as far as you think it will.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:55 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

I don't want the derail but no, gov't is not us at all anymore, if it ever was. Government is the mechanism of control for big business, the military-industrial complex and the 1%.

As long as we remain comfortable in the conviction this is and has always been the case, and as long as we dodge our responsibilities to work relentlessly toward making it ours on that flimsy pretext, it will remain so. The scam the powerful interests who spawned Movement Conservativism have perfected is tricking the American people into running in the opposite direction of the most powerful tool they've ever had at their disposal for improving their lot in life and giving them a meaningful counterweight to all the other massive, private organizations that exist in the world that are otherwise free to oppress and exploit them with impunity. It may not be a perfect tool, but it's the best one we've ever had, and it's the only one powerful enough to even approach tipping the balance against the big money and big industrial concerns that would otherwise be free to dictate the rules governing our daily lives and to enforce them through the force of overwhelming economic advantage alone.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:55 PM on December 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

A [much better] response to 'I am Adam Lanza's Mother'.

As a parent of a child with psychiatric problems, I cannot tell you how appalled I feel by that article. The part where the writer pontificates about the proper use of psychiatric medications (based, no doubt, on what they have read in the newspaper) is utterly galling -- perhaps they should give the child's psychiatrists a call and let them know what to prescribe? (Psychiatrists plural because I promise you that the child in question has been to more than one.) The mother is speaking from her own perspective and she has every right to do so. She never said that her perspective was more important than her son's, and I assure you she cares a fuck of a lot more about him than this holier-than-thou blogger who I will bet anything is not a parent. Anybody who thinks that article was somehow insightful is completely welcome to MeMail me for a reality check.
posted by Wordwoman at 6:57 PM on December 16, 2012 [9 favorites]

I'm not up to researching the economic impact of millions of guns being sold each year and millions x millions more bullets, but even without doing so; I am certain a lot of decent paying jobs would be lost.

Making guns is one of the last few, well-paying manufacturing industries in the United States. What are we going to replace this industry with that can't be set up in another country for 1/10th the cost? How is that going to happen?
posted by clarknova at 6:58 PM on December 16, 2012

The only procedure that will prevent further such incidents in the US, to force any sort of substantial compromise, is the legitimate threat of a complete overhaul of the Second Amendment to be followed by a blanket warrantless search-and-seizure campaign scouring every square foot of property in the country. Legislation has proven itself to be no more than a temporary band-aid; only an Amendment will do.

That long haul will not commence until some PAC organizes on a scale to match the NRA. Not only must the Republicans be shut out, but a good many pro-gun Democrats as well, at the national level as well in each State. Representatives and Senators will have to be literally bought and maintained.

The risk of tearing this country apart will become a quite tangible consideration. If you want to compare this to an historical event, look at Alcohol Prohibition.

Money is the most powerful weapon in this fight, and a lot will be needed. Start now by pledging a set amount to contribute each month for the next decade, and most likely longer. 5% of your gross income would make a nice beginning.

If you believe I am overstating the offensive required to reach this goal, then you don't know your enemy at all and you have failed before you begin.

The most likely scenario? This will be a vague memory by the end of March.
posted by Ardiril at 7:00 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Wordwoman: " Anybody who thinks that article was somehow insightful is completely welcome to MeMail me for a reality check."

If you want to pick a fight, please take this to MetaTalk, or discuss this on another site. Offering to pick a fight in private is really never okay here.
posted by schmod at 7:05 PM on December 16, 2012

In Fully Automatic America (trailer), Journalist (and retired US Navy SEAL) Kaj Larsen explores American gun-culture from two perspectives. First, he goes to Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot (and associated gun & gun-stuff marketplace), the Cathedral of Bang and the NRA Woodstock.

Larsen then goes to Camden, New Jersey, a city with one of the highest rates of gun-crime in America. NJ has very stringent gun laws, but Camden sits just over the Delaware River from Philly, where much looser gun laws are in effect and from where much of the guns shooting and killing people in Camden come from. He goes into the Camben PD evidence locker to see what kind of guns are being discharged on the streets of Camden, and he talks with Citizens of Camden who kinda resent the fact that Pennsylvania laws dictate the parameters of gun violence on the streets of New Jersey.*

Full episode

*As a resident of Oakland, CA, I feel a great solidarity with Camden, NJ, and their gun situation. Because we also make neither guns nor bullets here in the 510.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 7:06 PM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

Wordwoman: " Anybody who thinks that article was somehow insightful is completely welcome to MeMail me for a reality check."

If you want to pick a fight, please take this to MetaTalk, or discuss this on another site. Offering to pick a fight in private is really never okay here.

It's not picking a fight. Wordwoman didn't like the link and posted a response.
posted by sweetkid at 7:08 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Transcript of Pres. Obama's speech at memorial service.
posted by macadamiaranch at 7:09 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Sorry. Maybe I misinterpreted that, but it had a vaguely threatening "Let's take this outside" vibe to it. There's no reason why any of this cannot be discussed in public.
posted by schmod at 7:09 PM on December 16, 2012

.....I watched the whole vigil. I listened to Obama's remarks closely. And I was struck by what sounded like his hinting that finally, FINALLY, he was going to start the ground work to lay a smackdown on the NRA. It was striking enough that I came in here thinking that surely everyone would be talking about that.

Maybe not everybody has access to watch & discuss the POTUS's ceremonies in real time? Don't worry; I'm sure what he had to say will be covered well enough sooner or later.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:10 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Gladly, thank you for posting that. What a touching illustration.
posted by booksherpa at 7:11 PM on December 16, 2012

Overall, if only criminals have guns, then they'll mostly use them in little wars over drug fiefdoms that honestly don't affect the general public, except that some members of the public might buy their drugs from dickhead A instead of dickhead B.

Do you really think that's the way it works?

Another Innocent Chicago Child Loses Life in Senseless Gang Violence

Gang violence claims innocent lives

Gang Violence Claims Innocent Victims
posted by Room 641-A at 7:11 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Making guns is one of the last few, well-paying manufacturing industries in the United States. What are we going to replace this industry with that can't be set up in another country for 1/10th the cost? How is that going to happen?

At what cost good jobs?

How much splattering of human human guts all over the floor and walls and human lives snuffed out are those good jobs worth. And this includes Mexicans, because those guns made by well-paid Americans are cutting humans open and spilling them out on the streets down there as well.

How many slaughtered human per good job is acceptable and how many is too many?

I want a number if you're gonna stake out that position.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 7:13 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

I want a number if you're gonna stake out that position.

Why don't you ask the intended audience for Eisenhower's farewell address?
posted by Apocryphon at 7:17 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

.....I watched the whole vigil. I listened to Obama's remarks closely. And I was struck by what sounded like his hinting that finally, FINALLY, he was going to start the ground work to lay a smackdown on the NRA. It was striking enough that I came in here thinking that surely everyone would be talking about that.

Maybe not everybody has access to watch & discuss the POTUS's ceremonies in real time? Don't worry; I'm sure what he had to say will be covered well enough sooner or later.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:10 PM on December 16

-- Yeah, I think it's a little weird to finger wag about what we're supposed to be talking about in here. Just..talk about it and then we'll be talking about it.
posted by sweetkid at 7:18 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

James Fallows of the Atlantic: The Atlantic and the 'More Guns' Solution

Not sure if this has been posted, but it's another interesting take on gun owners and the current debate.
posted by jetlagaddict at 7:19 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

What are we going to replace this industry with that can't be set up in another country for 1/10th the cost? How is that going to happen?

Oh god you're actually making this argument. I guess we need to shield tobacco companies by deregulating cigarettes too. Why not re-institute slavery while we're at it, I'm sure all that extra low-cost labor would help the economy tremendously.

Anyway, the long-term results of the removal of an industry from the economic landscape isn't as obvious as you'd think. Money tends to flow to where it's wanted, and people deprived of one investment opportunity seek out others. Other industries would actually be helped a little.
posted by JHarris at 7:21 PM on December 16, 2012 [9 favorites]

Lotta people here seem to be confusing correlation with causation. You're citing statistics and studies to try to support the idea that owning a gun increases your risk of being murdered, when the actual relationship is more likely to be that people who know they are at a greater risk of being murdered are more likely to buy a gun for self-defense.

Several people have asked why I felt the need to be so well-armed in my day-to-day life -- back when I habitually carried a gun, pepper spray, and two knives it was because my political activism had made me a semi-public figure who received frequent death threats and rape threats and had multiple stalkers, including a particularly scary misogynist with a long history of obsessively stalking and periodically assaulting his targets for *decades* after the women took out the original restraining orders against him. (I got on his "hit list" for having him arrested for repeatedly calling in bomb threats to my office.)

While I'm sure that there are still plenty of people out there who fantasize about personally beating, raping, and/or killing me, I've since changed my name, moved 3000 miles away, and have spent the past six years fading into obscurity and thus I no longer feel the need to habitually carry so many weapons every day. However, if/when I become politically active again I absolutely would go back to being armed to the teeth. Such is life as a woman in politics.

Misogynists purposely target women who dare to enter the public sphere, even in nonpolitical arenas (e.g. Kathy Sierra). My first handgun was actually a hand-me-down from my mother from her union activist days. My mother had to contend not only with death threats, but also with the mafia firebombing her office, the FBI showing up on her doorstep asking her why her phone was tapped (it wasn't by law enforcement), and being assigned body guards when she gave a speech at the national Teamsters convention because of evidence of an assassination plot against her. (Then she had me, became a stay-at-home mom, and these days gets her kicks by occasionally showing up at city council meetings to harangue them about putting in more stop signs in her neighborhood.)

I won't bore you with the details of my grandparents being run out of Florida for being Civil Rights activists or my great-grandparents being run out of Japanese-occupied Korea for being Christian missionaries. I'll just say that as the fourth generation of my maternal line to be subjected to death threats (or worse) for ideological reasons, I firmly believe that not only does the Second Amendment protect the First but also that handgun ownership is as vital to feminism as birth control.

I'm guessing that my personal and family history and Libertarian ideology probably make me the "nuttiest" gun nut participating in this thread. In fact, I'm so against gun control that I think the NRA is too weak and so I send my money to the JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) instead.

So, for those of you wondering what sort of changes a "gun nut" might be willing to compromise on:

1) I could *maybe* get behind a ban on high-capacity magazines, if such a ban included a generous buyback program. Ideologically, when it comes to weapons I think should be legal for people to own, I draw the line at weapons that a trained person can use defensively without hurting innocent bystanders. So private ownership of guns is OK but private ownership of nukes is not. Following that rationale, I'm open to the argument that high-capacity magazines could be considered over the line.

2) I don't like shooter permits or gun registration programs, but if they are going to exist anyway then I'd like them to be cheap and streamlined. Perhaps they could be administered through the DMV, like how "motor voter" programs made it easier for people to register to vote. One reason that my husband and I have a double-digit "arsenal" is that it is difficult to responsibly sell a gun to a stranger, so rather than risk facilitate a gun getting into the wrong hands (or get ripped off selling to a gun store or pawn shop) we just let them accumulate in our closets along with our old computers.

3) I'd like to see gun safety education become as commonplace as driver education. Even if you don't want to own a gun yourself, if you live in a society with as many guns as ours has then you still might need to handle one someday to take it away from someone who is handling it irresponsibly and/or put it out of reach of a child. Everyone should know how to safely unload and partially disassemble a gun, as well as the basic rules for safe shooting.

4) I'd like actors/characters in movies, TV, and video games to reflect safe gun handling practices, since so many people imitate what they see. Every time I see a "good guy" not practicing proper trigger discipline or being mindful of what is behind/beyond his/her target, it's like nails on a chalkboard in my mind. I don't want to see this legislatively mandated but it sure would be nice if the entertainment industry would voluntarily do this, especially since it would make their gun scenes more believable and more enjoyable to those of us who know that real cops, soldiers, or secret agents know better than to mishandle their guns the way the actors portraying them do. (Seriously, sometimes I have to restrain myself from yelling "trigger discipline!" at the movie theater screen.)

Those are the gun-specific changes that this "gun nut" would be open to. Meanwhile, I'd also like to see more research into the psychological, sociological, economic, and political underlying causes that lead to so many young men going on spree killings. I suspect that there's considerable overlap with what motivates young men to become terrorists, with the main difference being whether they are recruited into an ideological cause before they "go out in a blaze of glory."
posted by Jacqueline at 7:22 PM on December 16, 2012 [16 favorites]

Ardiril: "Start here.

Let's make the next 100 comments here a show of hands."

Late to the party, but I just did.
posted by notsnot at 7:24 PM on December 16, 2012

@Jacqueline: How would any of those recommendations have prevented what happened on Friday?
posted by schmod at 7:29 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Jacqueline: "Lotta people here seem to be confusing correlation with causation."

Peer-reviewed papers generally do not contain findings that can be dismissed with a simple warning against post hoc ergo propter hoc. Unless you've read them and have discovered that they're not controlling for the variables that you say are really responsible for the relationship (the two I've read so far show no such errors), then you really don't have a valid argument.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:30 PM on December 16, 2012 [16 favorites]

Do you really think that's the way it works?

Like I said, I was describing the Australian situation, and I specifically stated that it might not translate to the US because there were always far more guns in circulation in the US in the first place.

To start with, the crims here shooting at each others' houses in the middle of the night are almost certainly not street-level dealers, or gangs of pimply adolescents hanging around on street corners. They're the bigger lynchpins behind the trade. Likewise, bikie gangs (who manufacture & distribute a lot of the drugs) are certainly armed, but again they have no interest in messing with the general public: leave them alone & they leave you alone.

Overall, the boogeyman of "only the bad guys will have guns" should only concern you if you're a police officer, in a rival drug syndicate, or perhaps a bank teller (whose protocol is to fully comply anayway).*

* Disclaimer: may not apply to the USA, but applies to most other places in the world
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:31 PM on December 16, 2012

Ardiril: Yes, this will be moved on from in a few months; but not unlike the now armed and present security guards now present in most city groceries, we will soon have a police in most city schools.

Not disrespecting the victims ( I too have young children, and so help me... talk about wonderment and fistecuffs should they be threatened or harmed... ), but this massacre, or more like yet another F-ing terroristic 21st century act, part of the outcome will be the cost of the security that we as society will have to absorb.

No solution to the guns, the ?flip out and go bonkers? individuals, or easy singular sentence "What can be done" question. As a gun owner, I hate these incidents. Every week, another F-ing senseless shooting. And every time, every time; I think about how the person is always id'd as having a 'black back pack', or 'wearing cammo', or 'was strange', or not social, or ... and on the behalf of millions of people that live weird, grow old and die weird; it just pisses me off to no end that the description of the particular nutcase of the week all but resembles dozens of people I know. And to a certain extent; MetaFilter ain't no particular normalization of humanity. This place *is* about the ultimate consortium of the differences. Every week, another F-ing massacre; and another unusual person description.

"Why don't you ask the intended audience for Eisenhower's farewell address?"

Oh that is a good one. I knew a guy, he was in the reserves, and that was just so, so uncool! Every time he met this one person, oh how can you do that?? And then one day, that person got this fantastic job, he could sit at home, smoke dope, and on and on and on. Working as a sub-contractor; getting paid with Gulf War II money. It was so cool!!! And that sadly defines a large part of the current economy. We've built an overseas anti-terror/war machine that will move home to 'prevent' this stuff from happening again. Papers, searches, screenings, registration... TSA and Homeland are just the tip for the next acronym.

Jacqueline: Yes, TV and movie gun portrayal, WTF. Every moment of emotion; whip the gun out! Woo, audience goes crazy, what fine, fine theatre! I am glad I am not the only person that sees such immature firearms practices as disturbing; and potentially a source of poor education as to what proper firearm safety and practices are.
posted by buzzman at 7:36 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Afterthought: I'm sure the crims go to lengths NOT to risk harming members of the general public specifically because they know the police will treat it much more seriously if a regular person is killed or injured.

This would be a direct result of the fact that there is so little gun crime in the first place - if you only have a few dozen gun deaths a year nationwide, as opposed to tens of thousands, then an accidental killing of a civilian in a gangland war is some pretty serious shit.

You can probably see how it's a vicious circle the other way - the more guns there are, the more firearm incidents there will be, and the more likely police will be to not investigate fully, so the more likely it will be that civilians will get caught in the crossfire?
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:38 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

but not unlike the now armed and present security guards now present in most city groceries

The what? I have never seem armed guards in a grocery store. I live in NYC.
posted by sweetkid at 7:39 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

UbuRoivas: Quebec learned the hard way that all it takes is one charismatic psychopath to get elected President of the MC and suddenly its shootouts and bombs in the street.

This is why I support prosecuting gangs that are only shooting other gang members. Because I want to live in a society that disapproves of people getting shot in the street ON PRINCIPLE NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE and puts the force of law behind discouraging and inhibiting the discharge of firearms at people.

I'd like it a lot if we as a society actied like that was a priority.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 7:45 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

The most likely scenario? This will be a vague memory by the end of March.

Because of the next massacre?
posted by pompomtom at 7:46 PM on December 16, 2012 [9 favorites]

Austin texas, Dallas, Tulsa, OKC, Denver; I've seen them so often I don't notice them anymore than I would look at bags of doritos on an endcap.

Austin has an armed and vested police at every public school, and two at each high school.

Respectfully, NYC is almost a state in itself; if not a small country... eight million+ people in the city proper itself?
posted by buzzman at 7:46 PM on December 16, 2012

I have never seem armed guards in a grocery store.

Snipers, expertly hidden behind the kosher crackers or the Goya beans. Motherfuckers'll take you out quicker'n you can say "Lincoln Center".
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:48 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

The most likely scenario? This will be a vague memory by the end of March.

Because of the next massacre?

By March it will have been the third or fourth.
posted by dirigibleman at 7:51 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

I have seen armed guards at a grocery store in Atlanta, but IIRC it was in one/both of the 24-hour Krogers on Ponce fondly nicknamed Murder Kroger. Also I did my grocery shopping late at night to avoid lines, so for all I know the guards were an "after midnight" detail.
posted by nicebookrack at 7:52 PM on December 16, 2012

Like I said, I was describing the Australian situation, and I specifically stated that it might not translate to the US because there were always far more guns in circulation in the US in the first place.

That must have been in a previous comment I missed because the comment I quoted from did not mention any of that, but point taken.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:53 PM on December 16, 2012

I want to live in a society that disapproves of people getting shot in the street ON PRINCIPLE NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE and puts the force of law behind discouraging and inhibiting the discharge of firearms at people.

Heh, it's front page news here when somebody puts a few bullet holes in the facade of a house!

A young teenager and four other people have escaped injury after about 25 bullets were fired into a house in a drive-by shooting in south-west Sydney, police say.

Not only that, there's a police media briefing. NEWSFLASH: some bullets have been fired today, and a cat ran up a tree in fright. Nobody was harmed. Movie at 11.

Anyway, enough derailing of the thread from me...back to lurking.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:02 PM on December 16, 2012

Ardiril writes: "The only procedure that will prevent further such incidents in the US, to force any sort of substantial compromise, is the legitimate threat of a complete overhaul of the Second Amendment to be followed by a blanket warrantless search-and-seizure campaign scouring every square foot of property in the country."

Complete and utter nonsense. Incremental gun-control via 1) a ban on extended magazines 2) increased background checks and 3) ending the gun-show no-background check loophole would be steps in the right direction. It's not an apoclayptic "all or nothing" situation where the only recourse we have is for Obama and the black helicopters to knock down your door and take your guns, Waco style. This is complete fantasy.

You do realize you're directly parroting NRA talking points, yes?
posted by bardic at 8:07 PM on December 16, 2012 [8 favorites]

Let's make the next 100 comments here a show of hands.

This is from way upthread, and I can agree with the sentiment, but I'd prefer it if we didn't tun Metafilter commenting into a Facebook-style "Like/Comment if you agree" kind of thing.

You're citing statistics and studies to try to support the idea that owning a gun increases your risk of being murdered, when the actual relationship is more likely to be that people who know they are at a greater risk of being murdered are more likely to buy a gun for self-defense.

Yeah, I'm through with the correlation-not-causation argument here. It doesn't change the fact that you're bringing your assertions and anecdotal evidence against more rigorous studies.

I'd like actors/characters in movies, TV, and video games to reflect safe gun handling practices, since so many people imitate what they see.

I don't think people are monkeys that blindly copy what they see, so I think this would have little effect. But I do think they can be influenced by perceptions of what is "normal" behavior. Violent movies and games can affect that, but nowhere near as much as the online communities that surround these things glorifying the violence, because movies and games are obviously fantasy but peers are real.
posted by JHarris at 8:08 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Jaqcqueline writes: "I draw the line at weapons that a trained person can use defensively without hurting innocent bystanders"

So you're opposed to hunting rifles, which are notorious for going through walls. And that guns in general should be banned in urban areas, which have a fuck-ton of walls.

Good to know.
posted by bardic at 8:09 PM on December 16, 2012

"we just let them accumulate in our closets along with our old computers"

Of ffs, just call the non-emergency number of your local PD or Sheriff's Office and set up an appointment to turn them in.

Seriously, you love guns but don't even know this much?
posted by bardic at 8:11 PM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

this will be moved on from in a few months

By whom, a Republican-controlled House? A weak President who will be scrambling not only to put some kind of order together from whatever emerges from the fiscal cliff outcome, but also to establish by the end of the year at least 26 insurance exchanges for those States that told him to stick his Obama-care up his ass? Only the Senate holds any possible chance of keeping this relevant, and with Kerry possibly on his way out to the State Department, I doubt the slim lead for the Democrats is enough to get anything passed that has any real teeth.

This is going to require a very long term strategy, with fundraising hitting $1 million a day by Jan 1 2014. America had best steel itself for a marketing campaign of reality porn that sets standards that make PETA look tame.

bardic, you are talking at the legislation level, and gun-control legislation lasts only as long as the next couple elections. We had an assault-rifle regulation, remember? What good did it do while it lasted? All three of your points are shit-simple to bypass via a black market, and the US is an expert on that subject.

Short-sightedness is what gets kids killed.
posted by Ardiril at 8:16 PM on December 16, 2012

Put another way, all you hit when you aim low is your own foot.
posted by Ardiril at 8:18 PM on December 16, 2012

Going beyond candles and condolences:
Where to find the names and addresses
How to address the letter
Tips and etiquette on content

From the letter I just wrote to my two US Senators, my Congressional rep, the Governor, and my 3 state reps:

I, like everyone else, was stunned and saddened by the deaths in Newtown, Connecticut on Friday, December 14. I work with children the same age and with teachers just as dedicated as those killed in the horrific attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School. I was close to tears that day, only remaining calm because I still had my own students to take care of.

In the past, though I supported gun control and candidates who favored gun control legislation, it was not a “hot button” issue for me. Other issues took precedence for me. That is no longer the case. Preventing such a tragedy from happening again is now my top issue.

I strongly urge you to work with your colleagues to do whatever it takes to prevent anything like this from ever happening again. We need far stricter controls on guns, as well as gun and ammunition sales. We need vastly improved mental health resources. We need safer schools. We need to make sure no one has the resources, access, or opportunity to kill twenty children in twenty minutes ever again. No teacher should have to prepare her students to die, or give up her life to protect them.

The outrageous gun violence in our country must end, now.

posted by booksherpa at 8:19 PM on December 16, 2012 [11 favorites]

Short-sightedness is what gets kids killed.

I think a cynical decision to throw up our hands is not going to save any lives either.
posted by emjaybee at 8:20 PM on December 16, 2012

I think a cynical decision to throw up our hands is not going to save any lives either.

That is exactly what I am trying to keep people from doing after their only letter to a single Congressman fails to show results.
posted by Ardiril at 8:22 PM on December 16, 2012

I think the NRA may be somewhat right with "Guns don't kill, people kill people". One of the problems that sparked the Newton shooting was people stockpiling guns for what they think is the end of the world. There are other issues that need to be addressed in terms of these mass shootings, such as why they're committed by men, access to mental health, gun safety etc.

But why do people feel the need to stockpile not just guns, but heavy duty, high power guns for a supposed collapse of society in America? This sentiment has been building for a while and seems to have accelerated with Obama being elected. People feel backed into a corner. Whether they are in a corner is almost immaterial. They feel that they are and their actions to protect themselves and their family are actually quite rational, even if it proceeds from an irrational premise.

So that mentality needs to be addressed in a non-combative fashion. Passing a bunch of laws may not be a solution here, as it fuels the paranoia and fear. That doesn't no gun control laws should be passed, but rather that the laws should be well thought out, instead of reactionary.

Finally, it's not clear if this would help with mass shootings in general. There's been a lot of them in the US and I don't know if they all fit a similar pattern.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:37 PM on December 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

"All three of your points are shit-simple to bypass via a black market, and the US is an expert on that subject."

Again, it's not all or nothing. Banning extended mags, for example, won't prevent all future killing sprees. But it does make them more difficult to acquire. It does put the onus of selling the damn things on the gun dealers. And a black market will surely still exist, but for the nth time -- the enemy of the perfect is not the good. Just because we can't stop all violence doesn't mean we don't try to stop preventable -- perfectly preventable -- tragedies like Newtown.

Sorry I can't snap my fingers and magically solve the problem of gun violence in America, but your argument is pretty stupid -- anything short of a "perfect" solution is a failure?

"Short-sightedness is what gets kids killed."

Actually, while details are still emerging, a prepper gun-nut who probably considered herself a "responsible" gun owner just like many folks in this thread but who failed to lock down her private arsenal and allowed her troubled son access to said arsenal, including the civilian version of the M-16, indirectly led to her son breaking into an elementary school and shooting first graders multiple times in the head/face at point blank range is, ahem, what gets kids killed.
posted by bardic at 8:37 PM on December 16, 2012 [8 favorites]

"That is exactly what I am trying to keep people from doing after their only letter to a single Congressman fails to show results."

I literally cannot parse this.

Change is hard, so change is actually bad? And literally gets young children killed?

The American political system is complicated at best, so trying to make sane gun policy changes in spite of the system gets young children killed?

Call the gun control folks ineffectual all you want but please go ahead and further explain how they're the ones to blame for "getting kids killed."

Seriously, I'm all ears.
posted by bardic at 8:40 PM on December 16, 2012

I think the NRA may be somewhat right with "Guns don't kill, people kill people".

And the best answer to the NRA is - that's why we are calling for stricter background checks on people, stricter penalties for negligence levied against people, and better gun safety training for people.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:44 PM on December 16, 2012 [30 favorites]

That is exactly what I am trying to keep people from doing after their only letter to a single Congressman fails to show results.

The rightwing noise machine is already running with a concealed carry permit holder as having stopped the rampage in Oregon last week.

Granted, he never fired a shot, and as near as I can tell hasn't been verified by the police as having been there, but still - there it is. This is the narrative you are up against.

But why do people feel the need to stockpile not just guns, but heavy duty, high power guns for a supposed collapse of society in America?

This is something I don't understand either. I mean - I get being prepared for things, sure. But 100 round magazines, and armor piercing bullets ? Jesus, they aren't preparing for societal collapse - they're preparing for an invasion.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 8:44 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Maybe this is naive, obvious, off topic but my thought, every time, about the idea that MORE guns would help is:

Sooner or later we all go a little nuts, we yell at someone we shouldn't, we spank our kid too hard, we steal a parking space, we freak out over a stolen parking space.... in all such situations I think it's a bad idea for everyone to be armed.

I have a temper, I can be stupid when angry. I think Bill Cosby said it best when he explained why he no longer carries a gun "because I began to judge every confrontation by whether or not it will involve my gun"
posted by Cosine at 8:52 PM on December 16, 2012 [12 favorites]

Wordwoman: "The part where the writer pontificates about the proper use of psychiatric medications (based, no doubt, on what they have read in the newspaper) is utterly galling -- perhaps they should give the child's psychiatrists a call and let them know what to prescribe? (Psychiatrists plural because I promise you that the child in question has been to more than one.)"

I just re-read both articles, and I think that this point was actually fair-game in this instance.

The drug was prescribed for an off-label use by an ER doctor, because there were no resources to have the child admitted into a proper psychiatric ward after a particularly violent incident. That's pretty alarming, and given the circumstances, it hardly sounds like it was a careful or calculated prescription.

The fact that the doctor was writing an off-label prescription for an adolescent is even more alarming – psychotropic drugs have a tendency to act differently in teenagers, and their prescription is usually very carefully monitored. The drug in question, Zyprexa, also has a long history of illegal, off-label use, and its makers were fined $1.4 billion for the illegal and misleading promotion for its use in patients with "agitation, aggression, and hostility."

I also think it boldly underlines the larger point that the child has almost certainly not been receiving adequate medical care for most of his life (through no fault of his parents, I should add). I have no doubt that the boy has had disjointed interactions with a large number of physicians and psychiatrists -- that's part of the problem. For complicated long-term cases such as this one, he needs a long-term relationship with a doctor who has a complete and accurate knowledge of his history. I don't think that's been the case, and I really don't see how he's going to be effectively diagnosed or treated otherwise.
posted by schmod at 8:54 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

I wrote that the viable *threat* of taking this all the way is what will leverage a sustainable compromise. If that threat is not tangible, nothing continues to happen. The ground gained in the short term is inevitably lost in the long run.

Extended mags? That's your focus? Make them more difficult to acquire? Something that can be churned out of a sheet metal shop in less than an hour? Clyde Barker jerryrigged an extended magazine back even before duct tape. That's like saying banning head shops will reduce pot use when all you need to fashion a bowl is an apple or a soda can.

The gun control folks are ineffectual because they are too squeamish and too damn cheap to take this issue to the level required to effect real change. James Brady was shot over 30 years ago, and the measures enacted since then have amounted to virtually zero. You want change? Prepare ads of kids with head wounds for the web. Dead soldiers on the news irritates the hawks, so imagine what the leak of an ad showing dead kids will do to the NRA.

Those who are truly serious, send $500 to the Brady Center now, and another $100 each month from hereon out. I can guarantee you that the NRA will be ramping up its marketing over the next couple months.

they're preparing for an invasion

Yes, yes, they are.
posted by Ardiril at 9:05 PM on December 16, 2012

NYT on the conflicted "gun culture" of Newtown, which pitted traditional hunters against "assault weapon enthusiasts":

“'I’ve hunted for many years, but the police department was getting complaints of shooting in the morning, in the evening, and of people shooting at propane gas tanks just to see them explode,' Mr. Faxon said."

They were shooting at the propane tanks responsibly, I'm sure.
posted by bardic at 9:09 PM on December 16, 2012 [9 favorites]

Next, there'll be Newtown truthers, saying it was an inside job, just so Obama could take everybody's 'legitimate' arsenal from them.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:09 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

UbuRoivas: "Next, there'll be Newtown truthers, saying it was an inside job, just so Obama could take everybody's 'legitimate' arsenal from them."

I've actually already heard this theory. Secondhand, since I'm lucky enough not to have any crazy Facebook friends or relatives (or at least, none that post about such things where I can see it), but several friends have reported that this is one of those notions making the rounds.
posted by Superplin at 9:17 PM on December 16, 2012

"Something that can be churned out of a sheet metal shop in less than an hour?"

Meth is easy to make too, but if you're found making it you can be locked up. It's called criminalization and civil society takes it upon itself to do this to certain items which are thought to harm the public good.

(And I realize the drug debate is for another thread, but c'mon man -- now you're just chasing your own tail re: gun control policy must either be 100% take away all guns via knocking down doors or 0% Newtowns happen once a week, so be it.)

"The gun control folks are ineffectual because they are too squeamish and too damn cheap to take this issue to the level required to effect real change."

Yeah, those go-getters at the NRA sure have worked wonders funding themselves with bake-sales and charity raffles.

"so imagine what the leak of an ad showing dead kids will do to the NRA."

This is a horribly offensive idea of course. I think people, even the biggest gun-nuts, "get" what 20 dead kids with multiple, close range high-power rifle shot wounds would look like. (Just Google image search "Iraq Afghanistan dead children," natch.) But let me once again try and parse what you're saying -- gun control advocates have failed not because they face a multi-million dollar giant in the form of the NRA and a gun lobby that hands out lavish amounts of cash to any politician who will support their extreme views, but because they are "squeamish" about sneaking into a police department, stealing evidence photos, and publishing them on-line?

You continue to make zero sense on anything.
posted by bardic at 9:19 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Next, there'll be Newtown truthers, saying it was an inside job, just so Obama could take everybody's 'legitimate' arsenal from them.

Already happening. Just look at all the false flag accusations.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 9:19 PM on December 16, 2012

Just as there are many gun owners who oppose certain gun laws but feel that the NRA goes too far, there are also a lot of gun-law advocates who don't necessarily feel that the Brady Center is representative of their ideals. This is true on any political subject, really; if you want to donate money to a cause there are numerous organizations, pro and con, and it's wise to investigate and decide for yourself. Also, you can make a contribution to your state or federal representative along with a note explaining what issue prompted your contribution.
posted by cribcage at 9:21 PM on December 16, 2012

Actually, no. If we were truly "evolved to hunt" we would be able to subsist on an entirely carnivorous diet, like cats - and that is simply not the case. ....I don't buy evolutionary psychology for gender issues, and I also don't buy it here.

I don't get this logic or the whole evolutionary posturing going in on this thread. The role of hunting in human evolution is rather controversial and it seems like a few people in this thread somehow think they have solved decades of debate on the matter. The reality is that this is still hotly debated. Humans can survive on an almost entirely carnivorous diet (Inuit and other far Northern populations) and without supplements cannot survive with an animal-product free diet. But what's interesting is how debates about human evolution and hunting in pop culture become about weapons. When in reality, some of the most efficient and reliable tribal hunters are those utilizing nets and traps (and many of these people are women), which seem to be out of the interest of the general public because it's not "sportsmanlike." But either way, what this evolutionary debate highlights is you don't need a high-powered rifle, or a rifle at all, or even a weapon, to hunt. Humans been hunting, and hunting well enough to possibly cause massive extinctions of megafauna on several continents. And these were humans who REALLY depended on hunting (gathering matters, but particularly in the north it was less reliable and a lot of ethnographies counted small game hunting as "gathering"). To this day, there are bow-hunting and muzzleloading musket seasons in most states.

Hunters do matter because they typically are some of the biggest political contributors to gun groups. They fear gun laws will threaten their way of life. It would be a big victory to convince them that it's actually the opposite, that irresponsible uses of guns make hunters look bad.
posted by melissam at 9:24 PM on December 16, 2012

I am skeptical of the conclusion that owning a gun increases your risk of being murdered (versus people who already have increased risk of being murdered being more likely to buy a gun for self defense) because there haven't been randomized controlled trials. Social science is a bitch like that. :(

My husband and I have no interest in "turning in" our extra guns to the police department for the same reason we have no interest in throwing away thousands of dollars of any of our other relatively illiquid assets! Especially since many of these guns were acquired in lieu of cash as payments for goods and services at my husband's business. (We live in an area with a lot of rural poor and so my husband tries to help out people who are broke by accepting barter payments ranging from guns to fresh eggs.)

My point was that if you want buy-in from the "gun nuts" for a comprehensive licensing and registration program to close the gun show and private party sale loopholes, then you should strive to create a program that makes it easier for us to turn our extra guns into cash without worrying about our legal or moral liability for the sale. Hence my suggestion for having such a program administered by the DMV, since we already have to interact with them for drivers licenses, state IDs, and vehicle registration.

A lot of people (including myself) would still bitch and moan and fret over the government compiling a list of who owns what guns (since historically that *has* been used as a prequel to confiscation in other countries) but if it came with a significant financial upside (make it easy to sell guns for their market value) then I think that would mollify a lot of people.
posted by Jacqueline at 9:35 PM on December 16, 2012 [6 favorites]

It shouldn't be this dangerous to be a teacher.

I know a lot of people who hunt, and one guy who hunts w/ bow & arrow, as well as taking lots of people out to teach them safe hunting, and gives the meat to people who need food. I would be very surprised to see the US go the way of Australia & the UK, and pretty much ban private weapons. But it's long past time to close the gun show loophole, and get serious about (semi-)automatic weapons and gun registration.

For every advocate for the mentally ill who doesn't like the correlation between mental illness & mass murders: mental illness is a broad label, so it would be better to say serious mental illness, but we don't have very good diagnosis, treatment, care, or understanding of mental illness. And I think it's fair to assume a 20 year old who shoots his Mom, and then shoots a bunch of little kids, is mentally ill. Among violent incidents I've experienced, there's a correlation with mental illness.
posted by theora55 at 9:44 PM on December 16, 2012

I wish people would leap to mental health funding and supporting families with mental health problems instead of only to gun control when this stuff happens.
posted by small_ruminant at 9:47 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

To crib from a quote-image going around on Facebook (I know, I know) -- can we start talking about the right of people to not be subjected to gun violence? That one is in the Constitution, too; it is not a big mental stretch to assume that the 'life and liberty' bit would reasonably involve children having the right to go to school without fear of getting shot.

I would love to believe that the noisier parts of the NRA fringe do not understand how guns create a lack of liberty for everyone who is not the guy owning the gun. I expect though that they do understand it and don't care. They know enough about guns to know that giving a pistol to a kindergarten teacher isn't going to do a bit of good against a spree killer with assault weapons. I know next to jackshit about guns and I know that.

It comes off as a bunch of condescending justification for a dangerous hobby, and that is when a whole bunch of us throw up our hands and say, fine, fuck it, melt the lot of them down, because we are tired of people winding up dead. Round and round in circles it goes. I don't know how to bridge that divide.

I'm just waiting for the dialogue to switch around to the right of people to go about their lives without getting shot -- by accident because people don't know how to aim; because the gun that was otherwise responsibly kept accidentally discharged and went through the wall; because a killer wants to go where they are and blow everyone away. I won't hold my breath waiting, but that's what I want to hear.
posted by cmyk at 9:48 PM on December 16, 2012 [21 favorites]

it would be better to say serious mental illness

No it wouldn't. Because people can have serious mental illness and not be murderers in the slightest.

I think this discussion is getting framed really strangely in the media in the last few days. Instead of saying, "let's talk about mental health in this country and getting people access" it seems to be "let's get better screening so we can find out who's dangerous and know we need to isolate and fear them" which in the particular case of this shooting type young usually white male situation is exactly what we SHOULDN'T be doing.
posted by sweetkid at 9:50 PM on December 16, 2012 [7 favorites]

It would be a big victory to convince them that it's actually the opposite, that irresponsible uses of guns make hunters look bad.

I know it's just me and my sample size of my family and some friends, but we get that.

I mean - look, I've been hunting since I was too young to remember it. My earliest memories include hunting trips with my dad. I discovered athiesim in part because my (adopted) maternal grandfather explained that his church was in the woods and his gods were the animals. He was native american (I'm not, he adopted my mother early in her life) and subsistence hunting was a huge part of his life.*

Point is - People (I know) who have practical uses for firearms don't care for the 45 round clips and armor piercing rounds and the 78 caliber carbine laser sight bullshit. I'm happy to register the break action shotgun my paternal grandfather bought with his first paycheck from the navy and handed down to me.

But taking that all away ? Nah, that's just stupid.

* I spoke about that briefly here. In WI and MN at least, you can hunt small game year round with no permit or license required on your own land, or with permission.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 9:51 PM on December 16, 2012

Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey, that video you linked - holy shit is that Colosimo guy at around the 30 minute mark a scumbag.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:55 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

But why do people feel the need to stockpile not just guns, but heavy duty, high power guns for a supposed collapse of society in America? This sentiment has been building for a while and seems to have accelerated with Obama being elected. People feel backed into a corner. Whether they are in a corner is almost immaterial. They feel that they are and their actions to protect themselves and their family are actually quite rational, even if it proceeds from an irrational premise.

In the very early hours of the same day the Newtown tragedy occurred, I happened to be listening to one of those A.M. radio middle-of-night talk shows. The host was working up a real lather about how the U.S. had been taken over by "leftists and communists" who were going to: confiscate all your guns; take your property; rape your wives and children before sending them off to re-indoctrination camps; force you to work on your own confiscated land until you were close to death; and, finally, shoot you several times in head.

The host assured the listeners that he had all this on good authority, having attended several hush-hush meetings with higher ups in the know at the RNC. The ads for this show were all about how to buy survivalist-type goods for stockpiling and the more common "money is crap, you better buy gold!" stuff. There weren't many people calling in but the ones who did seemed like plants to me, maybe set up so the host wouldn't seem like he was just ranting to the walls. I almost want to feel sorry for people who listen to such stuff and not only believe it but feel somehow comforted by it.

Victoria Jackson's Connecticut School Shooting Post: Former 'SNL' Star's Tone Deaf Comment Hours After Tragedy.

I think "tone deaf" is putting it kindly. If it weren't for the likelihood that's she's off her meds or something and has therefore lost momentary control of her faculties, I'd consider it almost obscene of her to try to draw a parallel between abortion and what happened to those poor children in Newtown.
posted by fuse theorem at 9:59 PM on December 16, 2012

"because there haven't been randomized controlled trials. Social science is a bitch like that"

Oh please.
posted by bardic at 10:03 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

because there haven't been randomized controlled trials. Social science is a bitch like that. :(

But they did the controlled studies of the data - isn't that the important part? They looked at the numbers and controlled for all the variables. The reason you need to enact actual studies in medicine is to control for the placebo effect. That's not an issue here. So what variable is not controlled for?

But on top of that, guns are just obviously deadly weapons. The idea that you will always be able to control the deadly force seems hubristic to me. Do you think you are immune to getting into a car accident? Even highly trained professionals can get caught off guard, bullets ricochet, the thief could find it first - and for those people who claim no, they are so safety-conscious that it's behind two deadbolts in a vault and not yet loaded, how the hell will that help when you're surprised by an intruder?
posted by mdn at 10:06 PM on December 16, 2012 [11 favorites]

Making guns is one of the last few, well-paying manufacturing industries in the United States.

What, are you Amish? You've never heard of cars, or noticed aircraft flying overhead, and you've never used a cpu or taken medicine?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:15 PM on December 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

Gold has had its relative uselessness discussed here before. Guns are the same; yet they have the 'hunt' and 'defend' value as additives. They are a tactile commodity for many people, one they can take out, oil the metal, polish the woodwork; clean and admire. For many enthusiasts; they are another sphere of the art world; made of metal, perhaps with gold and silver inlay; a worked burl of a stock and crosshatching to boot.

Not all guns are the garish metal railed AR-15 video game dreck. A quick trip to gunbroker.com, gunsamerica, or budsgunshop reveals a host of searchable and somewhat respectable firearms. A search by price easily yields many $5,000+ shotguns and rifles. These firearms have as little in common with an AR15 as a VW Beetle does with a Porsche, as a McDonalds beef burger does to a prime rib dinner in a steakhouse, or as the screech of a jetski is to a day on a sailboat.

Likewise, the above linked NYT article on the yee-haws of rural Newton being compared to the traditional hunters and collectors. There is a difference between dozens of days of hundreds of rounds being fired all day long merely for the woo hoo factor, and a few days a year of planned hunting sojourns through the woods... and many a time; a day spent hunting might not even result in a single shot being fired. Nothing found to shoot at; no deer, elk, game birds, ... the individual rounds of ammo are respected; and each cleaning of the barrel ( to an enthusiast ) deteriorates the value of the firearm. The hunt ends with not a single round being fired. This stuff makes *no* sense at all to people that have never experienced the traditional ?American? hunt, or have never read of 'guns' except in the garish illness of this posts subject.

I am not making light of the deaths. But people need to understand that 'gun' is a word that encompasses more than what most realize it does. The "Atlantic" articles were good at pointing out that most anti and pro gun 'enthusiasts' know about as much about their enthusiasm as a freshman psychology student does about therapy or a teacher about pedagogy. Knowing a word is not fluency in a subject.

In some ways, the 'saturday night special' junk revolver of the 70's ( seriously disliked by gun people in the 70's ) and its association with cheap crime has evolved into the 'assault weapon' of the millenium... easy to obtain with or without papers, relatively inexpensive, and all too often becoming associated with a similar escalation in killing... the single mugging/murder has turned to the mass slaugters of Norway, Aurora, and Newtown.

Huckabee was perhaps a touch bonkers in blaming society; but there does seem to be an erosion in respect among the American populace. Or maybe it is the scale that has increased; i.e. the one crazy person out of 1,000 is now 10 out of the current population of 10,000; and this is a comparision that is a false increase as has been pointed out before. But yet the number of 'crazies' has increased and that is still a numerical increase.

Words won't fix this; and it will happen again. Twenty year old males are not noted for being particularly stable; insurance rates are an actuarial reflection of this. The access to guns; and scads of ammo, and high capacity magazines ( which might require thousands of rounds to be loaded and fired before even being near 'wearing' out... metal, a slide, and a spring - not a device of too very many moving parts to say the least ) is no doubt an availability that contributes to the ?modern ease? ( when else in history has slaughter been such a quickness? ) of not just losing control but in the process killing dozens of innocents.

Guns despite a life around them make many gun folk nervous as all hell. Proper training and the gun alone speaks of how dangerous it is. It is akin to a bottle of nitro. A tool, to be handled 100% properly, with no room for error. The passing of a gun from one to the other, the every time "got it" to indicate that the gun is received, held, and will not be dropped - so as to absolutely prevent accidental discharge from the ( loaded or not; all guns are to be treated as if they are loaded at all times ) weapon. Finger never on the trigger, lest it slip and fire the weapon ( again, always treated as if it was loaded ). This training; I don't know, I don't belong to any gun circles or clubs for decades; maybe this has gone the way of 'please' and 'thank you'. But at one time; practices of safety and proper handling were learned and mastered this way; and repeated as ceremony every time a weapon was handled; up to and including holding the weapon by the wood, not by the metal ( touching the metal; again, this in on; I don't know, beautiful blued barrels and stocks inlaid with gold, receivers with scenes of hunts engraved into them, or even a basic blued barrel smooth stocked deer rifle ) so as to not expose the metal to the oils in ones skin... touched metal meant the gun would need to be cleaned before being stored. The rise of the 'bake lite' finish, the painted black barrel, the gun that basically can be treated with all the love that a tire iron might receive; it is a modernism, and the respect of the past is not needed and long forgotten and unneeded with what now fills the racks of gun stores.

Off on a tangent perhaps with the tiered gun enthusiast words. Horrible and sick news day. Hated to hear of the shooting news at work. Another person loses their mind and kills others. Children. How to help people like that? Can many imagine the scourge of self-identification? I've known people to lose jobs and/or clearances due to actually seeking treatment, be it for grief over a loss to having a drinking/drug problem. Who knows what madness went through Lanza's head; or what other dynamics were involved. But ultimately; he used a gun to express himself, and apparently I am trying to type the grief over the children and the distaste over his choice of weapon out of me. I do still wish he would have started his firing in reverse order. Not a pleasant choice of gun usage; but we would not be here reading writing and discussing these events if that would have happened.
posted by buzzman at 10:16 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

In Town at Ease With Its Firearms, Tightening Gun Rules Was Resisted

posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:21 PM on December 16, 2012

Jacqueline: "I am skeptical of the conclusion that owning a gun increases your risk of being murdered (versus people who already have increased risk of being murdered being more likely to buy a gun for self defense) because there haven't been randomized controlled trials. Social science is a bitch like that. :("

Are we to just give up on trying to learn anything more about every field where there is a dearth of trials that meet your standard of perfection?

The fact is that no study that didn't control for the tendency for people who are at higher risk of violence to own guns would make it out of draft form, and it certainly would not survive peer review.

Here's an excerpt from the American Journal of Epidemiology paper whyareyouatriangle posted above where they talk about the other variables that go into one's homicide/suicide risk, and how they were controlled for:

A number of demographic and behavioral characteristics identified in the literature as being associated with either homicide or suicide were included in the analysis. Included were age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, residential status (i.e., whether the decedent lived alone or with others), region of death, alcohol consumption within 4 hours of death, use and frequency of using illicit drugs (cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, amphetamines, marijuana or hashish) in the past year of life, and whether the decedent expressed a wish to die during the last month of life.
[...]
After we adjusted for demographic and behavioral characteristics of the decedent, we found an increased risk of homicide for those with firearms in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95 percent confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4).

And here's how the New England Journal of Medicine paper describes how the link between owning a gun and homicide/suicide is independent of all other risk factors they measured:

Six variables were retained in our final conditional logistic-regression model: home rented, case subject or control lived alone, any household member ever hit or hurt in a fight in the home, any household member ever arrested, any household member used illicit drugs, and one or more guns kept in the home. Each of these variables was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide in the home. No home-security measures retained significance in the final model. After matching for four characteristics and controlling for the effects of five more, we found that the presence of one or more firearms in the home was strongly associated with an increased risk of homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4).

Stratified analyses with our final regression model revealed that the link between guns and homicide in the home was present among women as well as men, blacks as well as whites, and younger as well as older people. Restricting the analysis to pairs with data from case proxies who lived in the home of the victim demonstrated an even stronger association than that noted for the group overall. Gun ownership was most strongly associated with homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance (adjusted odds ratio, 7.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.6 to 23.2). Guns were not significantly linked to an increased risk of homicide by acquaintances, unidentified intruders, or strangers. We found no evidence of a protective benefit from gun ownership in any subgroup, including one restricted to cases of homicide that followed forced entry into the home and another restricted to cases in which resistance was attempted.

Now, if you want to dispute the methods used to control for these factors, go right ahead, but to imply that randomized controlled trials are the only way we can draw conclusions in any field of study is preposterous. Between this and your invocation of the tired old "correlation isn't causation" cliché, I'm starting to wonder if you're more attached to your viewpoint than a desire to discover the truth.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:22 PM on December 16, 2012 [31 favorites]

You know what's really a bitch? Profound denial.
posted by Miko at 10:24 PM on December 16, 2012 [31 favorites]

"My husband and I have no interest in 'turning in' our extra guns to the police department for the same reason we have no interest in throwing away thousands of dollars of any of our other relatively illiquid assets!"

You really believe that you should be able to sell your used guns to whomever you want, no questions asked? Just like it was a used Volvo or lawnmower?

Responsible gun-owner, indeed.
posted by bardic at 10:26 PM on December 16, 2012 [7 favorites]

In Search of the Guns & Freedom Unicorn

There are a lot of folks who believe we’re free in the US because of guns.

It’s worth stepping back for a moment and thinking about what that means.

It is a bizarre, weirdly narcissistic notion that is totally unhinged from any of our history. It is also comparatively new. Since the close of the 18th century, there is only one time that Americans rose up in any organized fashion against the government of the United States — during the Civil War. This is obviously a significant exception and one I’ll return to. But it is not one that speaks very well about the need for guns to protect our freedoms. And in any case, since it was done by treasonous state governments that appropriated US Army forts and Navy facilities, the whole issue of private arms wasn’t a driving factor.

...

You could imagine a very different history in which various strong men had taken power and been deposed by violent uprisings. That just hasn’t been our history.

You could certainly make the argument that all sorts of awful things might have happened if we didn’t have hobbyists at gun shows buying military grade weapons and body armor and stuff. But that’s akin to magical thinking.

It is a bizarre fantasy, I believe of comparatively new vintage, and one that holds pretty much the entire actual history of a free people in some combination of ignorance and contempt. It’s the crazy black helicopter nonsense from the 1990s just slightly updated.

The Second Amendment really is rooted in a worldview in which gun ownership, always in a civic, if not always a formal militia context, was seen as a bulwark of liberties. I’d like to get into in a separate post just what that history is about and how it relates to today. But for the moment let’s look not at concepts but an actual lived history. Has private gun ownership helped keep us free? We’ve had two centuries to look at this one. And the results make the very idea laughable.

And yet many people now believe this. And it imparts an aura of self-righteousness to their desire to stock up private arsenals, fire off semi-automatic weapons and blow shit up. That sort of ignorance is dangerous.

This argument against having reasonable gun laws -- is pretty much the equivalent of "legitimate rape shutting rape down." But yet tons of seemingly reasonable people have started to believe it in the last 20 years. And it's dangerous and sick.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:28 PM on December 16, 2012 [11 favorites]

When I read this thread, I feel like I must be tripping balls. Surrealism. Especially the many self-contradicting statements about safe attitudes and responsible use, right in the same sentence demonstrating crazy irresponsibility and comprehensively unsafe actions.

If I had to guess, I'd say it must be 'shrooms. This thread is trippin' balls on 'shrooms.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:31 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Bardic: Actually, the government currently *does* let us "sell off our hand-held death machines willy-nilly to whomever we want" -- that's the "gun show loophole" that people are complaining about.

My point is that even as a "gun nut" who is against government restrictions on gun ownership and gun registrations on principle, on a practical level I can see the potential upside to closing the loophole by enacting a program of licensing gun owners and registering guns modeled after drivers licensing and vehicle registration. Because while *legally* we can currently sell our guns to strangers at a gun show or via a private-party sale, *morally* we're not comfortable doing that and thus it is more difficult for us to convert this particular asset into cash.

Most gun owners I know have similar compunctions. A private-party sale is a much better deal for both buyers and sellers than going to a gun store just like private-party sales are generally a better deal than going to a used car dealership. We don't want to get ripped off by selling to a gun store, but we also don't want to worry about selling our gun to the wrong person, so many of us just sit on our extra guns for years waiting for an opportunity to sell or trade with a trusted acquaintance.

So, although a DMV-style gun owner licensing and gun registration service might *technically* make it more difficult for us to sell our guns, on a *practical* level it might make it easier because we'd no longer have to worry about making our own judgment calls about whom it's safe to sell to nor worry about a gun used in a crime being traced back to us long after we sold it.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:32 PM on December 16, 2012

The NYT link bardic posted above is fascinating, and I'm especially intrigued by the presence of the National Shooting Sports Foundation in Newtown. It's clear from the article that they did significant lobbying at the committee meetings where the bare-minimum regulations proposed by the police commission were shot down.

I know a lot of people right now are eager to hear how the NRA handles this, what with them taking down their Facebook page and going deafeningly silent on Twitter since the shooting, but I'm more curious to see what the gun industry trade group physically located in the town where the tragedy took place says.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:33 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

You really believe that you should be able to sell your used guns to whomever you want, no questions asked? Just like it was a used Volvo or lawnmower?

Responsible gun-owner, indeed.

Ah, no. She made it clear that was exactly the reason why they had extra guns, they were'nt comfortable selling them privately.

I call that pretty responsible.
posted by neversummer at 10:34 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

For the people commenting on Jacqueline's frustration with being able to sell weapons, her relevant comment upthread was "I don't like shooter permits or gun registration programs, but if they are going to exist anyway then I'd like them to be cheap and streamlined. Perhaps they could be administered through the DMV, like how "motor voter" programs made it easier for people to register to vote. One reason that my husband and I have a double-digit "arsenal" is that it is difficult to responsibly sell a gun to a stranger, so rather than risk facilitate a gun getting into the wrong hands (or get ripped off selling to a gun store or pawn shop) we just let them accumulate in our closets along with our old computers.", which seems to me to imply that she'd like to be able to sell them responsibly to people with permits in the case of new restrictions on private gun sales, and has not been selling them in our current situation of extremely lax regulations on private sales.
posted by jason_steakums at 10:36 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Research papers from 1993 and 2004; based on Ohio, Washington, and Tennessee, or use "oversampling" of any sort cause me to not lend much credance ( or continue reading ) irregardless of the prospectus/abstract. Too much change, way too much change in the USA in the last decade and decade + decade. Numbers are probably even greater; but the papers are too old.
posted by buzzman at 10:36 PM on December 16, 2012

It seems to me to be incredibly self evident that the stated purpose of keeping a gun at home for self-defence is mostly incompatible with the stated responsibility for responsible storage of said gun(s): locked, in a safe, with the ammunition locked in a separate safe.

If you compromise on the first, and don't keep a gun in your house, you're arguably safer but lets say you aren't. You accept a risk.

If you compromise on the second, and keep your gun at hand, useful, but insecure - you greatly increase the risk to your own family, and also you recklessly expose that gun to theft, and thereby having it pass from "responsible gun owner" to being the dreaded "illegal gun."

So choose your poison -- have a useless gun for home defence, or an unsafe one (and as the stats say, you've probably got both anyway)

I mean, I can't see it any other way - the gun for self-defence is not compatible with recommended kinds of safe storage of said gun and its ammunition.

And it wouldn't surprise me if a lack of safe storage turns out to be exactly how these guns, owned legally but stored irresponsibly, ended up being used in such a heinous crime.

Can the Police enter a house in order to check on gun storage practices?
posted by Rumple at 10:36 PM on December 16, 2012 [11 favorites]

Can the Police enter a house in order to check on gun storage practices?

Not without a court order.
posted by neversummer at 10:48 PM on December 16, 2012

"And it wouldn't surprise me if a lack of safe storage turns out to be exactly how these guns, owned legally but stored irresponsibly, ended up being used in such a heinous crime."

I too am wanting to know how Lanza was able to obtain his mother's guns, and why if he had so many mental issues ( wanting some more detail on those too ) his mother did have the guns unsecured.
posted by buzzman at 10:50 PM on December 16, 2012

Jacqueline, you'll excuse me if I couldn't care less that your somewhat expensive hobby means you have difficulty selling your old guns when you are in the mood to buy shiny new ones.

As mentioned, you have the gun show loophole (which should be shut down yesterday). You can also simply turn them over to a local PD, no questions asked. Sorry you might lose your "assets" but can you even acknowledge that there's a qualitative difference between a book of old stamps and a weapon? And that as a member of society the burden is completely on you to dispose of those weapons in a responsible manner, even if it might cost you a few bucks?

Also curious -- what kind of gun locker/s do you have in your closet which is apparently stuffed with firepower, next to the old PC's?
posted by bardic at 10:52 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

I too am wanting to know how Lanza was able to obtain his mother's guns

He was an intelligent 20 year old who wanted them, nothing short of not owning them would have stopped him getting at them.
posted by Cosine at 10:53 PM on December 16, 2012

I don't know offhand if there are any states that require gun owners to keep guns unloaded and locked inside a safe with ammunition locked inside a separate safe. In states I am familiar with, that is not the law.

I know range-safety officers who do store their guns exactly that way (separate safes). I also know other range-safety officers, whom I believe to be equally rigorous about complying with the law and safety standards as both gun owners and as instructors, who do not store their guns that way.
posted by cribcage at 10:53 PM on December 16, 2012

Family members said that mom and son went shooting together. If they were truly preppers as reported, then I bet she just simply trusted him. At least as far as him never being capable of doing something like this.

Same goes for the school though. The media mentions updated access security on the doors. Sounds to me like it was more focus on unauthorized access and abductions, than an armed assault by a gunman on a soft target facility.
posted by neversummer at 10:56 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

There are something like 1,458 comments on this thread, and I've read (or at least skimmed) almost all of them, plus a great many of the articles linked to. It's been quite a weekend.

But I just wanted to thank everyone, from all points of view, who took the time to participate here — with thoughtful words and a minimum of snark, all things considered. It helped me learn, and develop a more informed, nuanced position for myself. I'm someone who knows very few hunters and other gun owners, so hearing from them gave me perspectives I wouldn't have easily gotten elsewhere.

MeFi is pretty darn special.
posted by jeri at 11:02 PM on December 16, 2012 [9 favorites]

buzzman: "Research papers from 1993 and 2004; based on Ohio, Washington, and Tennessee, or use "oversampling" of any sort cause me to not lend much credance ( or continue reading ) "

Oversampling is a legitimate statistical technique that can only be considered suspect if you don't have any way of knowing how many of each group is in the larger population. That's clearly not the case for the groups the AJE study oversamples, which are all based on census categories or causes of death. Do you think use of oversampling invalidates research?

Similarly, neither the age of the study nor the geography of them has any bearing on whether they are accurate findings. If you think there's something that's happened since 2004 (or 1993) that would change the findings, then share your views, otherwise, you're just trying to throw shit on the wall and see if it sticks.

irregardless of the prospectus/abstract.

Oof. Bad show, mate.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:05 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

"I don't know offhand if there are any states that require gun owners to keep guns unloaded and locked inside a safe with ammunition locked inside a separate safe. In states I am familiar with, that is not the law."

To not do so might not be illegal, but it's unforgivably stupid, especially if you have kids.

But it's precious how "responsible" gun owners can cite verse and chapter of the gun laws they support and then simply go stupid when it comes to common sensical things like stowing away your private arsenal.
posted by bardic at 11:11 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

People have been asking for realistic solutions that could be implemented and make a real difference in the U.S.

Here is the updated version of a solution we have discussed on MeFi before, which involves requiring gun and ammunition owners to purchase 'insurance' that covers the full economic cost of gun-related violence and injuries:

To cover full the economic cost of the injuries and fatalities caused by guns in the U.S. would require an 'insurance rate' of $448 per gun per year or $8.33 per bullet purchased.
Something more comparable what we pay for automobile insurance--with limited medical expenses, limited pain and suffering reimbursement, and so on--would be more like $44 per gun per year or $.82 per bullet purchased.*

Some reasons this is a viable idea that could both be implemented and make a real difference in reducing gun violence:

It goes along with the general American ideas that you can do whatever you like but if your choices end up injuring others you have to take personal responsibility for the consequences.
Taxpayers currently end up paying about half of the medical costs of firearm injuries--just over a billion dollars per year. The American taxpayer is subsidizing gun owners, and American taxpayers just hate that. The last thing we need is "gun welfare" and "socialist gun ownership policies"--gun owners should pay their own way, not ride on the coattails of the American taxpayer!
And if you're not really interested enough in your gun to pay its annual gun insurance premium, then just turn it in and problem solved for everyone. I'll wager than gun ownership would go down a lot with even the $44 annual gun insurance requirement.
You'd find insurance companies putting the kinds of restrictions on gun ownership and use, simply on a rational economic basis, that no one dares approach in the current U.S. political climate. Requirements for trigger locks, secure gun cabinets, separate storage of ammo? You betcha--they make complete economic sense. Huge reduction in rates for secure off-site storage of your hunting weapons and ammo by some trusted agency or company? It will makes sense in dollars-and-cents terms to both the insurance company and the consumer.
The car insurance analogy relates this idea very concretely to something we are all already familiar with--cars kill almost exactly the same amount of people in the U.S. each year as guns and injure many more (about 32,000 and 2 million, respectively). Americans love their cars and no one would think of banning cars from America but we sure don't shrink from requiring car owners from paying the cost of the damage their automobiles do to others, via the insurance system. Taking personal responsibility is the American Way.
The gun insurance system would not require any change to the U.S. Constitution and is fully compatible with rights enshrined there.
Americans like 'market' solutions and they have proven to be both effective and cost effective in other arenas--for example, in reduction of acid rain.

* These figures are based the figures of 223 million guns in the U.S., 12 billion pieces of ammunition sold annually, 32,538 annual U.S. firearms deaths and 2X as many nonfatal firearms injuries, and of $100 billion in total economic costs for firearm injuries and fatalities (p. 19). The lower 'limited insurance payout' figures assume $150,000 average insurance payout per fatality and $75,000 per injury--figures that very clearly lowball the total economic cost of these deaths and injuries but are quite comparable to what is actually paid out under our current automobile insurance system. Obviously there are some estimates and ballpark figures there but together they gives a general idea of what total societal costs are and how much they would be if spread equally per firearm or round of ammo.
posted by flug at 11:20 PM on December 16, 2012 [57 favorites]

We don't have kids inside our home, ever. I can't remember the last time we even had another adult in our home other than our gun-owning/toting neighbors, and even with those neighbors it was just to use the bathroom during a cookout. So my husband and I are the only two people with access to our home and thus to our guns.
posted by Jacqueline at 11:23 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Tony Off topic and sans fecality; the research papers are dated. And I have a hard time blanketing the USA in entirety with Washington, Ohio, and Tennessee based research.

I dont fully understand your last sentence on my usage of the word "irregardless".

I did not like reading that the researchers "oversampled Blacks". There. That is one thing that jumped out at me that I did not like and was not comfortable reading. Also, the stated demographc differences between the counties in standard of living and racial component "African American" that was referenced in the other 'article' struck me as being of poor taste in phrasing and research as well.
posted by buzzman at 11:27 PM on December 16, 2012

Jacqueline - is it remotely conceivable you could be burgled when you aren't home and your guns could be stolen?
posted by Rumple at 11:28 PM on December 16, 2012

Having a gun safe wouldn't stop our guns from being stolen, it would just provide a handy carrying compartment to haul them away in.

Gun safes are useful for keeping guns away from residents or visitors to your home but to thieves they're just a box full of guns to carry off and break into at their leisure.
posted by Jacqueline at 11:31 PM on December 16, 2012

Jacqueline - is it remotely conceivable you could be burgled when you aren't home and your guns could be stolen?

This. Secure your firearms against theft. That and don't attempt to reason with the folks in this thread - they've made it abundantly clear their attitudes are non-negotiable.
posted by Pudhoho at 11:32 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

You have a closetful of lose weapons (and presumably ammunition) -- by nobody's definition, not even the NRA's, are you a "responsible" gun owner.
posted by bardic at 11:32 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Bardic, you need to dial it back a little, this is a discussion not an inquisition.
posted by taz (staff) at 11:32 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

"Having a gun safe wouldn't stop our guns from being stolen"

Right. Banks keep their cash out in the open because vaults are useless.
posted by bardic at 11:33 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

LOL, gun safes are not remotely the same size, weight, or technological sophistication as bank vaults, nor is it reasonable to expect them to be.
posted by Jacqueline at 11:35 PM on December 16, 2012

Jacqueline, to get back to the measures you'd support (which I think is a more fruitful line of conversation), I also think a buyback is an essential part of a successful gun control effort. Lots of people here have said it'd never work Because Gun Nuts. But they're not the whole story, and I think there are lots of people like you who have more guns than they want would appreciate the opportunity to exchange them for reasonable market value. It's certainly been the case in other countries where buybacks have taken place. I like your second idea of administering via the DMV, too, it seems like a good match between dangerous yet useful tools which need their owner to be personally accountable for them.

In previous gun discussions on MeFi I've heard that the variations in law between states can make things difficult for gun owners who travel. Do you think smoothing out some of the irregularities would help? The idea is to make them stricter, but I'd hope that gun owners would gain the benefit of not having to fuss about different legalities just because you crossed a state line to see a family friend or whatever. If it's legal at home, it's legal on holiday too. It'd also help a bit with the issues in an article linked above, where guns are brought across state lines by gangs to commit crimes in safer areas.

buzzman... your feelings about research terminology aren't the same as having actual problems with the way the studies were conducted. The age and location of the studies is not as relevant as you feel it is. If you don't understand the statistical terms and why the methods were chosen, that's fine, but you can't just brush the results away because you don't like the sound of them.
posted by harriet vane at 11:39 PM on December 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

When I suggest a gun safe, I'm talking about a fireproof steel box that you bolt to the wall and floor where it sits - not a locking (maybe fireproof) suitcase anyone can just grab and go. A closet full of unsecured firearms is a really bad idea.
posted by Pudhoho at 11:44 PM on December 16, 2012 [11 favorites]

LOL
posted by lrobertjones at 11:46 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

I don't think I've seen this in this thread yet? Apologies if I've missed it.

Former ESPN Outdoors Producer: “Most Of The People I’ve Met From The NRA Don’t Believe The Bullshit They’re Selling”

tl;dr version:

"The Government wants to take your guns!" is the NRA's equivalent to the "limited time only!" used in infomercials. It's a line to increase sales by creating a perception of scarcity. Ka-ching!
posted by harriet vane at 11:48 PM on December 16, 2012 [6 favorites]

All else equal, fewer variations in state laws absolutely would be wonderful. It would be nice if more states would recognize other states' concealed carry permits and gun registrations, at least for a similar length grace period as they do for getting a new drivers license and registering your car in-state.
posted by Jacqueline at 11:51 PM on December 16, 2012

Jacqueline: Having a gun safe wouldn't stop our guns from being stolen, it would just provide a handy carrying compartment to haul them away in.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. A safe large enough to house a small arsenal of weapons is generally also too heavy to be easily moved.

I'm speaking from experience here - I've owned a small arsenal of weapons, and I have helped to move two fire safes that would be been large enough, together, to safely store a small arsenal of weapons.

These safes, which can often be purchased used for a very reasonable sum, are so heavy that 4 very strong, grown men are required to move them - not the simple carrying case that your average criminals are going to spend a lot of time and effort trying to maneuver out of your house during a burglary. Certainly much easier to remove from your house than a bunch of guns stored out in the open, in your closet.

Let's just be honest here, OK?
posted by syzygy at 11:51 PM on December 16, 2012 [19 favorites]

Flug - I had no idea, absolutely none; that there were ! 10 Billion ! rounds of ammo sold in the USA annually.

Last gun safe I moved; I used a tractor to move it. Cannon 23b. Or, four relatively beefy guys to lift it ( empty ) into a flat bed truck. It had the spot on the bottom to attach it to the floor via a bolt or stud; I would imagine that done correctly that and the basic 600lb weight of it would make for a pretty unmoveable item. And any theft type of movement would probably do a poor number to the contents unless they were in hardcases. Can't say I miss it! Hard to open and it just seemed to scream 'oooooo something special must be in hereeeee....' despite having little except for docs and a few firearms. But ooooo a big safe! Must be full of $$$$!!!! Good bye safe.

"If you don't understand the statistical terms and why the methods were chosen, that's fine"
Hey, that's cool. I minored in Applied Stats, and did my BS in Math. And another pithy BS in stat based Psy stuff. Yeah, those are some big time fudged kludged stories. Full concurrence! No matter the results; I think the racial component makes them of a poor taste. And the differing regions are going to odd the data via the mix of numbers that might be ok on their own; but when mixed together ... good research does *not* work that way.

I mean, imagine a study that mixed AUS and USA data into one result? Bonkers I tell you, just bonkers! Reminds me of a Fosters that is brewed in ... wait for it ... Canada? WHUT?

And why isn't the location salient?
posted by buzzman at 11:52 PM on December 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

No, we do not link to the Daily Mail on Meta, we are better than that.

Uh, OK, then, but they were only reporting on what has appeared elsewhere -- the original interview with the paternal aunt (from Crystal Lake, IL) indicated that she and Nancy Lanza were on roughly the same page regarding guns and shop-talked "prepping". Also reported on, same source, by the Telegraph.

The latest fillip is that she had "considered moving with her son" to Washington state, although apparently more to complete his schooling than anything prepper-related. Since there has been a discussion of possible triggering events, this seems relevant. She is described as sociable and a caring mother in this context.
posted by dhartung at 11:53 PM on December 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

BTW, this might be surprising but I grew up in a home with guns and was taught to shoot under supervision at a young age. I know what responsible gun ownership looks like, even if I don't own a gun today. (Although my father and step-brother do.)

Responsible gun storage is not a question of taste or subjective instinct or doing what "feels" right, not by a long-shot.

Are your weapons secure as we speak? Are they secure when you leave your home? There is only one acceptable answer to these two questions.
posted by bardic at 11:55 PM on December 16, 2012

Bedtime way past stateside. Best read in ages; and good night.
posted by buzzman at 11:55 PM on December 16, 2012

Correction: These safes, which can often be purchased used for a very reasonable sum, are so heavy that 4 very strong, grown men are required to move them - not the simple carrying case that a criminal can easily remove from your house during a burglary. Your average criminals aren't going to spend a lot of time and effort trying to maneuver such a safe out of your house during a burglary. And it would certainly be much harder to remove such a safe from your house than a bunch of guns stored out in the open, in your unsecured closet.
posted by syzygy at 11:58 PM on December 16, 2012

Newtown shooting: when it comes to guns and violence, America is like a failed state
posted by Artw at 12:08 AM on December 17, 2012

Jacqueline's last comment is getting at something that is surely beyond the scope of this discussion, but it's a question I rarely see raised enough: is the U.S. really just too big and diverse to be effectively run as one country? I personally think that the laws for obtaining guns need to be the same in all 50 states, just have one federal standard. Different states can have different rules for how they can be carried (open carry, concealed carry), and honestly I think if a state wants to completely ban guns outright that should be in their power, but no state ever could even if they wanted to because of the 2nd Amendment.
posted by MattMangels at 12:10 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Uh, OK, then, but they were only reporting on what has appeared elsewhere -- the original interview with the paternal aunt (from Crystal Lake, IL) indicated that she and Nancy Lanza were on roughly the same page regarding guns and shop-talked "prepping".

The problem with linking to the Daily Mail, as I seem them, are:
1. Even if they're right sometimes, giving them the link when they are when alternative links that could be given instead legitimizes the huge amounts of crap they publish. (Sarcastic, illustrative YouTube song.)
2. All that crap also gets justified by their extremely high Google rank. Every incoming link to them increases that.
posted by JHarris at 12:17 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

buzzman, if you have the knowledge to rebut the results of those studies, please do so. I certainly don't want to be quoting dodgy stats, so I'd appreciate knowing if they're wrong. But merely asserting they're 'fudged' and 'poor taste' without explaining why isn't enough to persuade anyone that you aren't just denying the results because they don't fit your ideology. You've already given some vague handwavey objections to the Australian stats that you either couldn't or didn't bother to back up; it's not really confidence-inspiring, you know? There are plenty of statisticians and scientists on MeFi who give details about this stuff, we're not scared of data.
posted by harriet vane at 12:25 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Not everyone owns a home in which they can bolt safes to the floor or wall. Not everyone can even afford to buy such a safe in the first place!

I've noticed that many of the proposed changes and suggestions in this thread would functionally make it impossible for poor and working-class people to own and keep guns.

Usually MetaFilter is more progressive on class privilege issues. So why do so many of you want to implement policies that would further widen the gap between the rich and poor?

Rich people already have so many advantages that preclude them even *needing* guns as much as poor people do. The rich can afford to live in "nicer" (i.e., low crime) neighborhoods, including gated communities with private security forces. They can buy fancy security systems with round-the-clock monitoring. They can afford to drive everywhere, thus minimizing their exposure to street crime. They can expect the police to be more attentive to their needs because with wealth comes political clout. They don't need to hunt to put food on the table.

In contrast, owning a gun for self defense is often one of the only security measures that poor and working-class people can afford. They can't afford to move out of bad neighborhoods, and they often have to go to work in bad neighborhoods as well. They can't afford to install security systems (if their landlords would even let them) or pay the monthly monitoring charge. Many are unable to afford cars and thus have to use public transit and walk to get where they need to go, thus exposing them to street crime. For many poor people, the police are more of a threat than a protection due to institutionalized racism and classism. And as many people have already expounded on in detail, for the rural poor hunting is a significant food source.

I hope that anyone pushing for changes that would make gun ownership more expensive please consider the impact of your proposals on the people who need guns because its the only security they can actually afford. Otherwise I think there's a significant risk of creating yet another form of class privilege.
posted by Jacqueline at 12:28 AM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

"Not everyone can even afford to buy such a safe in the first place!"

But you can afford 15 different guns?
posted by bardic at 12:34 AM on December 17, 2012 [26 favorites]

In previous gun discussions on MeFi I've heard that the variations in law between states can make things difficult for gun owners who travel. Do you think smoothing out some of the irregularities would help?

This may depend entirely on what area of the country you're talking about. "Can I travel to ____ with my gun in the car?" is a frequent question from gun owners and sometimes a complicated one to answer. For instance, it's not uncommon for a Massachusetts resident to ask a version of this question that might be answered with, "You'll be fine as long as you keep the gun locked in the trunk, you keep driving and do not stop—including for lunch—until you reach [destination], and you do not pass through New York City." But even that is a simplification, may not be sufficient depending on where the person is driving, and assumes the trip is drivable without an overnight stop.

Here in Massachusetts, many training centers have found a market for offering a class that qualifies people for a nonresident concealed-carry permit from Utah. [Example 1, example 2.] The New York Times explains why:

Like thousands of other gun owners who will most likely never set foot in Utah, Mr. Roe wants a permit there for one reason: It allows him to carry his semiautomatic .45-caliber pistol in 32 other states that recognize or have formal reciprocity with Utah’s gun regulations.

...

Fifteen years after the Utah Legislature loosened rules on concealed firearm permits by waiving residency and other requirements, the state is increasingly attracting firearm owners from throughout the country. Nearly half of the 241,811 permits granted by the state are now held by nonresidents, according to the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification, which administers the permits.

We can debate the wisdom of the second half, but first part (reciprocity) is the reason why people are seeking Utah permits in the first place. Reciprocity gives peace of mind. Some Massachusetts-resident gun owners worry about driving to a gun range that's also in Massachusetts because they cross through Rhode Island on the drive.

That's merely one aspect of the travel complications, and travel isn't the only issue that needs simplifying or clarifying. Many people in this thread have discussed magazines. There are many, many magazines in circulation right now that cannot be discerned as either legal or illegal. Literally, there is no way to tell whether the magazine is perfectly legal to possess or it will earn you jail time. The ATF can't tell you. The manufacturer can't tell you. There is no answer.

So yes, many gun owners would find value in gun-law reforms that seek to clarify and provide uniformity. Obviously if those reforms seek to tighten ownership restrictions they might receive less support from areas where current laws are more lax, but I think all gun owners view "smoothing out irregularities" as a laudable goal and one that's overdue.
posted by cribcage at 12:39 AM on December 17, 2012

Warning! Unlikely scenario ahead.

I always wondered about banning all handguns and concealed carry.

If you want a weapon for "personal defence" then you may carry a long rifle/shotgun, openly slung over your shoulder. You can have a 5 round magazine in your weapon and ammunition will be frangible to avoid over-penetration. You can even have an M4 style carbine with all the bells and whistles you want on it, just a five round mag. The weapon will be bright orange to ensure that police are able to identify you as carrying a legal weapon and that you have received sufficient training to safely carry the weapon in public.

A long rifle or shotgun has a longer sighting plane meaning you will be more accurate. Handguns are crap for self defence and any shooter worth their salt will admit this. Your short barrel .45 with hydra-shoks is no match for a clump of "00" buck at 25yds. Ask any shooter and 9 times out of 10 the answer for home defence is "12-gauge pump action".

If you open-carry then you are going to be doing the same training courses police officers and the military do. Shoot/No-Shoot and live fire tactical courses where any injury to "friendly" dummies means no pass, no licence. You will be retested (at no cost to yourself) annually and you will have your weapon storage arrangements at home checked annually. Each gun will have a digital camera attached that takes a picture when the trigger is pulled.

Want to own and shoot that MP7A1 because it's a badass little gun? No problems - you can do so, at a range. Ammo is tracked in and out and the weapon is securely put away when you're not having a good time. The range is secured by armed guards and the fact that if anyone attempted to break in with their long gun with 5 rounds, there are likely half a dozen shooters with full auto, military grade weapons in the building to repulse them. If anyone goes crazy with any other sort of gun it happens at the range and that won't end well for the same reason as above.

Results:
1. Hunters can still hunt. You have five rounds and even a semi-auto for follow up shots.
2. Home Defence people can still defend their homes with the most effective weapon for doing so.
3. Personal Defence folks can wander the streets openly armed and feel responsible for their own safety.
4. Gun Bunnies can Rock and Roll any time they like! With anything!
5. Gun companies don't go out of business because guns are still being sold (maybe even more so), they are just being kept at a centralised and secure location.
6. The threat of spree shooters is reduced because most citizens will literally cross the road to move away from someone with a bright orange rifle over their shoulder.
7. Businesses will have the right to decline your entry based on your carriage of a lethal weapon on their property. This opens up the opportunity for "shooter's diners" etc. The NRA can branch out into all sorts of businesses catering to those who choose to wander around armed. NRA-Cafe will be on every street corner. Watch out Starbucks!
8. Nobody is going to try and steal your guns as the best they have will be the same as you.
9. The Second Amendment is not affected - you have the right to a firearm that is at least 10 times more lethal than anything available to the Founding Fathers in terms of speed, accuracy and capacity. You are effectively a well-regulated militia and are working towards the public good. Well done!
10. Over time, the shame and embarressment of carrying a bright orange, uncomfortable rifle over your shoulder might encourage you to stop being so worried about bad stuff happening to you.

The only downside is that shooters will not be able to fantasise about throwing over the government. Five minutes of thought about this scenario should allow any right-minded individual to come to the correct conclusion that even if you do have that really sweet LaRue OBR with five grand's worth of kit strapped to it, they have AH-64D Apaches and no amount of golden-BB theory is going to help you in that instance.

Anyone fancy picking these apart?
posted by longbaugh at 12:40 AM on December 17, 2012 [15 favorites]

bardic - Jacqueline didn't buy 15 different guns. Didn't you read the bit about how people where she lives use guns as currency?

"How much for a sixpack of Bud, Joe?"

"Ah, that'll be a Luger and a sawn-off shotgun...hell, don't worry about it; you're a good customer. Just give me a Glock next time you're in, alright?"
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:41 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

I hope that anyone pushing for changes that would make gun ownership more expensive please consider the impact of your proposals on the people who need guns because its the only security they can actually afford

I'm sorry, I live in Chicago–I have lived in terrible neighborhoods, been mugged, attacked, etc and the idea that anyone "needs" a gun is completely absurd to me.
posted by marimeko at 12:49 AM on December 17, 2012 [11 favorites]

So, what price for a life? Particularly the life of a six or seven year old child. That is what I can't get my head around.

People arguing that they need a gun - A gun - for hunting to feed their family or to get rid of vermin or to protect themselves in dangerous areas or even for the joy of shooting (ugh), I can get that. People who can afford to keep upgrading so they have a closet-full but don't want to fork out for a bolted-down secure gun safe? I don't get that.

I'm not anti-gun (although they give me the heebie-jeebies), my stepdad has a couple, mainly for shooting rogue roos. My best friend is a sporting shooter. But I am all for full-on legislation, ensuring that only those who need them (for hunting or hobby) can have them, and legislating to ensure that they can't be snatched and taken to a school and 20 kids can be shot multiple times with them.

Can't afford a decent gun safe? You can't afford a gun. Unless the life of a six year old is worth less to you than the gun.
posted by malibustacey9999 at 12:59 AM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

UbuRovias: More like "I don't have enough money to pay for my car repairs" ... "Well, what else you got?" and guns are one of the most frequently offered barter items.

Sometimes it feels like my husband is running an unofficial "Guns for Tires" program for the rural poor similar to how some police departments have "Guns for Toys" programs for the urban poor. :)
posted by Jacqueline at 1:06 AM on December 17, 2012

marimeko: "I hope that anyone pushing for changes that would make gun ownership more expensive please consider the impact of your proposals on the people who need guns because its the only security they can actually afford

I'm sorry, I live in Chicago–I have lived in terrible neighborhoods, been mugged, attacked, etc and the idea that anyone "needs" a gun is completely absurd to me."

This is the part I don't get. Aside from the previously discussed needs for hunting, the idea of needing a gun for personal safety becomes a circular argument. The only reason someone might need a gun is because other people are out there with guns, and then it becomes a race to see who can shoot first. This is particularly the case among low-income people, who are unlikely to be able to afford proper training and maintenance. That just means that poorer neighborhoods become filled with bad shots and faulty weapons who are afraid of each other.

Not my idea of civil society.

I think our discussion here has shown that there are plenty of reasonable options for adopting policies that would scale back our gun culture without infringing on anyone's rights, beyond the degree to which auto licensing and inspections infringe on our rights to vehicle ownership. (And hey, for the Ron Swansons that's already too much, so I realize there's room for disagreement. However, there's at least precedent.)
posted by Superplin at 1:07 AM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

Oh, and I'll add to my suggestions above...

Anyone who open-carrys must also carry a modern first aid kit like the D.A.R.K. Angel trauma kit and be trained in administering first aid for GSWs. You don't pass your "First Aid for Soldiers" (That was Field Manual FM21-11 for those interested) course? No licence. You don't get to just pop caps and play cowboy - you are now, effectively, a first-responder too. With great power comes great responsibility. If you want to carry a firearm then you can do so, and with these suggestions maybe non-firearms folks might even be a little proud of you for taking on the responsibilities that you have.

Or, you could even become a cop.
posted by longbaugh at 1:08 AM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

More like "I don't have enough money to pay for my car repairs" ... "Well, what else you got?" and guns are one of the most frequently offered barter items.

Understandable, and I was only joking around before...but with an element of truth because if you're immersed in gun culture you probably can't realise just how weird it is that anybody might offer to barter a gun for something. To me it's like saying "I can't afford to pay; can I offer you a polar bear instead?"
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:20 AM on December 17, 2012 [6 favorites]

To me it's like saying "I can't afford to pay; can I offer you a polar bear instead?"

Then she could arm bears.
posted by Pudhoho at 1:27 AM on December 17, 2012 [12 favorites]

In contrast, owning a gun for self defense is often one of the only security measures that poor and working-class people can afford.

I'm not anti-concealed carry. I have considered, and still strongly consider, getting a permit and carrying myself after one too many sketchy late-night encounters. I am also poor and live in bad neighborhoods. And I call bullshit on this assertion. Guns are freakin' expensive. One of the reasons I don't have one is because just getting a handgun is like $500! Then there's licensing, then there's bullets, then there's going to a shooting range because what's the point in owning a gun if you don't know how to use it? Holsters, cleaning accessories, ear protection for the shooting range . . . As a poor person I do not have the money to pony that shit up. And where am I going to keep my gun, given your argument I am too poor to afford a gun safe? Just sitting out in the house? Then what if I get robbed in my poor neighborhood?

This "gun for poor people safety" thing only remotely makes sense if you've inherited the gun or gotten it through not-legal means, and are going to learn to use it properly by shooting up abandoned warehouses or other not-legal areas.
posted by Anonymous at 1:28 AM on December 17, 2012

K-thug: "So Nate Cohn argues that this same logic applies to gun control: the voters who care passionately about their semi-automatic weapons are rural whites who ain’t gonna vote Democratic in any case — and the new Democratic coalition doesn’t need them. David Atkins takes it further, saying the awful truth: the pro-gun fanatics are basically the kind of people who think that Obama is a Kenyan socialist atheistic Islamist, and the urban hordes are coming for their property any day now. People, in other words, who already vote 100 percent Republican — and lose elections."

I remain skeptical that Obama will push very hard on meaningful public gun safety measures, but I am optimistic that post-Newtown fighting the NRA is no longer a political "third rail" for Democrats.
posted by bardic at 1:48 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

schroedinger:

You can get a good carry gun for $250-$300 (Ruger LCP or LCR, S&W revolvers, etc.). Fees vary for CCW licenses (I think I paid $115 for 5 years--then $20 renewal--but the CCW classes are $35-$50). Practice ammo is $10-12 for 50rds (of .380 or 9mm), and one box of good stuff is $20-25.

So it really does cost $450-$500 to carry (though you can spread all of that cost out over time--the only big investment is the gun, which may take a few months to get).

--
NOTE: hiding your gun in a not-easy to find spot (below a false bottom of a drawer, behind a piece of furniture/headboard in a holster attached to it, etc.) is doable if there's no possibility of kids or someone getting to it, but you could get a micro-vault thingy with a very strong wire (very hard to cut) for like $15 by Gunvault and mount and/or wire it to whatever.
posted by whatgorilla at 1:54 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

$500 is still over half my monthly income. Your calculations also don't include cost of firing ranges. I'm saying that if you're poor-poor a gun is a pretty heavy investment.
posted by Anonymous at 2:00 AM on December 17, 2012

Jacqueline, I hope you understand that we're not piling on you personally, we're piling on the gun culture in general because we just don't understand it.

Guns are a currency for people who can't afford to pay for their car repairs? That is why us Aussies (and others) are so gobsmacked.

I work at a few different jobs, and if someone said to me, "sorry, can't pay the bill, can I offer you this gun instead" I'd have a freakin' heart attack. If they said I can pay you with a month's worth of fruit and vegies, that'd be different altogether.

This is our perspective. We have guns, but we don't have the gun culture you do, and it's hard for us to grasp that guns are so... intrinsic, is that the word?... they can be used as currency.
posted by malibustacey9999 at 2:10 AM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

cribcage: "I don't know offhand if there are any states that require gun owners to keep guns unloaded and locked inside a safe with ammunition locked inside a separate safe. In states I am familiar with, that is not the law."

That is, as far as I know, the law in both Germany and Australia.
posted by brokkr at 2:36 AM on December 17, 2012

I look forward to the next H-wood movie which shows a ruthless shooter as the hero.
posted by telstar at 3:02 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

The Newtown Massacre Is Not A Tragedy

The right — at this moment essentially identified by Fox News — has whipped its own phony outrage about not politicizing the tragedy. "Tragedy" is a very important word here, and we have to be super-careful about how we use it. Because how America describes the massacre will determine what America does about the massacre. Tragedy, even in common speech, means an exceptional and significant death. Those adjectives do not apply to Newtown. Mother Jones has the most incredible list of America mass murders here. What it describes is a new reality, which is simply this: Mass murder has become an ordinary part of American life. The horror of the Newtown massacre is that it's not a tragedy. It's not exceptional. And most likely it's not significant. Americans have known for decades now that the availability of automatic weapons to psychotics is widespread. Their response? Illinois this week was the last state in the Union to pass a conceal-carry law.

posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:03 AM on December 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

I hope that anyone pushing for changes that would make gun ownership more expensive please consider the impact of your proposals on the people who need guns because its the only security they can actually afford. Otherwise I think there's a significant risk of creating yet another form of class privilege.

If there are people who can't afford gun safes, there must also be people who can't afford a gun. If the right to bear arms for self-defence is so absolute, shouldn't there be some government programme to arm the poor? Or is that too socialistic?

You see, this is why us furriners find it so difficult to understand your gun culture: that many people are ready to agree with Mitt Romney that nobody should be "entitled" to healthcare, food or housing, yet if Mitt had added "guns", his own party would have tarred and feathered him within seconds.

It is quite certain that, sooner or later, you'll need some healthcare in your life (not to mention food or housing). It is not just unlikely, but even highly improbable that you'll ever find yourself in a situation in which a gun will be even remotely useful for your self-defence. Yet it is guns which you feel entitled to, and which you consider that poor people should retain access to. Frankly, my dear, those are pretty fucked-up priorities.
posted by Skeptic at 3:12 AM on December 17, 2012 [32 favorites]

...the people who need guns because its the only security they can actually afford.

Actually, this is where the Police are supposed to come in. I know, there are problems with 'the Police', but maybe as part of an overall, make life generally better for everyone, that is an issue that can/could be addressed. I mean shit, you pay taxes for the Police, you might as well get your money's worth.

And another thing - if Anonymous has a little free time, maybe they could go in and help out the NRA? Just kidding. That wouldn't be fair.
posted by From Bklyn at 3:27 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

From 2001: Death Travels West, Watch Him Go

The shooting industry is the real power behind the American gun battle. Although the major surviving firms are either owned overseas (Smith & Wesson, Glock, Beretta, H&K), precariously solvent (famously Colt), or threatened by novel lawsuits, there is nonetheless a great deal of money in the distribution, sale, and resale of firearms. An unjustly overlooked book by journalist Tom Diaz, Making A Killing: The Business of Guns in America (New Press, 1999), seizes on this unorthodox approach in considering our over-armed populace. Diaz sidesteps the ideological foam of the gun debate, examining both the semantics of firearm fetishism and the way market forces (firearm manufacturing is an almost completely unregulated industry) have elevated what he terms the “spiral of lethality” over other concerns.

posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:40 AM on December 17, 2012

On The Gun Thing I Would Just Like To Point Out: - "See the differences? See the statistically significant correlation between homicide by firearms and ownership of firearms? See the massive difference between the United States and other developed countries?"
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:53 AM on December 17, 2012 [19 favorites]

When I was a young man, I worked in a store which sold guns and, before I met tens of typical gun owners, was generally in favor of allowing people to own them. Meeting said owners pretty much cured me of that. I started work there with a naive sixteen-year-old's view of the issue, informed by western novels, cop dramas, tall tales--and absolute zip real-life experience.

As a middle-aged adult, it sickens me that people live their adult lives as though they're in a juvenile "tough guy" fantasy, straight out of a wank book. 20 dead kids last Friday--undoubtedly more since then (if in less-newsworthy one-at-a-time shootings)--because America is replete with unsecured guns; they pass into the hands of the murderer sometimes by legal means, but often because the guns are just tossed into closets, glove-boxes, and drawers--hell, sometimes they're just sitting on tables, in the open--by people who want all the "fun" and none of the responsibility.

It's loathsome. It's criminal and inexcusable.

It has been repeated a zillion times in this thread: there are countries all over the world which put severe restrictions on gun ownership, but if you really want to play with firearms (or hunt with them, or whatever) you can. It just takes a bit (or a lot) of hoop-jumping. There, you have to accept that society values the lives of kindergarteners and other citizens over a fetish for the "wild west"--which never existed outside of Zane Grey, anyway.

In these countries, shootings are, indeed, rare tragedies--not a fact of everyday life.

You know, I don't want to ban guns. But I damn well want to make sure if you can only find fulfillment by having sixteen handguns and some paramilitary rifles, you accept that you're responsible for securing them. If your gun is stolen or taken from you and used in an assault or murder, you damn well should be charged as an accessory to the crime, and be open to civil lawsuit.

(I've turned down free items, including guns, for trade because I couldn't afford them, even if they were "free." A free car is never free. A free gun carries with it the responsibility of caring for it, or finding it a new owner responsibly. No one forces anyone to take things in trade, it's always a choice. And what does it say about our society where people own guns but can't afford tires?)

But if you, as a gun owner, find this to be too much a burden, feel that the loss of a classroom full of kids and guardians is a small price to pay to allow you to stroke the flash-suppressor on your AR-15 or whatever, I will fucking fight to get guns banned, every last damn one of them, single shot 28-gauge shotguns to whatever the Macho Rifle of the Week is. You want them? Adult-up and accept there are societal costs which you need to underwrite, that guns are like dangerous dogs--if you want to own one, you need to prevent it from hurting the rest of us, or we're going to take it from you, destroy it, and charge you with a crime if it does.
posted by maxwelton at 4:17 AM on December 17, 2012 [51 favorites]

the man of twists and turns, that's a good link, and the author makes a couple very good points about mental illness which I hadn't encountered just yet.
posted by Miko at 4:21 AM on December 17, 2012

Ed at Gin and Tacos: "I could focus on the fact that the entire pro-gun argument falls to tiny pieces when you take away its straw man version of the opposition: that gun control will not end violence and killing, therefore it is not worth pursuing. No one has any illusions that man's urge to do violence to his neighbors can be legislated away. No one argues that more "gun control" will end gun crime. I think most of us would appreciate less of it, though. Maybe a mass shooting every 9 months instead of every 3. That would be pretty cool.

I could point out how selfish, misguided, and delusional it is to think that your wants, disguised as your own selective interpretation of your rights under the 2nd Amendment, are more important than other people's right to not get shot in the fucking face while sitting in a movie theater or in a classroom."

Your right to a gun does not trump my right to not be shot in the face, nor the rights of my family and loved ones. The end.
posted by bardic at 4:42 AM on December 17, 2012 [16 favorites]

cribcage: "I don't know offhand if there are any states that require gun owners to keep guns unloaded and locked inside a safe with ammunition locked inside a separate safe. In states I am familiar with, that is not the law."

That is, as far as I know, the law in both Germany and Australia.
posted by brokkr at 2:36 AM on December 17 [+] [!]

Yeah another Aussie here, and one that grew up in a household that had guns. I don't know whether it was a legal requirement or not, but my dad kept the firing pins for his rifles in a separate safe, and from memory never really had much ammo in the house any ways, but they were in another place again. Like a couple dozen rounds all up, and most of those for older weapons where bullets were going to be hard to source. He's sold a bunch of his rifles in the last few years thankfully. And by that I mean both that they're not in my family's house, and he wasn't looking after them properly anyway.

I hope you guys can find a ways forward on this. The gun lobby in Australia has never had anything like the sway of the NRA, but our then PM John Howard still spent a ridiculous amount of time wearing a bullet proof vest when public speaking. People get weird about firearms. Even when legislation is not really going to affect their legitimate reasons to own rifles.
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 5:04 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

So with regard to media issues, one of the most sobering things I heard, and have been thinking about, was the content of a couple of interviews I heard with the school staff yesterday. Their account of how their awareness of the attack spread described that when the gunfire began, that they could hear "a noise" but didn't know what it was. One compared it to "a sheet of aluminum being unrolled" and another called it "little pops."

If you've ever hung around a firing range or fired a gun yourself, you know that that's the way a lot of guns sound. But on reflection, I found it really telling that people could not instantly recognize the sound. Of course, in that context, it's not the first thing you expect. But I lay a lot of blame at the feet of the depiction of guns in the media. When gunfire happens on TV and in the movies and in games, the sounds are often heavily tweaked to sound extra-excitingly explosive, boomy, reverb-y, threatening. It's part of the glorification of the aspect of guns that appeals to insecure people who want to feel more powerful - amp up the "blammo!" sound to orgasmic levels.

But because of this total fakeness, people in a real situation with a real gun heard the sound, and it took them a long time (in emergency time) to recognize it for what it was.

I'd love to see an ad campaign that breaks this down. We know the media glorifies violence - let's see how. Let's see an interview with the guy in the recording studio whose job it is to make gunshots sound a lot more threatening, sexy and powerful. Let's have him talk about what effects he's adding and why. Let's see just how fantastical, fake, and shallow all that crap is.

Aussies, I hope you continue to talk and share with us in the US. The story of Australia's 180 on gun issues, and the remarkable, measurable public safety impact is an inspiring one - not least because I think culturally, America finds a better analogue in Australia than in Canada. You have something to say which the US could stand to listen to, and you stad a chance of getting through to people more than some other Western democracies which, for all their excellent qualities, push the buttons of anti-Socialists and get their guard up in ways that Australia doesn't.
posted by Miko at 5:13 AM on December 17, 2012 [15 favorites]

The link above from the man of twists and turns is really excellent, and uses data to skewer most of the pro-gun arguments that get trotted out. Aside from reflexive (and asinine) "any regulation infringes on my Constitutional rights" arguments, I'm not sure what's left.
posted by OmieWise at 5:26 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

I just want to say that I appreciate jacqueline, pogo fuzzybut, spitbull and other gun owners and hunters sharing their perspective and experiences in good faith

No matter what the sentiment today, enacting change is not going to be cakewalk. It will be a long, sustained push and will meet formidable resistance. I appreciate and thank the gun owners among us for sharing recommendations for what they think may be common ground or what approaches might reduce resistance to enacting change. Just the fact that you are here and contributing -- despite the unfortunate tendency of some in thread to make you scapegoats for all that is wrong -- says something about your good faith and desire to help solve a problem. Thanks.

In my perfect world there would be no guns. That's fantasy island so I want to find common ground.
posted by madamjujujive at 5:36 AM on December 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

The scatterplot on the man of twists and turns link implies that reducing our gun-ownership rates by half (to about 150,000,000 guns, btw) might lead to 5,000 fewer homicide deaths per year.

I understand that reducing legal gun ownership takes away your rights, I do. I just think the trade off of limiting most citizens to, say, shot guns and bolt action rifles is worth 5,000 American deaths a year, just like all the other individual rights / common good tradeoffs we have to make. But I also feel that it is incumbent on people who are against increased gun control to say 1) that why they dont believe this or 2) how many deaths would be worth it? 50,000? 500,000? Or is there, in fact, no level which would be worth it?
posted by shothotbot at 6:18 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

I don't think it's been covered so far, but guns and ammunition is a classic example of where the true (i.e. including externalities) cost is socialized.

It also partly explains why pro and anti-gun advocates are not speaking the same language. One is talking about personal freedoms, the other is talking about cost to society. In general, humans are poor at conceptualising risk (see more airline security vs safer driving) and extremely poor at dealing with large issues of risk where there are significant vested interests (see climate change).

Gun control is, in many ways, like climate change. The status quo is that the personal freedom (the right to own, buy ammo for and shoot a gun) is cheap. In the same vein it is still cheap to buy and use fossil fuels, and reasonably cheap to drive from a to b. The costs of roads are socialised. The externalities of fossil fuel depletion and climate change are also socialised.

With guns, the externalities are all the costs associated with guns in general - training and equipping police forces, police investigations, [some] healthcare costs, the cost to schools etc of security measures, the costs to society when productive members are injured or killed. Put simply, the actual cost of gun ownership is subsidised by the state and paid for by all of us.

There are lots of examples of governments dealing with costs like these, notably in the way alcohol and cigarettes are taxed. The impact of cost and regulatory changes can be modelled. In Sweden, for example, researchers estimate that removing the alcohol monopoly and privatising alcohol sales would cause significantly more deaths, assaults, drink driving etc as a result of higher alcohol consumption. This doesn't mean there aren't people who can't and don't drink responsibly. It doesn't implicitly mean Swedish drinkers are all feckless alcoholics. It simply establishes a causal relationship between alcohol consumption and its consequences. To which there are costs.

There are analogies between gun culture in the US and alcohol culture in Sweden, where, until the beginning of the last century there were no restrictions on the sale of alcohol and where most adults are consumers and purchasers. There are disanalogies too, of course. But denying a causal link between how guns and ammo are regulated and priced, like denying how we regulate alcohol impact public health, is to deny reality.

Ultimately, this comes down to the same conversation America needs to have on lots of issues: where the boundaries between personal freedom and collective responsibility lie. It's why the American right has swung so firmly behind gun rights. It also explains the paranoia about arming oneself against a socialist government intent on removing one's freedoms. The two interests are closely aligned because they amount to a wholesale denial of collective responsibility. It is what makes the 2nd Amendment, interpreted in modern times to enable a group of people to arm themselves in self-defense against a tyrannical government, such an absurdity. The people who want to arm to protect society are one of its greatest threats.

In the 1,000 posts above a few gun rights supporters such as St Alia and Jacqueline follow a common theme: the gun is there to defend *my* rights when nobody else will. From a non-American perspective this reads less like a mantra of self-sufficiency and more like a rejection of society. It presupposes a failure of the state to deliver its side of the bargain. Soldiers are there to defend you. The police are there to protect you. Doctors are there to treat you. Teachers are there to educate you. In return, you pay your taxes and you expect all these people to do their jobs. Unsurprisingly, therefore, that we see strong themes of keeping state spending low and low taxes among people who often fail to acknowledge socialised costs. And who do not recognise that killing someone - even in apparent defense of oneself or one's property - is placing a large, hidden cost on society. The interesting counterpoint made above - why don't gun rights advocates carry heart defibrillators - reinforces how selective hardline gun rights advocates are. Those who advocate bigger, more or more ubiquitous guns are either doing so from a position of bad faith or simply do not understand risk.

Instead we get strong rhetoric about freedom and rights from a purely personal perspective. But - and apologies for picking on you Jacqueline, as one of the rare concealed carry advocates here - by choosing personal freedom over collective responsibility we pick a very shaky security (I will, and will have the opportunity to, make the right choices to defend myself, by myself) in which one is constantly on a state of alert over a safer one. One in which we acknowledge our duties to our fellow citizens in respect of protecting *their* safety. One in which we trust that by giving up some personal freedom (in this case how we own or use guns) we are gaining something back.

There is no such thing as gun culture. It is a construct, and used to appropriate the rights-based language of minorities for a cause of selfishness. Gun control advocates have framed the argument more poorly than gun rights advocates. Your freedom has a cost, paid in blood. While you wave the flag of patriotism you are acting against the interests of the society you claim you defend. Gun control is not prohibition. It is not the end of freedom. It is the rebalancing the rights of society of the rights of the individual so we transact peacefully and safely.
posted by MuffinMan at 6:25 AM on December 17, 2012 [161 favorites]

MuffinMan: From a non-American perspective this reads less like a mantra of self-sufficiency and more like a rejection of society.

It does from many American perspectives, too. You comment was incredibly well-said and makes amazing points I've not seen elsewhere. Thanks.
posted by Rock Steady at 6:30 AM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

(I am long behind, but this does not seem to have been replied to yet)

cribcage: When people "fall down" upon being shot, that's mostly a psychological reaction caused largely by watching television shows and movies where we see people collapse when shot.

I am not sure I believe that "fall down when you get shot" is a learned reaction. I would have assumed it was more of a reaction -- both psychological and physiological -- to being shot kind of hurting.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 6:30 AM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Thanks all -- this has been an intelligent, inspiring conversation about a very difficult subject. It gave me a sliver of hope that maybe, just maybe, something good might have come from this tragedy. Sadly, I've been disabused of that notion by reading the comments on CNN's website, such as the ones on "Put Reason Back In America's Gun Debate." Summary: it's not the guns, it's people; we need more guns, not less; anyone who thinks we need gun regulation is a commie asshole; etc, etc. *sigh* I agree with the poster upthread: I don't want to live on this planet.
posted by Dean358 at 6:32 AM on December 17, 2012

Excellent comment, MuffinMan.

Was reflecting on the "self-protection" fallacy too, and thinking about the sort of what you might call the SUV effect - "Because I imagine I have superior force, I feel like I will have ultimate mastery and control over any situation, so I'm going to take more risks."

Many carriers feel different and believe they can behave differently because of their gun. I suspect that behavior results in choices which are actually a lot less safe.
posted by Miko at 6:36 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

cribcage is actually correct here. The body retains hydraulic capability so long as you still have a few pints left in you. The impact of a bullet is insufficient to drop you (else all shooters would fly backwards on pulling the trigger).

What happens when people are aware they have been shot is they mentally stumble and this often causes them to drop to the ground. People who are unaware that they have been shot (amped up, on drugs etc) will quite literally keep on coming until a) blood loss makes them fall down or b) they receive a shot to one or two locations that instantly shuts them down.

Recent US Army doctrine (possibly adopted by some Police units as well) is the pelvis shot. Criminals using body armour (usually covering the torso) are unprotected here and once the pelvis has been hit, the target will often fall to the ground, unable to walk.
posted by longbaugh at 6:37 AM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

I tried to edit to add some additional information to that last post regarding the whole mental aspect of being shot and falling down. Several MOH recipients sustained multiple wounds and carried on performing their tasks and descriptions from those who have been shot often liken it to being hit with a baseball bat or a hammer. In many instances people are unaware they have even been shot until someone else points it out, at which point they often collapse to the ground.

The concepts are covered well in Michael J Asken's books (written with David Grossman, writer of On Killing, a well known if controversial text). On Combat, The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace and Warrior Mindset. These books cover how modern training is about overcoming this learned response and carrying on when wounded. I think they have a whiff of the "woo-woo" about them personally but that hasn't stopped a lot of the techniques finding their way into military and police training.
posted by longbaugh at 6:54 AM on December 17, 2012

LOL, gun safes are not remotely the same size, weight, or technological sophistication as bank vaults, nor is it reasonable to expect them to be.

OK, gotta step in here and say some come close on an "appropriate to what it's keeping safe" scenario. Our neighbors - husband and wife CHP - have a gun "vault" in their home. The thing is huge, solid metal, and bolted to the floor with a numbered lock system and no fricken way is anybody - I don't care HOW determined - is going to just carry their guns out of there. He is retired now and a hunter - she is still active with 12 years till retirement.

My point relevant to the discussion is this - these are *responsible* gun owners. Was that vault cheap? It was not. Is it the right thing to have? It is. Do these people know how to respect and handle firearms? You bet they do. Am I comfortable with anything less than their level of safety and responsibility toward the ownership of firearms?

No - I am not.
posted by cdalight at 7:09 AM on December 17, 2012 [11 favorites]

This is a genuine question, not a snark or a gotcha:

How do we begin to talk about change if any proposed changes - from mandatory gun safes, or background checks in private sales, or stricter licensing requirements, or restrictions on the number of guns any one person can possess, etc. - are met with "No, because..." rather than "Yes, but..."

If, when I say "Mandatory gun safe..." what people hear is "I want to take all your guns away," how do we begin?
posted by rtha at 7:25 AM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

how do we begin?

I've been talking to a ton of people about this. I know I may not be the person you're asking, but I think we begin by first determining whether we're dealing with a person of that kind - who's an extremist and won't even look at any middle ground - or a person who's willing to create solutions. Whether or not they own guns and use guns doesn't matter, as long as they agree that the rate of gun deaths and mass murders is too high. Figure out who is an absolutist and who is concerned and solutions-oriented.

And we don't engage the absolutists. It's the lesson of the 2012 election - you don't need 100% of people to create an outcome. You don't even need 80%. You don't even need 51%! People of goodwill and sincere interest in creating solutions, working together, can make change. We don't need the fringe 10% or 5% who are in a state of emotional panic. And we don't have to repeal the Second Amendment. There's so much we can do. The idea that we have to engage with the most extreme, most irrational people on this issue just isn't accurate. We can actually set them aside, and talk and work instead with people who agree that it's time to make some change.

Those people who want to keep and use their guns responsibly will, I expect, be sensible enough to come to the table so they can have a say in how it all plays out. Those who dig into to an entrenched extreme will, by their own choice, simply not be represented in the conversation that we are going to have.
posted by Miko at 7:32 AM on December 17, 2012 [15 favorites]

If, when I say "Mandatory gun safe..." what people hear is "I want to take all your guns away," how do we begin?

Don't say "Mandatory gun safe...", start with "No one wants to deny you the right to own guns..." and it has to be meant. It will have to be repeated many times and pointed out that it has been repeated and that nothing has been done to take away any law abiding citizen's guns.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:32 AM on December 17, 2012

how do we begin?
Well, most gun control advocates, me for example, really are talking about taking people's rights away. We variously want to make it harder or more expensive for people to legally own a gun or sharply limit the type or number of guns they can buy. This is a real loss to people and just because I think it is worth it that they give up some rights I don't personally exercise to make all of us safer, it is still asking them to change the status quo at their expense. Thinking sympathetically about where they are coming from might help.
posted by shothotbot at 7:40 AM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Brandon, there are plenty of us who would like to see guns taken out of the hands of even responsible gun owners.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:42 AM on December 17, 2012 [8 favorites]

> Well, most gun control advocates, me for example, really are talking about taking people's rights away.

Well, how about instead of talking about their "rights" we should talk about their entitlements.

You may have a right to own a gun, supposedly. But you aren't entitled for that process to be cheap, untrackable, unregulated, and without significant documentation.
posted by mrzarquon at 7:48 AM on December 17, 2012 [24 favorites]

Brandon, there are plenty of us who would like to see guns taken out of the hands of even responsible gun owners.

That's not going to happen and starting off the conversation that way just means increased gun sales.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:49 AM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

Fill-in-the-blank Generic Gun Massacre Cartoon
posted by tonycpsu at 7:58 AM on December 17, 2012 [9 favorites]

That's not going to happen and starting off the conversation that way just means increased gun sales.

I think banning private gun ownership is a strong possibility, actually. They did it in Great Britain.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:06 AM on December 17, 2012

Tony: Tom has nailed it again, horrific as it is; it is an , ahhh . Bullseye.
posted by buzzman at 8:13 AM on December 17, 2012

We won't get there in one big step.

mrzarquon is right. "Rights" doesn't mean "total access and legalization of all weapons for everybody at all times." The government is entirely allowed to set structures and expectations on the exercise of rights. Even the Supreme Court has upheld that, as recently as 2008.

I actually don't expect or really feel a need to repeal the second amendment. Keep the right in there. But rights come with restrictions. We have freedom of speech, but I can't use it to create conditions that threaten public safety (falsely "shouting fire in a crowded theater," the classic example). We have freedom of the press, but I can't use it to publicly defame you or to sell child pornography.

There is nothing about the having of rights that declares that legal restrictions on the exercise of those rights which society deems necessary can't be put in place. Otherwise we'd be sitting here looking at the Bill of Rights, and nothing else. That's not how we actually roll.
posted by Miko at 8:15 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

I think banning private gun ownership is a strong possibility, actually. They did it in Great Britain.

The fact that something happened in Great Britain isn't really good evidence as to how possible it is in the United States. Prior to Sandy Hook, support for stricter gun laws (not a ban, just stricter laws) was hovering somewhere around 50% support. Last year (before Sandy Hook and Aurora, to be fair) support for a handgun ban was at 26%.

There might be a boost in these numbers because of this, possibly even enough to get a new assault weapons ban, background checks at gun shows, or some other new restriction, but an outright ban on private firearms? That's not happening anytime soon.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:18 AM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

hovering somewhere around 50% support.

Geez...it was still that high before this massacre? That's all the people it takes.

Change will be coming.
posted by Miko at 8:27 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

I find this encouraging:

Even Joe Manchin is Talking About Gun Control Now

The NRA endorsed Manchin (before this ad, actually), and he won. The NRA endorsed him again in 2012; he won again, carrying all but two counties as his president lost every county in the state. I supply all this background just to prove how shocking it was when Manchin went on "Morning Joe" today and said optimistic things about a possible gun control bill.

"I just came with my family from deer hunting," he said. "I've never had more than three shells in a clip. Sometimes you don't get more than one shot anyway. It's time to get beyond rhetoric, it's time to sit down and move in a responsible way... it should move beyond dialogue, we need action... When Chuck Schumer says we don't need more than 10 rounds in a clip, [critics] would be wrong to say that shouldn't be on the table. Everything should be on the table."

I fully expected him to be dragged kicking and screaming towards any new gun legislation, yet he seems to be open to some common-sense regulations on magazine size, and is saying "everything should be on the table."
posted by tonycpsu at 8:54 AM on December 17, 2012 [10 favorites]

Hmm. The Tom Tomorrow comic linked above has just pointed something out to me -

1. When we have a mass shooting like this, we often have anti-gun-control advocates pointing out that "well, taking away guns wouldn't have stopped the killer, because he would have tried using something else like a knife or lawn furniture or something."

2. We also have anti-gun-control advocates saying that "we should have had more people on hand with guns so they could have stopped the shooter."

But it's just hit me - if a knife or lawn furniture or something other than a gun is apparently enough to satisfy the killing instincts of a mass murderer, couldn't it also be sufficient to satisfy the self-protection instincts of these people who could have brought down the mass murderer?

In other words, the solution isn't to permit more people to arm themselves with guns to protect us from mass shooters, the solution is to ask "why weren't more people arming themselves with lawn furniture already".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:02 AM on December 17, 2012 [11 favorites]

Just catching up ...

I am Adam Lanza's Mother, the most harrowing thing I've read since yesterday. She's described as a single mom of four children with Ben being the eldest at 13.

God damn. Brings back the memory of the Sky Walker thread, where 18-year-old Sky killed his mother. If anything, I hope this incident will encourage mothers who are afraid they are going to be killed to come forward. They are not alone.
posted by Melismata at 9:04 AM on December 17, 2012

I have yet to see someone articulate how gun control would have made a difference here. There's very little that the government can do to stop a disturbed son from stealing his mother's guns.

Because it's possible they were improperly stored, allowing him access to them. Because it's possible that gun safety laws would limit consumer access to the kinds of weapons he used. Because his ability to kill so many children and adults in a matter of minutes came from a high capacity magazine. If he hadn't had access to so much firepower, or to so many rounds of ammunition, it's possible much (or at least some) of the slaughter would not have happened.
posted by jetlagaddict at 9:15 AM on December 17, 2012 [20 favorites]

Jesus, they aren't preparing for societal collapse - they're preparing for an invasion.

They're preparing to go out in a hail of bullets and a blaze of glory.

I fully expected him to be dragged kicking and screaming towards any new gun legislation, yet he seems to be open to some common-sense regulations on magazine size, and is saying "everything should be on the table."

I fully expect him to run into the full force of the NRA and the gun pushers, and I want people to have his back. I would like to see a coalition of "Gun Owners Sick Of All This Tactical Fetish Shit" emerge and take the lead on this, because it's the best way to end the thirty-year hijacking of the conversation. An argument that has dragged us to the point of saying "well, have first grade teachers armed in the classroom" is the equivalent of a guide that leads us to a dead-end and tells us to start digging a hole instead of turning back. It has reached the point of absurdity and needs to go away.
posted by holgate at 9:18 AM on December 17, 2012 [12 favorites]

That woman is not Adam Lanza's mother, and she's distracting us from the real issue
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:19 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

I have yet to see someone articulate how gun control would have made a difference here. There's very little that the government can do to stop a disturbed son from stealing his mother's guns.

Are you being serious? It's fairly simple, the harder you make it to get things the fewer people will go through the trouble of getting them. This is why fewer guns with better control leads to less gun violence.
posted by Cosine at 9:21 AM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

From the NYT:

“Something needs to be done,” said Joel T. Faxon, a hunter and a member of the town’s police commission, who championed the shooting restrictions. “These are not normal guns, that people need. These are guns for an arsenal, and you get lunatics like this guy who goes into a school fully armed and protected to take return fire. We live in a town, not in a war.”

...

one of the town’s many unlicensed gun ranges

...

The police department logged more than 50 gunfire complaints this year through July, double the number for all of 2011, records show. Some of the complaints raised another issue. Gun enthusiasts here, as elsewhere in the country, have taken to loading their targets with an explosive called Tannerite, which detonates when bullets strike it, sending shock waves afield. A mixture of ammonium nitrate and aluminum powder, Tannerite is legal in Connecticut, but safety concerns led Maryland this year to ban it.

posted by rtha at 9:25 AM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

I have yet to see someone articulate how gun control would have made a difference here.

Total gun control (ie ban) would have probably stopped this. Yes it can be argued if there's a will there's a way but anything at all that hampers the sheer ease of getting the type of weapon used is a step in the right direction.

Total ban on anything other than bolt-action for hunting/recreation would have lowered the casualties (lowering the rate of fire in any way would achieve this).

Severe (read jailtime if caught with or selling) for any magazines that exceed, say 5 or 6, would have lowered the casualties.

Exhaustive/expensive training classes required. Make owning a gun like owning a boat or some other luxury. Not prohibitively expensive but make it so it is most definitely a financial consideration as much as a personal one. If people had to allot a budget every year for licensing/training for each firearm they own I doubt we'd have as many of these people with 40+ guns in their garage. I have to pay registration on each vehicle I own I should have to do the same with each firearm.

Limit of 1 firearm per person/household could feasibly have prevented this in the fact that if the above conditions were in effect the only weapons available would be inefficient.

That's the whole argument for me. Efficiency. The guns that are widely available at this moment in this country are utterly efficient people killing machines. I have no issue with the owning of guns for hobby or sport but we need to come down hard on making them less efficient. Semi-auto should go away. The whole concept of double-tap ease of kill should go away. If a gun is for self-defense it should be damned hard to use it and seen as only a last resort. I would even go so far as to say when you go to purchase a gun they give you a taser for free. Who cares if the amount of private taserings go up at least people can (usually) walk away from those.

Some people are violent. Some people are always going to hurt others. The idea that we should allow these highly efficient people killers to be completely unchecked because "freedoms" is absurd. Part of being in a society is accepting the fact that there are some things I can't have/do because it's better for everyone. Bill Maher once said he hated having insurance because "I am so tired of rearranging my life around what the stupidest people might do." That is exactly what gun owners are arguing for and it's selfish entitled bull. There ARE other people in this world and it's a simple fact that we will ALWAYS have to rearrange our lives around what the stupidest/worst of those people might do. Suck it up, that's part of life, stop whining about freedoms and start thinking about how you can help make it easier for the rest of us.
posted by M Edward at 9:26 AM on December 17, 2012 [15 favorites]

I think too many are letting the perfect get in the way of incremental improvements. I'm heartened to see that Manchin is open to discussions - that's a start. I'd love to see Moynihan's ideas about serious taxes on assault bullets. Combine that with outlawing big magazines and a buyback on assault weapons and we'd have a real start without getting all those who hunt furious with the idea. Suggestions up-thread about letting people who want to play with high capacity stuff on controlled ranges might make this more palatable to enthusiasts. While we're at it let's make access to mental health care as available as health care in general - ideally through single payer but that's probably way too optimistic just now.

Emphasis - not taking away people's ability to have a weapon for self-defense or for hunting. Personally I don't see a need for any civilian to have dozens or hundreds of rounds on hand. After Obama was elected so many people were sure that he'd take their guns away that they purchased absurd amounts of guns and ammunition. The stuff is out there and buy-backs will help make a dent in it but really we have to be working with a long view of reducing the quantities and making the culture of sexing up these weapons become viewed as sick.

Whether one views the people who commit these horrible mass murders as sick, evil or ideologues it seems to me there are often clues that they are very troubled people who are heading for dire trouble. Certainly this was the case in Aurora and Tucson. I don't know enough yet about Newtown to make that assumption. I don't know how we manage to intervene without infringing on people's civil rights although that certainly hasn't slowed us down with the whole absurd security theatre in airports. I am firmly in favor of gun control and always have been. Control doesn't have to be total removal of all guns from society and that's not a realistic goal.

Those who think they need guns to stop governmental overreach aren't living in the real world. Well armed militias a couple hundred years ago were on a similar level to the army. Today that's absurd - I don't want my neighbors armed with SAMS, tactical nukes and the like. Nor do civilians have anything like military training as has been been pointed out over and over. Maybe we've finally reached a point where horror and common sense will lead us towards limiting access to these weapons. I sure hope so. I've written a lot of emails and signed a lot of petitions in the hope that flooding legislators mailboxes will encourage them to MOVE on this stuff.
posted by leslies at 9:30 AM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

This is a petition that was created 16 DEC.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-ask-president-obama-support-law-abiding-gun-owners-time-tragedy/VBpRRMPR?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

I imagine it will have the requsite 25k signatures before the end of the day. This is an image of one side of the firearm debate team. The NRA is booted up, and pretty united. The members differ; but just as the various members of the democratic party finally came together ( as compared to the infighting that would split the party in the 70's and 80's ), the mild gun and pro gun groups are going to be pretty solid on the ~ 'whoa, slow down; not so fast' aspect of any real legal action and laws. And the public will unfortunately either forget rapidly; or turn its head quickly due to the blunt horror of it all. The petition is changing numbers by the thousands.

Another topic probably missed by the mefi even is the mail order ammo world. Which is not evil incarnate; i.e. for myself; when I lived rural; I would click to order my ammo... spared me a time consuming trip to town ( or multiple phone calls trying to find near-obscure ammo, i.e. 6mm Remington;which despite great ballistics is rarely stocked, out of stock, met with blank stares, and simply never caught on as a cartridge size... but for hunting, ; a beauty. ), and to a certain extent; yeah. No contact with extremists.

"Gun Owners Sick Of All This Tactical Fetish Shit" - I like that. And I'll add a lot of old school shop owners don't like the tactical stuff either. It has traditionally belonged in the police and law enforcement shops, not in the enthusiast and outdoorsman shops...but when faced with the prospects of going out of business ( again with the jobs, and yeah; I know, kids were slaughtered yesterday ) and having to lay off single or double digit employee rolls... they do like most businesses do and stock what sells. The tactical stuff is a visual ugh; and what is done with it; words fail me to adequately describe it.

"Jailtime" for magazine possession... every day drunks kill more than anybody ever pauses to look at. Or they look; and move on. Twenty eight a day. Three kids a day, every day. The NRA will be showing numbers like this as a counter for anything even close to jail time for gun items. And yes, the drunks go to jail. Or are supposed to. But somehow these numbers do not change greatly no matter the outrage. "Jailtime" is an easy word to use, not bagging for the quote by any means; and if it would actually work and implement then good.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

No intention to derail or change the debate; I am looking ahead, and well; in the past; the drunk issue has been a talking point to compare to the 'gun control' issue; and yeah; sick is seeing a dead child be represented as a number, line, or a slice of pie in a chart.

Time for a break. I don't like what I know will be graphically presented in the next months. All this blood is going to turn to numbers.
posted by buzzman at 9:41 AM on December 17, 2012

What impresses me about the smoking analogy is we can see even small changes do make a difference. While it seems that raising the price of a carton if cigarettes by 5% might not reduce smoking rates, apparently it does. Changing the style of packaging including gross pictures reduces rates. banning advertising and reducing media presence generally reduces smoking rates.

And, the fewer cigarettes smoked then the less disease, at a population level.

I guess it's basic supply and demand. So, why not:

1. ban advertising of guns
2. increase the tax on guns (even a little would help)
3. force packaging restrictions on guns such that each package contains a graphic picture of gun violence aftermath.

I don't see how any of those violate the second amendment.

Since the overall supply of legal guns must be strongly related to the supply of illegal ones, and since both legal and illegal guns are used in these kinds of crimes as well as gun violence in general, then from a Public Health perspective, there may be some direct lessons from tobacco (and indeed alcohol) about how even small barriers to consumption produce small but real effects.
posted by Rumple at 9:45 AM on December 17, 2012 [11 favorites]

"Jailtime" for magazine possession... every day drunks kill more than anybody ever pauses to look at.

Yes, that is why you can be sent to jail for killing someone while driving drunk. What is your point?
posted by dersins at 9:48 AM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

3. force packaging restrictions on guns such that each package contains a graphic picture of gun violence aftermath.

I would say packaging on ammo if anything. Many rifles don't even come packaged if bought from a shop, and with the guns that do come packaged you're going to look at the package once before the empty box goes in the attic or something.

And not just pictures: descriptions of the situation. "This was an accidental discharge that would have been prevented by secure storage", "This man thought that his gun was not loaded" or something might actually be an effective reminder.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:54 AM on December 17, 2012 [6 favorites]

From the Economist blogs:

CONSIDERING the frequency with which gun massacres now occur in America, the media attention they garner, and the failure of that attention either to shift public opinion regarding gun control or to prod the political system to take any action at all, the outpouring of sentiment over the shootings Friday in Newtown, Connecticut is probably best viewed as a ritualistic exercise in mass histrionics. Not for the friends and family of those killed, obviously; for them the killings are a real and horrific tragedy. Those of us who view the events remotely, however, unless we start to evince a newfound appetite for gun-control measures to prevent future mass slayings, are doing little more than displaying and enjoying our own exalted strickenness.

...

So unless the American people are willing to actually do something to stop the next massacre of toddlers from happening, we should shut up and quit blubbering. It's our fault, and until we evince some remorse for our actions or intention to reform ourselves, the idea that we consider ourselves entitled to "mourn" the victims of our own barbaric policies is frankly disgusting.

posted by cairdeas at 9:54 AM on December 17, 2012 [21 favorites]

The acceptable cost of the right to bear arms is that a kid with a special forces weapon can walk into a school and kill a bunch of people – because that same right causes the potential for someone else to pull a gun and kill that person. The Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act is relatively toothless, after all (and as late as 2012 Ron Paul was trying to get it repealed). It could happen, right?

But it never does. The argument suggests that gun controls need to be looser in order for more guns to be in play to create those opportunities. What I don’t see is how that approach avoids arming every teacher and child in America. What it requires, to make it work, is magic. And demanding magic is not an adult response...

Gun crime does not go away after weapons bans. Illegal weapons always circulate. Gun crime has gone down since Dunblane, but apparently you can still pick up a hand grenade in Manchester for 50 quid. Of course it’s not perfect.

But it was decided, by the society that pressured the government of the day, that the freedom to hold firearms came with an unacceptable cost.

With around 30,000 gun deaths in the US per year compared to around 50 in the UK, where the US population is some five times greater than the UK population, the attitudes to acceptable cost are clear.

This is not a determination that will be made in the United States.

So turn the news off. Write a note to your American friends. Give them a call. Tell them you love them, and that you think of them often. Because one day, it’s going to be them on the news. Or, more likely, their kids.

It really is as simple as that. Because there’s no such thing as magic. And there’s no such thing as one good bullet.

Warren Ellis, The Acceptable Cost of the Right To Bear Arms
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 9:56 AM on December 17, 2012 [8 favorites]

Slap*Happy: "2) Ban the manufacture or sale of any other repeating firearm with a capacity larger than four rounds. If you can't take the turkey with four rounds, it wasn't meant to be.

3) Limit the sale of ammunition. You can buy four rounds a week, heavily taxed, and after a month, can only buy more when you bring back the brass. For those who like to load their own ammo, this means they're limited to 16 casings. This restriction is completely lifted for those shooting at registered and licensed gun ranges… shoot as much as you like. No taxes, either! Load as much as you like… so long as it stays at the range. "

Seems to me these regulations would be harmful to people who hunt for sustenance. Honestly I don't see why people who make a bunch of noise and destroy a bunch of paper for their own amusement and no other useful purpose have more freedoms than people who are genuinely trying to feed their families.
posted by Deathalicious at 9:57 AM on December 17, 2012

Yes, that is why you can be sent to jail for killing someone while driving drunk. What is your point?

Not even - you can be sent to jail just for driving drunk. We are no longer content to wait until someone is killed before taking action. But, you know, with hundreds of millions of cars and ~ 50 billion beers consumed each year, regulation of drunk driving is a non-starter, and will have no impact on traffic fatalities. We need to remember driver's rights! If they're not allowed to drive drunk, how will they get home safely from the bar in cold or wet weather?
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:59 AM on December 17, 2012 [19 favorites]

Personally I don't see a need for any civilian to have dozens or hundreds of rounds on hand.

A couple things about hunting ammo/guns :

It's not unusual to have several hunting guns - they come in different types and have different purposes. For example, I have a pump action 12 gauge for duck hunting, but for say, partridge, I prefer a break action 20 gauge. My dad favors a 30.06 for deer hunting, but uses a 30/30 or .270 depending on where he is hunting.

And when it comes to ammo, the same thing applies. For example, hunting goose requires buckshot, but that would annihilate a duck at the same range, so smaller shot is used on a duck hunt. Even smaller shot is used for pheasant, grouse, and partridge. The same applies to rifle ammo, though it is somewhat less consequential. And some places requires steel shot, though lead shot is preferable for better range and power - so you need to have the correct ammo for that, too.

Plus, it's not unusual to go through a box of shells or more on a good bird hunt - the daily limit for grouse is like 10, I think. And there is no limit on some game like rabbit or squirrel.

So, when you say hunters should be happy with 2 guns and 12 rounds of ammo, or something, that's just not practical. There are reasonable limits, sure - but that's ridiculously low.

It's worth pointing out that there are already limits on clip sizes for hunting. Shotguns can only have 3 shells for waterfowl and 5 for upland game. For deer, I think the clip size is 10. And so on.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 10:00 AM on December 17, 2012 [5 favorites]

> ... from a Public Health perspective, there may be some direct lessons from tobacco (and indeed alcohol) about how even small barriers to consumption produce small but real effects.

Given there's a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Rumple, I expect the correlations are recognised. It's implementing anything that is stymied by preservation of freedoms.
posted by de at 10:00 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

So, when you say hunters should be happy with 2 guns and 12 rounds of ammo, or something, that's just not practical. There are reasonable limits, sure - but that's ridiculously low.

So you keep all but two of them at the range, along with the ammo for them. If you're going duck and quail hunting, you can check out your two shotguns and bring along as much ammo as you need, but the police will be notified, and you will be expected to bring back any spent shells.

Easy-peasy.
posted by Slap*Happy at 10:04 AM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

I'll add a lot of old school shop owners don't like the tactical stuff either.

But as you say, there's a certain amount of friction there, because the NRA in its current incarnation exists to create a market for the latest and greatest. It's Gun Gizmodo stuff. The one time I went to a range to get the whole shooting thing out of my system -- accepting a certain kind of Southern hospitality, if you like -- I actually liked seeing the stack of Enfield rifles that had decades of history worn into their stocks. But I was also shown a huge shiny long-barrelled .500 revolver kitted out with scope and god-knows-what which was, supposedly, "for hogs". It was grotesque.

the drunk issue has been a talking point to compare to the 'gun control' issue

Well, the "drunk issue" is its own thing, which is to say that in spite of MADD, NIMBY zoning laws and inadequate public transport create conditions in which Americans still routinely drink and drive. The game of duelling statistics doesn't really work so well if you recognise that both are fucked up.
posted by holgate at 10:06 AM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Seems to me these regulations would be harmful to people who hunt for sustenance.

The number of people who truly hunt for sustenance (as opposed to people who could easily buy meat on the market but for whatever reason prefer to kill it themselves) is surely very small.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:10 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Slap*Happy: "So, when you say hunters should be happy with 2 guns and 12 rounds of ammo, or something, that's just not practical. There are reasonable limits, sure - but that's ridiculously low.

So you keep all but two of them at the range, along with the ammo for them. If you're going duck and quail hunting, you can check out your two shotguns and bring along as much ammo as you need, but the police will be notified, and you will be expected to bring back any spent shells.

Easy-peasy."

Not really that easy. Also, you're essentially enshrining shooting ranges as a part of public gun control policy. All of a sudden people who have never let guns out of their possession before are essentially forced to keep them with a third party.

You'll end up with a situation like our current health care in the US, where first and foremost we're beholden to insurance companies, and we're required to pay whatever rates they capriciously decide we owe them.

Also, what happens if the owner of the shooting range goes on a mad shooting spree? Or what if he merely runs out of town with his mistress, leaving a bunch of people's guns locked up and inaccessible? What happens if the gallery goes bankrupt and gets bought out by a company that raises the fees?

I can't believe I'm put in the position of arguing *against* gun control, but I just don't think that your ideas are reasonable, particularly for the not insignificant population of gun owners who are not into target shooting unless that target is moving and made out of _{(obviously, non-human)} meat.
posted by Deathalicious at 10:12 AM on December 17, 2012

You'll end up with a situation like our current health care in the US, where first and foremost we're beholden to insurance companies, and we're required to pay whatever rates they capriciously decide we owe them.

Also, what happens if the owner of the shooting range goes on a mad shooting spree? Or what if he merely runs out of town with his mistress, leaving a bunch of people's guns locked up and inaccessible? What happens if the gallery goes bankrupt and gets bought out by a company that raises the fees?

So you make them government institutions, under the control of and physically connected to police stations or military bases or whatever.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:15 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

holgate: "I fully expect him to run into the full force of the NRA and the gun pushers, and I want people to have his back."

Yeah, but he's not up for re-election until 2018. I know the NRA has a long memory, but I think it's going to be tough for them to exert leverage on him six years from now over some incremental changes. Heck, he doesn't even have to vote for the regulation, he just has to not filibuster it, since there are at least 50+1 Democrats to his left that can probably be counted on to pass the kind of changes he's talking about.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:16 AM on December 17, 2012

So you keep all but two of them at the range, along with the ammo for them. If you're going duck and quail hunting, you can check out your two shotguns and bring along as much ammo as you need, but the police will be notified, and you will be expected to bring back any spent shells.

Easy-peasy.

That is stupid. Full stop.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 10:19 AM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

ROU_Xenophobe: "Seems to me these regulations would be harmful to people who hunt for sustenance.

The number of people who truly hunt for sustenance (as opposed to people who could easily buy meat on the market but for whatever reason prefer to kill it themselves) is surely very small."

I may be misremembering, but 1-2 good deer can supply most of a medium sized family's meat needs for a year. For people who live in the countryside, it can be a significant part of the diet. It's especially true for the rural poor.

Not to mention that it will absolutely make it less appealing for people who are considering hunting as an ethical alternative to factory farming as a source for cheap meat. I have a friend who was raised vegan and learned to hunt and now offers classes and books on hunting deer. I'm mixed on hunting for myself, since it appears according to Jewish kashrut it's pretty much out altogether (which is really interesting when you consider that Abrahamic religions are essentially pastoral in nature; seems like a set of kashrut rules that only allows a form of slaughter possible only through farming is stacked in their favor) but am 100% for it for those who can do it.

I'd hate to see it get *harder* for hunters to hunt, just because a very small number of crazies decide to make poor decisions each year.
posted by Deathalicious at 10:28 AM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

The Freedom of an Armed Society (via)

A favorite gun rights saying is “an armed society is a polite society.” If we allow ever more people to be armed, at any time, in any place, this will provide a powerful deterrent to potential criminals. Or if more citizens were armed — like principals and teachers in the classroom, for example — they could halt senseless shootings ahead of time, or at least early on, and save society a lot of heartache and bloodshed.

As ever more people are armed in public, however — even brandishing weapons on the street — this is no longer recognizable as a civil society. Freedom is vanished at that point.

[...]

…guns pose a monumental challenge to freedom, and particular, the liberty that is the hallmark of any democracy worthy of the name — that is, freedom of speech. Guns do communicate, after all, but in a way that is contrary to free speech aspirations: for, guns chasten speech.

This becomes clear if only you pry a little more deeply into the N.R.A.’s logic behind an armed society. An armed society is polite, by their thinking, precisely because guns would compel everyone to tamp down eccentric behavior, and refrain from actions that might seem threatening. The suggestion is that guns liberally interspersed throughout society would cause us all to walk gingerly — not make any sudden, unexpected moves — and watch what we say, how we act, whom we might offend.

As our Constitution provides, however, liberty entails precisely the freedom to be reckless, within limits, also the freedom to insult and offend as the case may be. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld our right to experiment in offensive language and ideas, and in some cases, offensive action and speech. Such experimentation is inherent to our freedom as such. But guns by their nature do not mix with this experiment — they don’t mix with taking offense. They are combustible ingredients in assembly and speech.

posted by tonycpsu at 10:29 AM on December 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

It's worth pointing out that there are already limits on clip sizes for hunting. Shotguns can only have 3 shells for waterfowl and 5 for upland game. For deer, I think the clip size is 10. And so on.

If you're concerned about mass shooting events (which are a subset of gun violence that are rather unlike run of the mill gun violence) then magazine size is really the thing to be concerned about. Stockpiling ammunition helps, but someone carrying a hundred rounds on their person in ten round magazines is going to kill a lot fewer people than someone with a single hundred round magazine.

Likewise, it does nothing to interfere with a hunter who wants a wide variety of ammunition types, because they still get to have their different sizes and types, they just don't get to have giant magazines of them, which aren't really necessary for hunting.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 10:29 AM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

That is stupid. Full stop.

No, it's the only way you're going to be able to keep your guns, full stop. The other option is to remove them from you entire, which is reeeeeeeal popular right about now. You had better get on board with a compromise solution of some kind, right now, or you're going to lose your "collection" of hunting guns and the right to purchase ammo. I don't care if you like the choice or not.
posted by Slap*Happy at 10:31 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

That doesn't seem like a compromise solution at all. It sounds kind of ridiculous to me, too, and I'm pretty pro gun control.
posted by sweetkid at 10:32 AM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

The number of people who truly hunt for sustenance (as opposed to people who could easily buy meat on the market but for whatever reason prefer to kill it themselves) is surely very small.

Hunting, or knowing someone who hunts, is basically the only way you can get venison in large parts of the US. And I have to say that from a perspective of animal cruelty, hunted venison is preferable to most pork, beef or chicken in the US. I don't begrudge that at all, and that goes to the point of trying to untangle strands that have been knotted tight by those with a vested interest in selling fear and guns.
posted by holgate at 10:35 AM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

Eponysterical.
posted by Pudhoho at 10:37 AM on December 17, 2012

I'd hate to see it get *harder* for hunters to hunt, just because a very small number of crazies decide to make poor decisions each year.

Well, isn't this the crux of the issue? I mean, we do things all the time that inconvenience us or make our lives harder. We stand in line, we don't pee in the planters, we sit in traffic when the shoulder is right there for us to drive on. But we follow these rules, because it prevents more headaches later on, and it does prevent people, sometimes crazy and sometimes just jerks, from acting out.
posted by FJT at 10:38 AM on December 17, 2012 [15 favorites]

Deathalicious: " I'd hate to see it get *harder* for hunters to hunt, just because a very small number of crazies decide to make poor decisions each year."

By focusing on mass shootings, you're leaving out the vast majority of gun deaths. With some twelve thousand of them each year, I think we're well past the "very small number" category.

We should do what we can to protect the way of life for true sustenance hunters, but we also have to cater to the needs of the majority that wants to live in a safer society. When the subsistence hunting thing first came up, I thought it was a useful discussion to have so the people who hunt for food don't get lost in the mix, but now I really think it's being given outsize consideration when compared to the larger population that doesn't need to own a gun to put food on the table.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:39 AM on December 17, 2012 [6 favorites]

Hunting, or knowing someone who hunts, is basically the only way you can get venison in large parts of the US.

And I'd wager that the number of people seeking venison in the US is far smaller than the total number of people who say they "need" guns, so what's the relevance here?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:40 AM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

There is no doubt in my mind that the needs of legitimate hunters will be protected under any gun control measures proposed in the U.S. I don't know the specifics of how guns are regulated in other countries, but I would be very surprised if hunting was disallowed in any of them. Surely the impact of gun control on subsistence hunters can and will be considered in any new gun laws. Enough with the all or nothing hysteria.
posted by Wordwoman at 10:44 AM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

It's also factually wrong: the Second Amendment isn't going anywhere. The government is not going to be able to limit the number of guns one person owns.

The government is already able to limit the number and kind of guns people can own.
posted by empath at 10:44 AM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

Sometimes it feels like my husband is running an unofficial "Guns for Tires" program for the rural poor similar to how some police departments have "Guns for Toys" programs for the urban poor. :)
posted by Jacqueline at 1:06 AM on December 17 [+] [!]

"Guns for Toys"...considering the present circumstances, god...
posted by Jody Tresidder at 10:44 AM on December 17, 2012

The number of people who truly hunt for sustenance (as opposed to people who could easily buy meat on the market but for whatever reason prefer to kill it themselves) is surely very small.

I said before in this thread that I think the subsistence hunting issue is a bit premature because there's a lot that can be done that will not impact any type of hunting, but I think it's crazy to try to figure out how many people "need" to hunt based on this definition of need. There's not really a way to quantify whether or not someone can fill their food needs in the market, given that it means trying to determine if someone's consumer choices are objectively reasonable despite a host of economic and non-economic motivations that are obviously legitimate (preference for wild game over factory farmed animals, preference for certain types of unavailable meat, desire to participate in an activity that has cultural meaning). There's just not a way to say "this person needs to hunt, that person doesn't."

I think we as a society have to decide is it worth it to allow hunting, for whatever reason. if we do then (and we have in the real world of not-Metafilter) we need to craft gun control measures that don't prevent people from hunting. I also think that's not nearly as hard as people in this thread seem to think.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 10:46 AM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

This sort of simulatneously gleeful and spiteful attitude towards taking the property of millions of law-abiding citizens is exactly what causes people to join the NRA.

Oh, I'm sorry, is my tone not conciliatory enough in the wake of twenty murdered first graders? Should I apologize more, in the hope that the gun-nuts take pity? Nope. We're done with that. Now is the time for rage.

The NRA got its ass handed to it in the last election cycle - the rats will be leaving that sinking ship. Play ball now, or get something less desirable ram-rodded through later on. That's the choice.

I am no longer willing to have ammunition unsecured or worse, stockpiled. If you are, you are in no way "pro gun control." The only way around it is to create a public space where it can be monitored and regulated: the gun range. It will need to be a larger part of the gun enthusiast's life. Homes are no longer zoned as a private ammo depot, sorry. We have proven we aren't responsible enough for that as a society.
posted by Slap*Happy at 10:47 AM on December 17, 2012 [10 favorites]

It's also factually wrong: the Second Amendment isn't going anywhere. The government is not going to be able to limit the number of guns one person owns.

That may be the case. It's tangential to whether gun owners in general begin to be perceived as a stubborn and intemperate minority that are complicit in these tragedies, unless they make an affirmative case to the contrary; if that means, in turn, that more of them run to the NRA in a hissy fit, then boo hoo.
posted by holgate at 10:48 AM on December 17, 2012

By focusing on mass shootings, you're leaving out the vast majority of gun deaths. With some twelve thousand of them each year, I think we're well past the "very small number" category.

Only a small number of shootings use hunting weapons, anyway. Hunting weapons are already pretty highly regulated and enforced (a game warden can inspect your firearm pretty much at any time for any reason, and of course it varies state to state). Being caught hunting with an illegal weapon can land you in a ton of trouble.

The problem America has is with handguns and assault/defense weapons that feature large clips, fast actions, and poor safeties. If you want to curb gun violence, those are the droids you are looking for.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 10:49 AM on December 17, 2012 [9 favorites]

Oh, I'm sorry, is my tone not conciliatory enough in the wake of twenty murdered first graders? Should I apologize more, in the hope that the gun-nuts take pity? Nope. We're done with that. Now is the time for rage.

The NRA got its ass handed to it in the last election cycle - the rats will be leaving that sinking ship. Play ball now, or get something less desirable ram-rodded through later on. That's the choice.

This really isn't the choice. What you're describing will not become law in the United States for the foreseeable future, no matter what the NRA does. There will probably be some new gun restrictions passed, but nothing like what you're asking for. You're welcome to feel rage right now, but your rage does not mean the political realities of the US have changed.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 10:51 AM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

Be a man.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:51 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

The hunting argument is a distraction. Look at how it's handled in the UK or other countries with effective gun control and use that as a framework, adapting specifics for hunting in the US (bear protection, etc). It's really easy to be fair to hunters and still have effective, sensible gun control.
posted by jason_steakums at 10:51 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Be a man.

"Penis not included."
posted by tonycpsu at 10:52 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

IS it realistic and or feasible to limit ammo, as others have suggested?
posted by agregoli at 10:54 AM on December 17, 2012

(preference for wild game over factory farmed animals, preference for certain types of unavailable meat, desire to participate in an activity that has cultural meaning)

It's beginning to sound like "I don't mind people dying as long as I can eat my healthier and more exotic meats". I know that's not the intent, but I don't see the benefits of hunting outweigh the costs if we pit these two competing interests against one another.
posted by FJT at 10:57 AM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

It's beginning to sound like "I don't mind people dying as long as I can eat my healthier and more exotic meats". I know that's not the intent, but I don't see the benefits of hunting outweigh the costs if we pit these two competing interests against one another.

That's certainly a valid opinion, I was just objecting to the attempt to ascertain how real the need to hunt was, because that's an impossible thing to figure out. I disagree because I think that hunting can be regulated such that it poses a low risk as a reason for gun ownership, but there's nothing wrong with calling for a ban on hunting because you don't want people having guns. There is something wrong with trying to say that some people hunt who don't really "need" to. Either you think hunting can be part of a safe culture or you don't; whether or not people can afford to buy pork at the supermarket isn't really part of that conversation.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 11:01 AM on December 17, 2012

A good start in gun legislation would be a repeal of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prohibits civil claims against gun manufacturers and sellers for the "misuse of their products by others." All those who are claiming that guns, kitchen chairs, knives, and strollers are all equivalent would surely support this, right? Why should a parent be able to sue a balloon manufacturer if their kid swallows one, while the parents of murdered children are denied the same recourse?
posted by Wordwoman at 11:04 AM on December 17, 2012 [18 favorites]

Hunting is allowed (and regulated) in Europe and I can't imagine that hunting will end in America

I sincerely hope much tighter gun controls will be put into place for the sake of all.
posted by hopefulmidlifer at 11:05 AM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

It's just not the people buying guns for hunting I'm afraid of. It's the suburban "protecting me and my family" neighborhood watch, supermarket concealed carry, "Trayvon Martin type kids are a threat to me" type.
posted by sweetkid at 11:06 AM on December 17, 2012 [23 favorites]

Representative Kathy Castor is calling for new gun legislation; one bill bans magazines of more than ten rounds, and the other would require background checks for every gun sale, closing the 'gun show loophole.'

(woo! go, my Representative, go!)
posted by cmyk at 11:08 AM on December 17, 2012 [9 favorites]

I'd wager that the number of people seeking venison in the US is far smaller than the total number of people who say they "need" guns, so what's the relevance here?

Granted. But, as I said upthread, the US has a curious form of governance that privileges acreage over population. My other point is that the market, such as it is, for a side of venison in the freezer is not the same as that for a shrinkwrapped Smithfield pork chop.

My wider point, I suppose, is that you can mark out parts of the US where the current reading of the second amendment would be broadly tolerated and tolerable, albeit with the suicides and accidental deaths that accrue. You can also look at the NYT piece on Newtown's propane-blasting ranges and see lines being sketched out, if not enforced. I get to see the transition from hipster-urban to "country" on a regular basis, and I don't see a one-size-fits-all model; that said, I don't think the response should be Dasein's, which is to wave your arms around and tacitly endorse a one-size-fits-none model.
posted by holgate at 11:12 AM on December 17, 2012

Question for those of you from the UK or Australia or anywhere else where serious gun control has successfully happened:

At the time that the legislation passed, was it an actual popular opinion held by a very vocal portion of the population that the citizenry needed guns so that they could protect themselves, their families, and their nation from the tyrannical government, or from a hypothetical future tyrannical government?
posted by Flunkie at 11:14 AM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Can somebody offer a legit explanation why the gun range as repository thing is wrong? Aside from cultural norms, that is.
posted by angrycat at 11:15 AM on December 17, 2012

It's really easy to be fair to hunters and still have effective, sensible gun control.

But again, it requires an untangling: while there are certainly pure hunting/target shooters who stick with rifles, and pure "tactical" shooters who go for AR-15s, and pure "home protection" shooters who are all about CCW, there's a huge amount of crossover, especially in the context of the NRA's attempts to hawk upgrades and expansion packs on behalf of their industry paymasters.

Perhaps it needs the equivalent of the wine / beer / spirits divide in many states: you go to shop X for your hunting supplies, and shop Y for your "tactical" fetish gear. Of course, that's the cue for gun pedants to say that there's no clear line, judging on appearances, blah blah blah, and it doesn't deal with things like the .500 hog-blasters, but the aim must be to loosen the ties between grandaddy's guns and Gizmodo Gunz.
posted by holgate at 11:23 AM on December 17, 2012

Can somebody offer a legit explanation why the gun range as repository thing is wrong? Aside from cultural norms, that is.

For starters, its not done anywhere else. Norway, Finland, Britain - all have strict gun control and don't do that. It's unnecessary - hunting firearms aren't used much in gun violence.

And there are Practical considerations - is the place gonna be open when I need to check out my guns. When I check them back in ? Cleaning, care and theft ? Is it near my house or do I have to go three counties away ?

And returning spent ammo - I already pick up my empties because A. leave no trace and B. reloading saves money; but you ever drop something small in waist high grass ? It's not impossible to keep track of where the empties go, but they get lost with some frequency.

And so on.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:25 AM on December 17, 2012 [6 favorites]

Miko, I just sent my notes. *shrug* It's worth a try, because this is just broken. And I am a guy who learned to shoot from my own dad, got a few NRA Marksman awards as a teenager, and just doesn't want to own a gun for fear that one of my kids would find a way to have an accident with it.
posted by wenestvedt at 11:27 AM on December 17, 2012

At the time that the legislation passed, was it an actual popular opinion held by a very vocal portion of the population that the citizenry needed guns so that they could protect themselves, their families, and their nation from the tyrannical government, or from a hypothetical future tyrannical government?

WTF? No. Nobody thinks that sort of shit.

There may have been a tiny bit of looking over our collective shoulders at 300 million Indonesians just to the North, but I don't think that kind of paranoid fantasy was large or vocal or taken seriously, because hey - our military is surely inherently superior, plus there are mutual defence treaties in place with the US so we could just call in some nukes or something if things got too bad. Besides, they'd have to cross 5000 miles of desert to reach anywhere remotely inhabitable & by then the snakes & spiders & crocodiles & dropbears would kill them all anyway.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:28 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Angrycat, setting aside the government controlled access bugbear, the first practical problem that comes to mind for me is that proposal does not take into account how spread out the population is in some areas of the US.

I personally grew up in a rural area about 45 miles from the nearest police station, and as far as I know, there were no indoor firing ranges within 100 miles. Anyone who wanted to do target shooting or sight in a gun did it on their own property or on unofficial outdoor "ranges" like inactive gravel pits.

People in these rural areas are likely to be doing the hunting/trapping/varmint control, and requiring them to drive 90 miles round trip multiple times a day to switch from deer hunting to walking their trap line to shooting a critter menacing their chickens at 3 AM is not at all practical.
posted by superna at 11:28 AM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

Question for those of you from the UK or Australia or anywhere else where serious gun control has successfully happened:

At the time that the legislation passed, was it an actual popular opinion held by a very vocal ortion of the population that the citizenry needed guns so that they could protect themselves, their families, and their nation from the tyrannical government, or from a hypothetical future tyrannical government?

posted by Flunkie

No, I don't think so.
posted by malibustacey9999 at 11:29 AM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

But again, it requires an untangling: while there are certainly pure hunting/target shooters who stick with rifles, and pure "tactical" shooters who go for AR-15s, and pure "home protection" shooters who are all about CCW, there's a huge amount of crossover, especially in the context of the NRA's attempts to hawk upgrades and expansion packs on behalf of their industry paymasters.

Perhaps it needs the equivalent of the wine / beer / spirits divide in many states: you go to shop X for your hunting supplies, and shop Y for your "tactical" fetish gear. Of course, that's the cue for gun pedants to say that there's no clear line, judging on appearances, blah blah blah, and it doesn't deal with things like the .500 hog-blasters, but the aim must be to loosen the ties between grandaddy's guns and Gizmodo Gunz.

Oh, certainly. I think that one thing that's absolutely necessary to any new laws being considered is a lot of input from weapons experts, instead of the old "ban whatever looks scary" chestnut. Bring in hunters, bring in farmers and ranchers, bring in gunsmiths, bring in police officers and service members (maybe some Ordnance Corps officers?). Get specific about what you're legislating, don't get bogged down in the distractions of scary looking weapons or the "I need a 50 round clip for hunting" crowd.

---

Also, if we're taking another look at gun control, one thing I'd love to see would be Wisconsin's law against going armed while intoxicated applied nationally.
posted by jason_steakums at 11:31 AM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

Okay, since we've returned to discussing practical issues here (Still not looking for a political fight; we won't get anywhere with that, so let's keep it informational please)...

agregoli : IS it realistic and or feasible to limit ammo, as others have suggested?

The average trip to the range, you'll blow through far more rounds than ever used in any mass shooting in US history. (excluding some of the police-vs-mobster shootouts from the early 1900s, of course). On top of which, you do not want the next school shooter using range rounds rather than self defense rounds (hollowpoint or wadcutters), for the simple reason that they penetrate walls walls much, much better. Each miss has a second - and third - And fourth chance to hit someone in the next few rooms.

angrycat : Can somebody offer a legit explanation why the gun range as repository thing is wrong? Aside from cultural norms, that is.

Yes. My "range" lives in my backyard (and you'll find that as the norm in rural America). Who exactly should I check my gun with when I "leave"?
posted by pla at 11:31 AM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

At the time that the legislation passed, was it an actual popular opinion held by a very vocal portion of the population that the citizenry needed guns

No, not at all. Australians holding the opinion that citizens needed guns as some kind defence againt tyrrany? Never, ever heard that expressed at the time, or now, except (honestly) by a certified skin-head neo-Nazi who had a collection of antique guns he was going to use to defende against the coming Yellow Peril. Anyone expressing the opinion that guns were necessary to defend against tyrrany would be cconsidered a creepy paranoid weirdo. Anyone expressing the opinion that guns were necessary to protect themselves in their home would be viewed as unsavoury and trustworthy. The gun control legislation is still regarded by many as the most successful legislation of the time, and at the time people who had the banned weapons were practicaly lining up to have the government to buy them from them.
posted by Jimbob at 11:34 AM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

I'd like to see all of those concerned about hunting -- who I would hope are also concerned about mass murders -- contact their legislators and urge them to remember the rights of hunters and varmint killing farmers as they enact reasonable gun control legislation. Are you willing to do that, or is the "OMG but the hunters" thing just an excuse to keep guns accessible to all?
posted by Wordwoman at 11:36 AM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

That's what I thought (regarding the "guns protect us from the government" idea). Unfortunately, that is an actual opinion held by a very vocal portion of the population here, so I think the "We did it after Dunblane/Port Arthur/whatever, so why can't you do it" crowd might be underestimating things a bit if they don't take this into account.

We have a bigger scared paranoid asshole problem than a lot of other places, I guess.
posted by Flunkie at 11:36 AM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

Oh, and I would definitely add bump stocks and Hellfire triggers to the same "why on Earth do you need this" category as extended magazines.
posted by jason_steakums at 11:39 AM on December 17, 2012

A gun buyback program would be hella popular in these troubled economic times.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:40 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Perhaps it needs the equivalent of the wine / beer / spirits divide in many states: you go to shop X for your hunting supplies, and shop Y for your "tactical" fetish gear. Of course, that's the cue for gun pedants to say that there's no clear line, judging on appearances, blah blah blah, and it doesn't deal with things like the .500 hog-blasters, but the aim must be to loosen the ties between grandaddy's guns and Gizmodo Gunz.

Obviously, drawing clear lines is tricky and appearances actually don't matter, but it would seem possible to craft gun control law that clearly allows for hunting, but does do something to prevent future gun violence. As I said above, I think magazine size is an obvious place to start. Looking at handguns, which have a small place in hunting, but not a huge one, is another. Requiring people to store their guns safely would put a dent in accidental gun deaths at a minimum, without affecting hunters. It might be hard to enforce without the kind of governmental intrusion that would be a problem for some people, but it certainly would infringe on anyone's ability to hunt.

I'd like to see all of those concerned about hunting -- who I would hope are also concerned about mass murders -- contact their legislators and urge them to remember the rights of hunters and varmint killing farmers as they enact reasonable gun control legislation. Are you willing to do that, or is the "OMG but the hunters" just an excuse?

I don't have a legislator (live in DC), but I would if I did. There are some people who are genuinely opposed to gun control here, but they're a small segment of the site.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 11:40 AM on December 17, 2012

Radio host David Pakman sends this: "I just finished convincing Westboro Church to consider NOT picketing the funerals of the victims in Newtown in exchange for some air time. As much as I hate to offer them airtime, if I can keep them away from those funerals, I think it is worth it. here is the video, we are standing by for their confirmation."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:40 AM on December 17, 2012 [5 favorites]

We have a bigger scared paranoid asshole problem than a lot of other places, I guess.

I'm also wondering about the relative size of the gun owning populations in these regions. The entire population of the UK is what, 60 million? I can't imagine the gun owning population was a significant percentage of that total.

Really I just envision a whole bunch of Wacos and Ruby Ridges in the future America where attempts are made at large-scale gun removal. I don't see how to win this.
posted by elizardbits at 11:43 AM on December 17, 2012

Yeah but screw the arseholes, Flunkie. Statistics I've seen in the last few days show they are still a minority.
posted by Jimbob at 11:43 AM on December 17, 2012

Here's hoping Pakman has the lowest ratings he's ever had for that one show that the WBC is on and gets a nice bump in ratings the rest of the time for pulling a pretty awesome move there.
posted by jason_steakums at 11:44 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Excellent. Now we just need some strategically-timed "technical difficulties" involving the accidental broadcast of an hour of showtunes instead of the WBC interview.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:44 AM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

I just finished convincing Westboro Church to consider NOT picketing the funerals of the victims in Newtown in exchange for some air time.

Can't we just trade them for a bag of magic beans? Aren't there any hungry dragons?
posted by elizardbits at 11:45 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Here's a fuller picture of Nancy Lanza from the neighboring county newspaper: Newtown Gunman's Mother Kept Home Life Off Limits, but Told Friends About Her Guns.

According to those who knew her she was a generous person/neighbor, was on good terms with her ex-husband and was an engaged mother.
posted by ericb at 11:46 AM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Here's the blog of Jim Leff (who knew Nancy Lanza and is mentioned in the Litchfield County Times article).
posted by ericb at 11:48 AM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

only to have pointed out by the person interviewing them that we don't have a ~~constitution ...~~ Bill of Rights.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:48 AM on December 17, 2012

Jim Leff? As in, Jim Leff of Chowhound?

*clicks link* *reads*

Well, I'll be damned. Thanks, ericb.
posted by bakerina at 11:50 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

At this point, it's easy and natural to sensationalize and speculate into the happenings of the Lanza household. Adam Lanza was, without a doubt, unstable and Nancy Lanza was, at best, struggling to handle it (a week before the shooting, she reportedly told friends that she was losing her son, saying "it was getting worse" and she was "having trouble reaching him"). If we deem them as doomsday preppers, it becomes a little easier to separate their reality from our own, to make us feel that we know what the danger signs are and to help to help comfort ourselves into thinking that knowing all this could protect our children and ourselves from a similarly horrible event in the future.

Of course, there is some value in warning signs and quite a bit of value in understanding the types of environments that can exacerbate mental illnesses, especially the ones that can turn violent. Still, all of that understanding, speculation and sensationalism has to lead somewhere beyond the comfort of "this could never happen in my home." Hopefully (and probably), that's true, but the fact is that stigmatizing and alienating the homes that it could happen in does not help as much as, say, better access to mental healthcare, better support for the families of the mentally ill and, yes, better gun control undoubtedly could.*

posted by ericb at 11:52 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

"Guns for Toys"...considering the present circumstances, god...

Such buyback programs are often explicitly tied to keeping guns out of the hands of children. That's the reason for the link to toys.
posted by dhartung at 11:59 AM on December 17, 2012

> Can somebody offer a legit explanation why the gun range as repository thing is wrong? Aside from cultural norms, that is.

Slap*Happy's proposal is designed to make hunting as expensive and inconvenient for rural people as possible, while keeping it available as a hobby for rich people like himself. This has absolutely nothing to do with regulating guns or what users can do with them from a point of view of public safety.
posted by nangar at 11:59 AM on December 17, 2012 [6 favorites]

Parents of Newtown Children Who Survived Launch Relief Fund

Feeling the overwhelming need to take action to help their friends and neighbors, a group of Newtown parents has formed the My Sandy Hook Family Fund (www.MySandyHookFamilyFund.com). This group is made up of the parents of the children who survived. They are the classmates, friends, coaches and neighbors of the victims of Friday’s massacre.

The goal of the Family Fund is to provide immediate and continuing support to the 26 families who lost children and family members in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. All net proceeds donated will go to support the families of the victims.

posted by ericb at 12:02 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Friend: Nancy Lanza Was 'Very Devoted' To Her Sons.

From the article:

“She was definitely not a survivalist,” [John] Bergquist said. “Shooting was one of her hobbies. It wasn’t her main hobby. She loved the arts, culture. She loved the finer things in life. She loved to go to Red Sox games, and that’s the Nancy I knew.’’

I think the whole 'prepper' label needs to be looked at more closely.
posted by ericb at 12:09 PM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

so I think the "We did it after Dunblane/Port Arthur/whatever, so why can't you do it" crowd might be underestimating things a bit if they don't take this into account.

I think, for the most part, it's done with at least some understanding of the status quo in the US. The point is that these countries had gun massacres, collectively asked "how do we have fewer gun massacres?" and did not collectively reply "arm teachers!" It is an attempt to suggest that the conversation in the US is institutionally resembles an addiction, or the kind of severe depression where you can't think yourself out of bed.
posted by holgate at 12:10 PM on December 17, 2012 [9 favorites]

AP: Nancy Lanza, Peter Lanza Divorce Documents Reveal Details About Adam Lanza's Parents.
posted by ericb at 12:10 PM on December 17, 2012

I actually think hunting is an easier problem to get around than people who think they need guns for home defense. Hunting is largely done with rifles or shotguns, but the vast majority of crimes are committed with handguns. If you're concerned with mass shootings, I think you need to focus on magazine size; if you're concerned about the day to day events, the problem is handguns. I don't know what the solution to that problem is, since a ban is not politically feasible, but regulating handguns is the place to start.

People who keep a gun for home defense are a lot more likely to be attached their handguns than hunters (even though the best home defense gun is probably still a 12 gauge shotgun) and it's those guns that are being used to commit crimes.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 12:12 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

From Jim Leff's blog above:

A mutual friend was in trouble, and I'd driven up to Newtown to discuss a loan. It wasn't for a ton of money, but more than just a few bucks. We discussed drawing up a letter of agreement, and that I'd hold the title to his little sailboat as collateral. Nancy overheard the discussion, and, unblinkingly, told him she'd just write him a check then and there. While I'm far from the most generous guy in the world, it's not often that I feel stingy. But I learned something from that. I should have just written him the check. She was right.

[...]

I never really befriended Nancy, though we exchanged greetings whenever we crossed paths. What held me back was my impression that she was a little high-strung. But now that I've been filled in by friends about how difficult her troubled son (the shooter) was making things for her, I understand that it wasn't that Nancy was overwrought about the trivialities of everyday life, but that she was handling a very difficult situation with uncommon grace.

[...]

Whenever the press reports on something I'm familiar with or close to, it's painfully obvious how much they get wrong. I've been hearing nonsense from major media all day. The info I received via text message from friends early today was much higher quality than press reporting even hours later.
posted by JHarris at 12:14 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

five fresh fish: "Be a man."

That advertisement (which I first thought was a photoshop, until I visited the Bushmaster website) is capital H Horrible. I literally cannot understand how that can be considered remotely acceptable in a civilized society. Even the most conservative businessman in this country would balk at the thought of that sentiment being associated with his business. The unashamed aggression coupled with a big slathering of misogyny is incomprehensible to me as anything but harsh satire.

(tl;dr: wat)
posted by brokkr at 12:25 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

I understand that it wasn't that Nancy was overwrought about the trivialities of everyday life, but that she was handling a very difficult situation with uncommon grace.

Honestly, it sounds like she was in over her head and either didn't know it or just didn't ask for help. Which is a shame, because she had a lot of financial resources that might have prevented this.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:25 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

StamfordAdvocate:

Nancy Lanza, 52, was recalled as an educated, striking woman and a loving mother who was proud of Adam and his older brother. Friends say she was optimistic about Adam's cloudy mental outlook and was even planning on following him to a college when he eventually got himself together and was accepted somewhere.

... Marsha Moscowitz, a former school bus driver, said Saturday that Adam was very shy, reserved and memorable for being a loner in the hustle and bustle of the daily rides to and from school.
"Not every student sticks out," said Moscowitz, 56. "You know how certain kids stick out? He stuck out because he never really talked."

Unlike his older brother Ryan, 24, who graduated from Quinnipiac University and moved to the New York City area for a job with a major accounting firm, Adam stayed in the family home on Yogananda Street, apparently aimless.

John Bergquist, 37, a Newtown native who was friends with Nancy Lanza, said he would see her about once a week at My Place Pizza and Restaurant in a shopping plaza off Church Hill Road, up the hill from Sandy Hook.

"She was very beautiful, with a great sense of style," said Bergquist, who works at the nearby Dodgington Market and Deli, where he last saw her, while selling her a couple of Powerball tickets for the big drawing in late November.

"She had season's tickets to the Red Sox, being from New Hampshire," said Bergquist. "She'd speak lovingly of both Adam and Ryan; but Adam, he was her life. Every time she would speak of Adam, she said he had his "medical" issues, but she would always lend itself in the positive, about how he was making progress, making friends. She would move with him wherever he went to go to college. I thought he was good to go."

Bergquist said that the last time they spoke, he and Nancy joked about giving him a percentage of a winning Powerball ticket. "She was all into investing and we negotiated beforehand what my cut would have been: $5 million," he recalled.

posted by ericb at 12:27 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

My husband and I are moving in the next month and our new home will have adequate space for a sufficiently large and heavy/bolted gun safe to house our ever-growing gun collection.

Although I still believe that the probability of our home being broken into and our guns stolen is incredibly remote, y'all have persuaded me that it would be best if we keep our guns better secured than they are now. We're already forgoing hundreds of dollars a month of immediate cash income because we're uncomfortable selling our guns to strangers, and I suppose that investing in gun safes is the next logical financial price to pay to adhere to our moral code against letting our guns end up in the wrong hands.

I will discuss this concern with my husband and begin shopping around for gun safes, as well as a couple of those handprint/finger-press combination-lock mini-safe thingies for our nightstands for our personal everyday carry guns.

On a related note, my husband and I have been tossing around various business ideas for what to do with our undeveloped land behind and next to his tire shop. We're already seriously considering the possibility of opening a "prepper" supplies store out front and a rental storage unit facility out back, so I'm going to suggest to him that instead of another generic storage business that we instead consider opening a small indoor gun range / secure gun-storage facility to serve our rural community. The nearest actual range is at least a 30 minute drive away (in the city) so everyone around here does their target practice in their back yards. :(

Based on the gun law reform ideas tossed around in this thread, it sounds like there might be a sharp increase in consumer demand for secure gun storage solutions. More people can afford a small monthly rental fee for a gun locker than could afford (or even find room in their homes for) a gun safe big enough to contain all their hunting rifles and shotguns.

If we did open such a storage facility, a synergistic add-on service could be to facilitate a "responsible" gun market by obtaining a firearms dealer license for consignment sales. For a small fee or commission, we could run background checks for private party sales as well as require that buyers submit proof that they've taken a firearms safety class. Our state currently doesn't have any restrictions on private party sales, but there are many people who share my husband's and my moral compunctions against selling our guns to just anyone. So I think there is potentially a market for a person-to-person gun sales process that is voluntarily more cautious than the law requires.

Now for the part y'all won't like: The sentiments expressed in this thread have made me more afraid that "the gubmint is coming fer my gunz!!!!!" than at any other time in my life, including when I was very politically active and socializing with a lot of hardcore militia members. So my husband and I are probably also going to start stocking up on untraceable guns and large quantities of ammo to store in our shiny new gun safes. :P
posted by Jacqueline at 12:27 PM on December 17, 2012 [6 favorites]

Honestly, it sounds like she was in over her head and either didn't know it or just didn't ask for help.

We do not yet know what support outside of the home she had or sought. In my case I'm not ready to jump to conclusions until we learn more.
posted by ericb at 12:31 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Now for the part y'all won't like:

Honestly, this is a tough thread for any number of reasons and sort of pushing the group-oppositional "because of you I'm gonna go buy some guns" angle in a comment at this point is probably more of a sign that it's time to take a break from the thread than anything.
posted by cortex at 12:34 PM on December 17, 2012 [39 favorites]

Some information about England and Wales for those interested:

In 2011, for England and Wales, the population was around 56 million and the number of legally-held guns was 1.8 million. There were 11,227 offences involving firearms between Apr 2010 and Mar 2011:

By weapon type:

Long-barrelled shotgun = 406
Sawn-off shotgun = 202
Handgun = 3,105
Rifle = 74
Imitation firearm = 1,610
Unidentified firearm = 957
Other firearm = 670
Air weapons = 4,203

By crime type:

Violence against the person:
  Homicide = 60
  Attempted murder/GBH with intent = 757
  Other = 3,317 (1,212 of which involved imitations)
Robbery = 2,965
Burglary = 151
Criminal damage = 3,287 (2,916 of which involved air weapons)
Other = 690

Information from here and here.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 12:34 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

So my husband and I are probably also going to start stocking up on untraceable guns and large quantities of ammo to store in our shiny new gun safes. :P

Best of luck and I hope I never hear about it in the news one day.
posted by mazola at 12:34 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

So my husband and I are probably also going to start stocking up on untraceable guns and large quantities of ammo to store in our shiny new gun safes. :P

While I think it's great that you're looking into investing into gun safes and other safety measures and I wish your business the best of luck, that you think it's entertaining to pour money into larger quantities of ammo and untraceable guns (not even sure what this means to you) makes me sad. The government is not coming for your guns. We, some of us your fellow Americans, wish our country had fewer guns and fewer dead children. I do not think your purchases will make you or America a safer, more free place.
posted by jetlagaddict at 12:35 PM on December 17, 2012 [29 favorites]

Nancy Lanza owned guns for self-defense, her former sister-in-law Marsha Lanza said.

"She never felt threatened, or she would have said something," she explained.

... Dan Holmes, who owns a local landscaping business, said Nancy Lanza was a gun collector, and that she showed off a rifle she had recently purchased.

"She told me she'd go target shooting with her boys pretty often," Holmes said.

D'Ambrose said Lanza owned the guns as a hobby.

"She was very responsible. She transported them safely. It wasn't something she boasted about."

... Police Chief Donald Briggs Jr. told reporters that he knew Nancy.

"She was a great person who would do anything for you, a heart of gold. She was just a real, real nice, nice person," he said, according to the Union Leader newspaper of Manchester.

Nancy Lanza was a giving, quiet, reserved person who grew up on a farm in New Hampshire with three siblings in a self-reliant family, Marsha Lanza said.

"She didn't have to work because my brother-in-law left her very well off, very well off. She was always there for her kids," Marsha Lanza added, referring to Nancy Lanza's financial situation after she and her husband divorced.*

posted by ericb at 12:35 PM on December 17, 2012

So my husband and I are probably also going to start stocking up on untraceable guns and large quantities of ammo to store in our shiny new gun safes. :P

No words.
posted by cairdeas at 12:38 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

The sentiments expressed in this thread have made me more afraid that "the gubmint is coming fer my gunz!!!!!"

Are you seriously afraid that random people on the internet will have more sway with Congress than the NRA?

Do you remember how many bills potentially restricting gun ownership were passed after Virginia Tech?

One. It expanded the federal background check database.

After Columbine? One. Another database expansion (to include sales at gun shows). An associated bill that would have required trigger locks never made it out of the house.
posted by rtha at 12:38 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

Most Back Ban on High-Capacity Clips; Many See Societal Issues in Connecticut Shootings

SOCIETAL PROBLEM? – The public by 52-43 percent sees the atrocity in Connecticut as indicating “broader problems in American society” rather than just the isolated act of a troubled individual. Many fewer saw the shootings last July in Aurora, Colorado, or last year in Tucson, Arizona, as signs of a broader societal problem, 24 and 31 percent, respectively, in polls by the Pew Research Center.

Views were more similar to today’s after the shootings at Virginia Tech in 2007, when the public divided, 46-47 percent in a Pew poll, on whether broader societal problems were at play. But the Connecticut shootings mark the first of these incidents that’s been seen by more than half the public as indicating a broader problem.

Notably, political and ideological differences are muted in this assessment: Half or more of Democrats, independents and Republicans alike see a broader societal problem (51, 52 and 57 percent, respectively). It’s also about half both among liberals and conservatives.

This sentiment can matter in views on gun control: People who see the Connecticut attack as a sign of broader societal problems are 11 points more apt to support stricter gun control than are those who see the crime as an isolated act, 59 vs. 48 percent. There are similar gaps in support for specific gun control measures; banning high-capacity clips, for instance, is favored by 65 percent of those who see a societal problem, vs. 52 percent of those who don’t.

GUN CONTROL – Attitudes on gun control in the past have not shifted sharply in response to heinous gun crimes, and that appears to be the case again, at least thus far. As noted, for example, 54 percent favor stricter gun control in general; it’s been 50 to 52 percent in polls since 2008, and was higher in previous years, peaking at 67 percent in 1999 and 2000.

On specific measures, 52 percent favor banning semi-automatic handguns (it’s been 48 and 55 percent in previous polls) and 59 percent support banning high-capacity clips that carry more than 10 bullets (it was a similar 57 percent in early 2011, after the Tucson shootings). Banning the sale of handguns entirely (except for law enforcement) remains broadly unpopular, with 71 percent opposed, numerically a new high in results since 1999.

Intensity is on the side of supporters of stricter gun control in general – 44 percent of Americans are “strongly” in favor, vs. 32 percent strongly opposed, the widest intensity gap since spring 2007. And on banning high-capacity clips, strong supporters outnumber strong opponents by an 18-point margin, 47 percent vs. 29 percent.

At the same time, the highest intensity is in opposition to banning handguns overall – 56 percent “strongly” opposed, vs. 20 percent strong support.

posted by zombieflanders at 12:44 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Honestly, it sounds like she was in over her head and either didn't know it or just didn't ask for help.

I would bet any amount of money that you are wrong.
posted by Wordwoman at 12:45 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

So my husband and I are probably also going to start stocking up on untraceable guns and large quantities of ammo to store in our shiny new gun safes. :P

Jacqueline, I ask this as an innocent, ignorant Aussie who has no idea what your mental calculations are.

There are two of you. Two. At the very most, you could wield four guns between you, although I imagine that would be a rather uncomfortable and stupid thing to do.

Explain in the simplest terms possible why you need more guns. Why would "stocking up" possibly be a useful thing to do, when it doesn't enhance your ability to protect yourself or whatever you imagine yourself doing, but it does mean there are more guns for, say, a group of others to use against you? Unless you are all hoping to go down Waco style or something...

I feel like you and I are in different universes.
posted by Jimbob at 12:46 PM on December 17, 2012 [29 favorites]

The only question I have for Jacqueline (who reminds me of some friends born and raised in the South) is this, along the lines of the Kantian categorical imperative: would you wish that everybody lived as you do?

Because I simply cannot square the circle here, where extremes of trust and fear smash into each other.
posted by holgate at 12:48 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Folks maybe take the Jacqueline questions to MeMail unless you want this thread to totally become the Jacqueline interview?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:53 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

So my husband and I are probably also going to start stocking up on untraceable guns and large quantities of ammo to store in our shiny new gun safes.

If Nancy Lanza had owned even more guns, none of this would have happened. I mean, think about it.
posted by leopard at 12:53 PM on December 17, 2012 [16 favorites]

There have been a number of explicit and implicit references to "tyranny" in this thread from those who arm themselves as a check on government power. Nobody has made anything resembling a persuasive case that their own arsenal would give them a prayer of stopping the full force of the American law enforcement and military apparatus, but let's leave that aside for now and focus on the hypothetical tyranny itself.

What exactly is the tyranny you folks are trying to guard against? There has been a massive spike in firearms sales since Obama took office, and as best as I can tell, his tyrannical use of state power has resulted in such socialist abuses as insurance legislation that directs state resources to private insurance companies, putting some car companies into receivership and then divesting of them after they've become healthy, and a request (not yet granted) that those earning more than $250k pay 3.6% more in taxes on any income over that amount.

So uh... Could someone explain where the tyranny is that I'm not seeing?
posted by tonycpsu at 12:53 PM on December 17, 2012 [9 favorites]

these countries had gun massacres, collectively asked "how do we have fewer gun massacres?" and did not collectively reply "arm teachers!"

I'm guessing that arming teachers would be an easy way for angry teenagers to get hold of weapons. You surely wouldn't want every frail old librarian packing heat, would you? Or do you only arm the fit / young / male / martial artist teachers? And then have mandatory quotas for such teachers in every school? Do the teachers carry the weapons on their person, where they are more easily taken? Or are they in a centralised school safe where they're harder to access in cases of emergency? If they're carried on the person, are they kept loaded? You'd hope not, but if not what use would they be?

I can see that "arm teachers!" has obvious appeal for some, but the practical logistics of how this would work in reality are not so simple.
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:56 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

Also are you now going to screen teachers for their ability to work peacefully in a high-pressure environment full of combative, hormone-driven teenagers while constantly carrying a loaded firearm? Because that's going to change the interview process just a tad, and, I'd wager, require firing more than a few current employees.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:00 PM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

Arguments put forth by my fellow MeFites have successfully changed my mind on several issues over the years, so my personal experience with y'all has probably skewed my perception of how effectively your persuasiveness could be converted into actual political clout. ;)

But seriously, it does seem like the MetaFilter "hive mind" is a relatively accurate leading indicator of the direction of future social, political, and economic change.
posted by Jacqueline at 1:01 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

tonycpsu, the tyranny is fairly obviously in the eye of the beholder. What we are defending here is the right to shoot the people you vehemently disagree with; the right to political assassination. We are standing up for the guys who shot MLK, Medgar Evers, JFK, even Reagan. There will be another Giffords, another Bob Kennedy, another Harvey Milk, scores of abortion doctors will be killed.
posted by brokkr at 1:01 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Focus on the Family's James Dobson Blames Sandy Hook Shooting on Gay Marriage, Abortion

Our country really does seem in complete disarray. I'm not talking politically, I'm not talking about the result of the November sixth election; I am saying that something has gone wrong in America and that we have turned our back on God.

I mean millions of people have decided that God doesn't exist, or he's irrelevant to me and we have killed fifty-four million babies and the institution of marriage is right on the verge of a complete redefinition. Believe me, that is going to have consequences too.

And a lot of these things are happening around us, and somebody is going to get mad at me for saying what I am about to say right now, but I am going to give you my honest opinion: I think we have turned our back on the Scripture and on God Almighty and I think he has allowed judgment to fall upon us. I think that's what's going on.

posted by ericb at 1:05 PM on December 17, 2012

I feel like I'm in a different universe and I'm within 30 minutes of the location on Jacqueline's profile page. Hope there's room in that shiny gun safe for self awareness, should you ever come across it!
posted by sumdim at 1:06 PM on December 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

Also are you now going to screen teachers for their ability to work peacefully in a high-pressure environment full of combative, hormone-driven teenagers while constantly carrying a loaded firearm?

I don't even want to dignify the "arm teachers" idiocy by talking about it, but has everyone forgotten that TEACHERS are humans too, that plenty of them are mentally messed up in their own ways, that they assault students all the freaking time as it is? Who here has never seen a teacher have a mental meltdown in class? I saw it more than once, and I went to a very nice, small, upper middle class high school. I would never in a bajillion years send any child of mine alone into a place where they would be "watched over" by adults armed with guns.
posted by cairdeas at 1:06 PM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

Does James Dobson think that the reason the UK and so forth don't have monthly massacres is because they haven't "turned their backs on God"?
posted by Flunkie at 1:07 PM on December 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

I got a morbid chuckle out of the idea that between the US and China (where a school attack on Dec. 14 resulted in no deaths because the attacker was using a knife), we're the ones who have turned our backs on God. Especially on abortion!
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:10 PM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

So uh... Could someone explain where the tyranny is that I'm not seeing?

Through a shared sporting interest, I ended up facebook 'friends' with an American who posts all the typical everyday kinds of stuff - here's a cool song, or a great recipe for pork roast or photos of the kids at mini baseball league or whatever - but interspersed with that are all these paranoid, crazy-arse theories about how all governments, by definition, are mafia-like standover organisations whose sole purpose is to extort money from civilians & reduce their freedoms. He links to blogs & articles full of the same rhetoric, and these posts are enthusiastically 'liked' by friends & family.

It's a bit like hardcore Marxist rhetoric, whereby all government is really just the expression & instrument of the will of the capitalist class, only now the government is just a murderous criminal organisation acting in its own right, not on behalf of any 3rd party or class. Every action or policy of the government (or governments, if you include also the individual states) is seen through this prism:

Cop brings down felon? Murderous state goons; there's no end to their violence! Drone strikes in Pakistan? More fuel for the fire. Tax changes? Moar money for gubmint weapons to shore up their power! New pedestrian crossing near the shopping mall? They're just training the sheeple to be subservient!

What's suprising & frightening is how it comes from somebody who otherwise seems to be such a normal suburban dad, cooking BBQ, driving the kids around in a people mover SUV, mowing the lawn on a ride-on mower & celebrating Thanksgiving.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:10 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Could someone explain where the tyranny is that I'm not seeing?

Well, look. They have strict gun control in Britain, and now they can't even have representatives in Congress or vote for President!
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 1:11 PM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

But seriously, it does seem like the MetaFilter "hive mind" is a relatively accurate leading indicator of the direction of future social, political, and economic change.

Seriously, it really doesn't. Go look at the Virginia Tech thread and then look at how many gun control measures have been passed since then.
posted by rtha at 1:12 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

Obama Responds To Note On Sandy Hook High School Whiteboard.
posted by ericb at 1:13 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

There have been a number of explicit and implicit references to "tyranny" in this thread from those who arm themselves as a check on government power.

I don't know what it says about me that if you replace such references to "tyranny" with "zombie apocalypse," I would consider it a more reasonable explanation for arming oneself. I mean, if you're going to go with a "just in case!" scenario, those guns would do you more good against the ravening zombie hordes than the full might of US law enforcement and the military industrial complex.

Short of preparing for the apocalypse or running your own militia (and really, what's the pressing threat that necessitates running your own militia?), what is the purpose of a stockpile of guns? I understand that to many, gun ownership/shooting is a hobby of the sort that involves a certain amount of collecting way more guns than one has an actual, practical use for. Why should the maintenance of this hobby involving deadly weapons be placed over the safety of the public?
posted by yasaman at 1:13 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

Adam Lanza Took College Courses As A Teen

The gunman who killed 26 children and adults in an elementary school took college classes when he was only 16, a spokesman for Western Connecticut State University said Monday.

Paul Steinmetz, spokesman for the Danbury school, confirmed that Adam Lanza earned a 3.26 grade point average while a student there. He dropped out of a German language class and withdrew from a computer science class, but earned an A in a computer class, A-minus in American history and B in macroeconomics.

He participated when called on by the teacher in his evening course on introductory German, according to Dot Stasny, who was one of about a dozen other students in the class in the spring of 2009. She said she and a classmate once invited him out to a bar but he declined, saying he was only 17.

"We attributed him being quiet to him being so much younger than the rest of us," said Stasny, 30. "I assumed he was this super smart kid who was just doing extra course work."

Stasny said she saw him later when he came in as a customer at a video game store where she was working. She said she shared a laugh with him about how difficult the German class was. She told him she failed one of the exams, and he mentioned he got a D.

"I just remember him as a nice, quiet kid," she said.

posted by ericb at 1:16 PM on December 17, 2012

jessamyn: I think a good-faith conversation about a way of seeing the world that extends beyond a single person has the potential to be more constructive than a back and forth of "well, tough" here.

I mean, I've had it explained to me, often with a different gun for each part of the explanation: this is for this, this is for that, this is for the other. I've read that Harper's piece on CCWs and the heightened sensibility of spending one's public moments in Condition Yellow. It coheres on a personal and in-group level. But I then try to extrapolate it into broad society, and it shatters.

Someone linked today to an interview by David Chase on the ending of The Sopranos, and the question of what happened when the screen cuts to black; to me, it was always indicative of Tony never being able to live without The Fear, because he had accepted it as his way of living.

In that context, I don't think responses of "where is this tyranny?" and "have you noticed that the government has tanks?" (a curious pair, those) engage successfully with The Fear. But I don't know what kind of proposition does engage with it. Is The Fear to be embraced and accepted and addressed through militia discipline, because it's naive to think otherwise? Is there something that can be done to make it go away?
posted by holgate at 1:26 PM on December 17, 2012

JetBlue flies family letters to funeral of 6-year-old Newtown victim.
posted by ericb at 1:26 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Oh, and PS about my facebook friend: in all other respects he seems to be a likeable guy with a lot of Liberal values: anti homophobic, anti racist, pro gay marriage, pro choice, against the wars on terror & drugs, and so on. So it's not as if he's an extreme right winger; it's just the existence of government itself that he hates. I suppose this is a Randian / Libertarian streak in American politics that doesn't seem to have much sway in other countries; probably an extremist extension of the standard "small government" talk.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:27 PM on December 17, 2012

Soledad O'Brien To Gun Advocate John Lott: 'Your Position Boggles My Mind' (VIDEO).
posted by ericb at 1:28 PM on December 17, 2012

Just, could we please stop the 'We should arm the teachers" jokes? They're not funny. It's trolling of the first order.
posted by From Bklyn at 1:28 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Harold S. Koplewicz, MD and President, Child Mind Institute -- After Newtown: Why Amateur Diagnoses Are Dangerous.
posted by ericb at 1:30 PM on December 17, 2012

But seriously, it does seem like the MetaFilter "hive mind" is a relatively accurate leading indicator of the direction of future social, political, and economic change.

Is this an implication that you see the country being taken over by latte-sipping tote-bag-carrying nanny-state liberals in the near future? If so, I have excellent news for you!

Both houses of congress are stacked in favor of rural and red state interests. The House of Representatives is apportioned roughly equally, but because liberals tend to be clustered in smaller, more densely-packed areas, their political impact is much easier to dilute with with political gerrymandering (e.g. there were more votes for Ds than Rs in PA for the 2012 house election, yet the split is 13R/5D. Similar breakdowns for OH, VA, and MI.) Even if Democrats take over a bunch of state houses when the next census comes out in 2020, they won't be able to get the bang for the buck that Republicans can because of this geographic distribution problem.

In the Senate, the story's much simpler. Less populous red states get the same number of senators as blue states. Yeah, Texas gets underrepresented too, but what conservative wouldn't trade away some of Texas's clout to neutralize those hippies in California? Georgia's the next red state by population (9th overall) and they get as much representation as New York (2nd). North Carolina (10th) gets the same voice as Illinois (5th). And on and on. Combined with a filibuster that protects minority rights, and you have a permanent, inescapable fact of politics: the Senate is where all radical change goes to die.

So, tell me, how do you see the rapid rise of socialism, liberalism, and economic redistribution playing out?
posted by tonycpsu at 1:35 PM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

What exactly is the tyranny you folks are trying to guard against?

Even if there was tyranny, how would a few rifles stop it?

Also, the weapons that the government military possesses don't impose tyranny, tyrants impose tyranny.

We've had the Second Amendment for centuries but we still had slavery and Jim Crow laws, what good did guns do in protecting people's basic rights?

Tyranny is just part of human nature, we should be sad about it but only foolish liberals would think that you could do anything about it by buying a few guns. It just makes you feel better about yourself, it's not practical.
posted by leopard at 1:36 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

what is the purpose of a stockpile of guns?

I have several hunting guns - shotguns, and rifles in a few different sizes and calibers. It's easier to have a scoped rifle for long range hunting and one with open sights for hunting brush, for example. Plus, my wife has a few guns, too.

I don't know about other people, but look - I've got 5 axes. A splitting maul, a double bit chopping axe, a single bit branching axe - and so on. I've got dozens of knives. Folding pocketknife, bread knives, steak knives, leatherman, box knives, etc. 3 different types of drills, probably 10 different saws.

Tools specialized for a particular kind of job make that job easier.

And some people collect them - my dad in his retirement has been picking up flintlocks and other antique long guns. My (late) father in law had a bunch of 18th century handguns he collected over the years. They aren't stockpiling for Armageddon - they just like the history.

Point is, not everyone with a bunch of guns is a government hating nutter. There are some good, legitimate reasons for doing it.

But, yeah, the nutters aren't exactly uncommon, either.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 1:36 PM on December 17, 2012 [8 favorites]

Pogo_Fuzzybutt, I understand owning multiple guns for hunting. That's a case where different guns serve different purposes, and the owners (presumably) actually use them for those intended purposes. That's why I specified "actual, practical" use later in my comment. Having multiple guns for hunting is just as understandable as having multiple knives for cooking, and no one calls their kitchen knifeblock a "stockpile" of knives.

I'm wondering what the purpose of the sort of stockpile Jacqueline suggests is, or what the utility is in collecting modern, non-hunting related guns, beyond that of "hobby." When your hobby involves deadly weapons often used in deadly ways (I'm using the general you, here), it seems eminently reasonable to suggest the hobbyists take some responsibility for the potential and actual societal costs of their hobby. The fact that there's so much opposition to that is just depressing and baffling to me.
posted by yasaman at 2:12 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

So...I'm honestly trying to understand...there's different types of animals to hunt, so different guns there...and besides "fun" at shooting ranges and targets, what "job" do different types of guns, say, handguns need to make easier? Cause killing humans is all I can figure.
posted by agregoli at 2:13 PM on December 17, 2012

I don't have anything to add but this discussion is interesting and the post is off the front page so I'm just adding it to Recent Activity. Thanks for keeping it civil and interesting everybody.
posted by DynamiteToast at 2:53 PM on December 17, 2012

At the time that the legislation passed [in Australia], was it an actual popular opinion held by a very vocal portion of the population that the citizenry needed guns?

The thing about Australia that makes it difficult to compare to the USA regarding gun laws is that we have always had some form of gun control as we are a nation born of convicts.

Gun control is a state issue in Australia and most states have always had some form of licencing of gun owners, if not the guns themselves.

The Port Aurthur killings in 1996 stimulated overwhelming national support (85%) for greater gun control and a limitation on the types of guns one is allowed to own (no automatics or semi-automatics etc). The states readily came on board allowing the federal government to quickly implement stricter regulations. The only groups against greater controls appeared to be sporting shooters and farmers. Over time they were mostly won over by the sensible amongst their own cohort.

But then there are the 'truthers' who believe that the Port Arthur killings were actually done by the government itself to gain support for gun control. Fortunately that crap has died down in recent years although there is plenty of shite on the internet about it.

There is a Shooters & Fishers Party' in politics, a group who have been able to be elected to state seats with a tiny number of direct votes due to our preferential voting system. Foruntately, their focus these days appears to be about access to public lands for fishing and hunting.

-----------

Here's how Australian gun laws look from my perspective as a resident of NSW.

I live on a farm and we have a gun. To obtain a legal entitlement to own a gun I must apply for a licence and have a 'genuine reason' to own one. The type of gun I am allowed to own is restricted to the relevance of my 'genuine reason'. Self-defence and defence of property is not a genuine reason (except for the security industry). See this table (pdf) for a breakdown of licence categories and genuine reasons.

If I am applying for a licence for the first time, I must undertake a training course and my licence (primary producer) only permits me to shoot on my property and immediately adjoining properties. Should I wish to, say, go hunting on another persons property with their permission I would have to get an extension to my licence.

After licencing, I need a 'Permit to Acquire a Firearm' if I want a gun of my own. Once I have that I can purchase a firearm. That purchase must be witnessed by a registered firearms dealer (or a police officer if a registered dealer is more than 100km away). The serial number of the gun is registered under my licence.

That gun must be kept in a gun safe separate from the ammunition. Unlicenced people are not permitted access to the gun safe. Each year the police check visit our property and check on the gun storage.

None of these hoops seem like an imposition. Generally, Australians see gun ownership as a privilege, not a right.
posted by Kerasia at 2:56 PM on December 17, 2012 [14 favorites]

You know, we can discuss gun control here, and it is a good discussion and a necessary one, but I cannot help but look at the bigger picture which is it just seems that slowly but surely the fabric of American society is unravelling. Maybe you have to be my age to really notice it. More gun tragedies are simply a symptom. An unnerving symptom.

Not to change the subject but has there been any mention of what is to be done for the surviving children especially the ones that lost friends and classmates? Obviously they won't be sent back to that school...
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 3:15 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Self-defence and defence of property is not a genuine reason

I hate how "defending" and "self defense" get tossed around.
It is impossible to defend one's self with a firearm. It is not a sword or club, that can be used to deflect an assailant's blows - it is not a shield, that can absorb and dissipate an attack - it isn't even a shovel, e-tool or mattock that can be used to construct a fortification.

A firearm is a tool for projecting bits of metal at high velocity. This can be for hunting, target shooting, or combat. The idea of "defensive" use of a firearm is, to me, weird. The proper use of a firearm when used on a person is to shoot until that person is no longer able or willing to continue an attack. This use is inherently not "defensive." Occasionally, the threat of use is enough to dissuade potential attackers, but again, it the offensive potential of the weapon that makes the threat credible. Nobody is scared of a shield.

The same features that make a firearm good for combat, unsurprisingly, make them most effective at inflicting injury. Light weight, compact size, large capacity, accuracy, ease of loading and operation - all of these are found in firearms of "self-defense," and firearms of combat, because the requirements for each are the same, because they are the same thing.

So when people talk about "needing a firearm for self-defense," I mentally substitute "needing a firearm for combat."

This is not to reflect on you, Kerasia, your phrasing provided a convenient jumping off point. Thanks, all, for writing about British, Canadian and Australian gun laws. I also dislike how many Americans seem to think we're the only country with a frontier history and a rural population.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:16 PM on December 17, 2012 [20 favorites]

St. Alia of the Bunnies: "it just seems that slowly but surely the fabric of American society is unravelling"

Could share some specific data points that led you to this conclusion?
posted by tonycpsu at 3:23 PM on December 17, 2012

but I cannot help but look at the bigger picture which is it just seems that slowly but surely the fabric of American society is unravelling.

This is a very vague statement.
posted by agregoli at 3:23 PM on December 17, 2012

Things are always unraveling. What did it feel like to live through the social changes of the 60s, the World Wars, the crash of the stock market and the Great Depression...the fall of Rome? This is a symptom of the history of human kind. That is the biggest picture; no catastrophising about American society required.
posted by mimo at 3:25 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

my dad in his retirement has been picking up flintlocks and other antique long guns.

This is an interesting point. Earlier in the thread I discussed how you need a license to own a firearm in Massachusetts, but that's not necessarily true with regard to certain antique weapons, depending upon the year a firearm was manufactured or the type of ammunition it fires.

Also, someone mentioned tasers. In Massachusetts, tasers are illegal.

I'm not an expert on other states' laws, so I always decline to address the common perception that Massachusetts is "stricter" on guns and/or weapons than any other state. I'm familiar with certain aspects of gun law in both California and Rhode Island that seem strict compared to Massachusetts. But within our small state, if you think about it, it's a really interesting socio-legal dynamic. Most people just know that you need a license to own a gun...and generally speaking, that's true. But most people don't know that (1) you also need a license to own pepper spray, (2) you may not need a license to own certain older types of firearms, and (3) you can't buy a taser no matter what.
posted by cribcage at 3:25 PM on December 17, 2012

The thing about Australia that makes it difficult to compare to the USA regarding gun laws is that we have always had some form of gun control as we are a nation born of convicts.

More than that, the American right to bear arms was drafted in the wake of a popular revolution against British rule. In Australia's case, the Constitution was drafted when England decided unilaterally to cede power to an Australian government.

Not having been required to wage armed militia-style war for freedom means there's nothing in the national psyche about potentially ever having to do so 'again'.

Funnily enough, even though the gunslinging outlaw with an iron bucket on his head - Ned Kelly - is a kind of national hero with almost mythological status, nobody seems hell bent on following his example & taking on the government forces. He was more like a martyr representing the interests of the downtrodden of the time, and his demise probably pushed various Jesus-loving buttons among his poorer, ex-convict Irish Catholic kind.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:34 PM on December 17, 2012

I've been hearing the unraveling thing off and on with people calling into NPR today. It may or may not be true, but I've heard the massacre linked with abortion, gay marriage, and o' course Huckabee's no God in schools. I've heard culture of death.

And this has been from my NPR consumption, so I guess what I'm saying is, God fucking help us. If that is the response, defensiveness when it comes to gun control measures and anti-abortion and anti gay marriage, God fucking help us.

I heard the gay marriage thing from somebody I know on Saturday; thought it was just his wackadoodle wrongness. But I guess it is a Thing.

God fucking help us.
posted by angrycat at 3:41 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Ok...but we're not really talking about the Alaskan bush, are we, in most cases?
posted by agregoli at 3:42 PM on December 17, 2012

Not to change the subject but has there been any mention of what is to be done for the surviving children especially the ones that lost friends and classmates?

Yes there has been a ton of mention. They are going to a school in another town that has made accommodations for them. They have grief counselors though I don't know to what extent. The church in the town has been open 24 hours.

I mean do you think people forgot about them, because of all the unraveling of society?
posted by sweetkid at 3:57 PM on December 17, 2012

(St. Alia, I don't want to imply that you share in the really outlier responses -- gay marriage, abortion, and so forth. It's just that those are things that I've heard cited as evidence for an unraveling of society that led to the massacre.)
posted by angrycat at 4:02 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

they tend to be forgotten in these debates

They don't, really (even though there aren't comparatively many of them, fewer Alaskans than San Franciscans) because they basically set the bar for everybody else -- often very explicitly, given the way that DC's position as a Congressional fiefdom has been used by legislators and the NRA. Australians live in the outback; Canadians live in the northern wilderness; one difference is that the wide open spaces of those countries don't carry equal representation on a national level.

But all of this goes back to my point upthread, which is that the one-size-fits-all model increasingly pushed by those representing commercial interests does not cohere within a diverse continent-spanning nation-state. And maybe that is an unravelling of sorts, in terms of the capacity to devolve legislative authority in the US.
posted by holgate at 4:06 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

I hate how "defending" and "self defense" get tossed around.
I agree, tmotat. That lazy language hides irrationality.

The actual wording in NSW regarding 'genuine reasons' states:

Personal protection or the protection of another person does not constitute a genuine reason for possession and use of a firearm. Additionally, the protection of property does not constitute a genuine reason for possession and use of a firearm, other than for the genuine reason of Business Security Industry.

Not having been required to wage armed militia-style war for freedom means there's nothing in the national psyche about potentially ever having to do so 'again'.

I think this is incredibly relevant. Australia is one of the few modern nations to become a democracy without fighting a war over it. We've not had a civil war (discounting our war against the Aborigines) and the only time our government turned against its citizens (the Eureka Stockade), it resulted quickly in greater rights and freedoms for the citizenry.

As an outsider it appears that there is a intricate web of fears and mistrust inherent in the American attraction to weapons due to the complex history of the nation. Unraveling that web to gain greater control over guns in the community will take a great amount of awareness and introspection and a willingness to lean into the fear. My heart goes out to you all.
posted by Kerasia at 4:13 PM on December 17, 2012

I skimmed the (horrifying) list of school massacres in Wikipedia (they have separate lists for workplace massacres and massacres that take place in other places). The vast majority of the ones in the U.S. took place in urban or suburban areas, where law enforcement is minutes away and no one has been killed by grizzlies in...possibly ever.

I don't blame Alaskan subsistence folks if they object to a one-size-fits-all rule for gun ownership.

But why should their "size" be the one everyone else to wear, and damn the consequences?
posted by rtha at 4:14 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

spitbull, sad to say it, but this is essentially Oakland.
posted by waitangi at 4:16 PM on December 17, 2012

This thread made me realise I'm perfectly comfortable with people like Pogo_Fuzzybutt owning guns for legitimate reasons. He comes across as fully invested in being responsible with his guns, and has articulated why he needs different types for different reasons (different game, range, etc).

Other people in this thread are terrifying, especially where they think they're shining examples.
posted by MattWPBS at 4:18 PM on December 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

Not having been required to wage armed militia-style war for freedom means there's nothing in the national psyche about potentially ever having to do so 'again'.

Followed by a recent, brutal civil war. There are daughters of civil war soldiers alive today.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:22 PM on December 17, 2012

How is collecting firearms any more of a "LEGIT HOBBY" than collecting biological warfare agents?
posted by HotToddy at 4:23 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

yasaman : I'm wondering what the purpose of the sort of stockpile Jacqueline suggests is, or what the utility is in collecting modern, non-hunting related guns, beyond that of "hobby."

As a simple practical matter - "Good" guns, maintained properly, don't depreciate in value - Quite the opposite. So simply as an investment, they beat inflation, and by a better margin than quite a lot of other options.

The fact that there's so much opposition to that is just depressing and baffling to me.

Some of us value our constitutional rights. YMMV.

MattWPBS : Other people in this thread are terrifying, especially where they think they're shining examples.

Guns shouldn't make you feel warm and fuzzy. They should scare you, at least enough to respect them as very, very dangerous tools.

As the owner, you need to always keep in mind where you point them. Even with the safety on (which no one in their right mind trusts). Even "unloaded" (which everyone knows not to assume). Even in 20 pieces spread across your workbench for a thorough cleaning.

And as an assailant of someone with a gun - Hey, I'd much, much rather you pee yourself and run away, than make me shoot you. Simple as that.
posted by pla at 4:25 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Pro-gun Democrats shift their stance after massacre in Newtown

Manchin, Warner change stances on gun rights in wake of Newtown shootings

Joe Scarborough: Newtown Shooting Made 'Ideologies Of My Past' On Guns Irrelevant
posted by dhartung at 4:26 PM on December 17, 2012 [6 favorites]

Why can't we change our minds about some things post-ratification of the Constitution? What is so fricking holy about it? I mean, Prohibition came and went, the precious Constitution survived.
posted by angrycat at 4:28 PM on December 17, 2012 [8 favorites]

Why can't we change our minds about some things post-ratification of the Constitution? What is so fricking holy about it? I mean, Prohibition came and went, the precious Constitution survived.

Well, we can, but until one of Messrs. Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, or Kennedy decides to spend more time with his family or meets his maker, it's probably going to require a constitutional amendment, and those are difficult, especially the "37 out of 50 states" part.

IANAConstitutionalL, but Akhil Amar is, and he seems to think that an approach involving the 9th and 14th Amendments might have a chance of succeeding where challenges of the 2nd have failed.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:34 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

So, on reading the Wikipedia page for the shooting, I see they listed the other guns Lanza didn't take with him.

A lever action Henry
and a bolt action .30 Enfield.

Those are both nice guns and were used in war because of their stopping power, accuracy and reliability.

But Lanza left both of those at home in favor of what ? A semi-automatic .223 Bushmaster.

Things would have worked out very differently if he was stuck using the bolt action...
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 4:36 PM on December 17, 2012 [9 favorites]

pla: As the owner, you need to always keep in mind where you point them. Even with the safety on (which no one in their right mind trusts). Even "unloaded" (which everyone knows not to assume). Even in 20 pieces spread across your workbench for a thorough cleaning.

And yet "everyone" does not know these things nor abide by good, uh, gun hygiene, and it's not just careless or stupid people that get killed that way, it's their innocent children or their neighbors, and in large numbers, ever year. So let's stop with the 'every gun owner is a responsible gun owner' implications....

And as an assailant of someone with a gun - Hey, I'd much, much rather you pee yourself and run away, than make me shoot you. Simple as that.

Textbook puerile posturing where the fantasy is, in an imaginary dream scenario of complete dominance, the possession of a gun infantilizes others so they revert to wetting their pants. Basically reveals daddy issues IMHO.
posted by Rumple at 4:41 PM on December 17, 2012 [12 favorites]

It seems like we could just start in a bunch of small ways, like funding buyback programs (note that they had to ask the donor who funded this for more money because it was so overwhelmingly successful and still ran out) for people who do want to turn in their weapons instead of sell them.
posted by marylynn at 4:43 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Its a small (and very kind) thing, but Project Linus has pledged to give each child who survived the attack a security blanket. They accept donations of sewing and quilting supplies and are a nationwide organization.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:48 PM on December 17, 2012 [9 favorites]

Obviously they won't be sent back to that school...

Neighboring town, Monroe, has been refitting and renovating a middle school in their town for the Newtown kids and teachers. The Governor has cut the red-tape. Contractors and other professionals have been providing their services and materials pro bono these past few days.

The school will be open sometime in the next few days.

Sandy Hook students to head to Monroe.
posted by ericb at 4:48 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Pla:Guns shouldn't make you feel warm and fuzzy. They should scare you, at least enough to respect them as very, very dangerous tools.

As the owner, you need to always keep in mind where you point them. Even with the safety on (which no one in their right mind trusts). Even "unloaded" (which everyone knows not to assume). Even in 20 pieces spread across your workbench for a thorough cleaning.

And as an assailant of someone with a gun - Hey, I'd much, much rather you pee yourself and run away, than make me shoot you. Simple as that.

I think you misunderstand. That sort of responsible attitude in the first two paragraphs is what makes me feel it's okay for some people to have guns (less so the gun slinger fantasy part you followed with). Compare that with some of the dodgier/careless practices other people have posted further up the thread, and the way they talk about them as if they're the cautious approach you're outlining. That's scary.
posted by MattWPBS at 4:50 PM on December 17, 2012

Textbook puerile posturing where the fantasy is, in an imaginary dream scenario of complete dominance, the possession of a gun infantilizes others so they revert to wetting their pants.

I have to say, as an aficionado of film including early Westerns, I do not see this framing of gun-related conflicts until the 1980s. John Wayne's adversaries often back off, but they don't flee in a puddle of piss, they back off slowly and retain an adult recognition of the disparity in determination as much as firepower. Frequently, they even vow to return when they can correct this disparity.

Granted, all fiction, but fiction records our collective ideology. When did it go from John Wayne to, I dunno, John Rambo? (A somewhat rhetorical question.) And why?
posted by dhartung at 4:50 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

its a small (and very kind) thing, but Project Linus has pledged to give each child who survived the attack a security blanket. They accept donations of sewing and quilting supplies and are a nationwide organization.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:48 PM on December 17 [2 favorites −] Favorite added! [!]

Ah, that is the type of thing I was asking about. Thanks.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 4:51 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Could share some specific data points that led you to this conclusion?

unemployment is still high, foreclosures continue at high rates, wages continue to stagnate, a drive through many midwestern cities and suburbs will show you an increasing number of abandoned houses and businesses, cities and schools find it increasingly hard to balance their budgets and provide basic services, a good part of the population seems willing to isolate itself in electronic and gated communities, so unconcerned with the general welfare that they don't want to pay taxes and often can't be bothered to vote ...

then of course, you have an increasing amount of young men who think it's a good idea to just go off and shoot a bunch of people

things have been unraveling for a long time and continue to unravel

that's how things look to me
posted by pyramid termite at 4:52 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

My concern about increased gun control is:

How big of a stick are they going to hit people with for having guns they're suddenly not supposed to have anymore? How many people are they willing to send to jail? Don't we have enough people in fucking jail already?

The solution, in my opinion, is not to enact further laws, but to institute a very generous buyback program to minimize the number of guns kicking around. Imagine if people were taking old guns in to be melted down the way they're bringing in copper right now.
posted by dunkadunc at 4:54 PM on December 17, 2012

The solution, in my opinion, is not to enact further laws, but to institute a very generous buyback program to minimize the number of guns kicking around. Imagine if people were taking old guns in to be melted down the way they're bringing in copper right now.

That's exactly what has worked elsewhere, very successfully, and I don't understand why it's regarded as impossible in the United States.

Give people 18 months to bring whatever no-longer legal weapons they have into their local police station, and they'll be paid market rates for them, straight-up, no questions asked.

Give people, say, another 18 months of amnesty where the weapons can still be turned in, or where if you are caught with them they are seized, with no other punitive action.

We're not talking raiding people's homes, here.
posted by Jimbob at 4:58 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

You don't even need to have time limits. People are so hard up, they'll bring in guns anyway.
posted by dunkadunc at 5:00 PM on December 17, 2012

How big of a stick are they going to hit people with for having guns they're suddenly not supposed to have anymore? How many people are they willing to send to jail? Don't we have enough people in fucking jail already?

If you've got them, you've got them; you can't use them, you can't sell them, but you get cash if you turn them in. A lot of people will comply, and there's your improvement.
posted by Sys Rq at 5:00 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Joey Michaels, your Linus link takes me back to the top of the post for some reason
posted by angrycat at 5:01 PM on December 17, 2012

But American citizens do live in places like the Alaskan bush, and they tend to be forgotten in these debates where people get all "why would you ever need a gun?"

Okay, spitbull? Go check a map - because we are not talking about the Alaskan bush. Newtown is not in the Alaskan Bush. Newtown is in Fairfield county, Connecticut, the richest god-damn county in the richest god-damn state in the country.

I had a grandfather who was an occasional hunter. And even he did not have a problem with the kind of gun regulations we're calling for here.

We are not talking about restricting subsistence hunters in the Alaskan bush. We are simply pointing out that the other 49 states are not like the Alaskan bush, so it does not make sense to treat them like the Alaskan bush. The one and only time I have ever seen anyone shoot an animal in Connecticut - the same state where this took place - it wasn't a bear, it was a snapping turtle that was the size of a vinyl LP, and the shooter - my father - didn't need a semi-automatic, he just used a simple pistol.

So drop the crap about how people in Connecticut need unfettered access to guns because there are bears in Alaska because that makes no god-damn sense.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:02 PM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

St Alia: posted just upthread, not sure if it's what you're looking for (as it's for the families of the victims and not the kids dealing with this aftermath, per say, but just in case)...

Parents of Newtown Children Who Survived Launch Relief Fund

Feeling the overwhelming need to take action to help their friends and neighbors, a group of Newtown parents has formed the My Sandy Hook Family Fund (www.MySandyHookFamilyFund.com). This group is made up of the parents of the children who survived. They are the classmates, friends, coaches and neighbors of the victims of Friday’s massacre.

The goal of the Family Fund is to provide immediate and continuing support to the 26 families who lost children and family members in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. All net proceeds donated will go to support the families of the victims.

posted by ericb at 12:02 PM on December 17

Also, in searching for that link, I realized ericb has posted excellent up to date information and articles all throughout this thread. I really appreciate that.
posted by youandiandaflame at 5:03 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

things have been unraveling for a long time and continue to unravel

that's how things look to me

You realize Socrates, and likely members of every generation since, said pretty much those exact words, right?

Do you feel that despite all of them being wrong you are right?
posted by Cosine at 5:05 PM on December 17, 2012 [6 favorites]

> Why can't we change our minds about some things post-ratification of the Constitution? What is so fricking holy about it? I mean, Prohibition came and went, the precious Constitution survived.

angrycat, the 2nd amendment is the most conveniently morphed piece of the US Constitutional scripture there is. The militia thing has never been more doable, either, with a little Twitter and Facebook initiative, but these days you can bail the neighbours up at gun point the moment they step over the line. You can wear a concealed gun to the theatre, shoot first, ask questions later. ... in it's current day non-militia application(s) it's unrecognisable, almost like a wild card.
posted by de at 5:05 PM on December 17, 2012

Hell, let's actually talk about the fantasy part.

Pla, when you say:

And as an assailant of someone with a gun - Hey, I'd much, much rather you pee yourself and run away, than make me shoot you. Simple as that.

What sort of situation are you imagining? If you're getting attacked, how does this end up with you getting a chance to draw your gun, and sight it on your attacker?

If we're talking about a close quarters physically violent assault, I can't see it being something where they're going to back off enough to allow you to get your weapon out. If we're talking about someone else with a gun at range, I can't see them allowing you to draw your gun rather than shoot you when you go for it.

Talk me through what you see happening.
posted by MattWPBS at 5:06 PM on December 17, 2012

We are simply pointing out that the other 49 states are not like the Alaskan bush

actually, a good many of them are, in part - and have subsistence hunters, including native americans - and bears, too
posted by pyramid termite at 5:07 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

the richest god-damn county in the richest god-damn state in the country.

I know people are upset and angry but this is really not helping people find common ground and it would be great if we could see less of it in this thread.
posted by jessamyn at 5:08 PM on December 17, 2012 [5 favorites]

Bear spray is better for defense against bear attacks than guns.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:10 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

actually, a good many of them are, in part - and have subsistence hunters, including native americans - and bears, too

What is the percentage of gun owners who are subsistence hunters? Is there a statistic you have to hand?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:12 PM on December 17, 2012

And besides, bears are dead easy to ward off if you're not skulking around silently.

(And venison can be, and is, farmed.)
posted by Sys Rq at 5:13 PM on December 17, 2012

Veronique Pozner's eulogy today for her 6 y.o. son, Noah Pozner (survived by his twin sister, Arielle, and others):

The sky is crying, and the flags are at half-mast. It is a sad, sad day. But it is also your day, Noah, my little man. I will miss your forceful and purposeful little steps stomping through our house. I will miss your perpetual smile, the twinkle in your dark blue eyes, framed by eyelashes that would be the envy of any lady in this room.

Most of all, I will miss your visions of your future. You wanted to be a doctor, a soldier, a taco factory manager. It was your favorite food, and no doubt you wanted to ensure that the world kept producing tacos.

You were a little boy whose life force had all the gravitational pull of a celestial body. You were light and love, mischief and pranks. You adored your family with every fiber of your 6-year-old being. We are all of us elevated in our humanity by having known you. A little maverick, who didn't always want to do his schoolwork or clean up his toys, when practicing his ninja moves or Super Mario on the Wii seemed far more important.

Noah, you will not pass through this way again. I can only believe that you were planted on Earth to bloom in heaven. Take flight, my boy. Soar. You now have the wings you always wanted. Go to that peaceful valley that we will all one day come to know. I will join you someday. Not today. I still have lots of mommy love to give to Danielle, Michael, Sophia and Arielle.

Until then, your melody will linger in our hearts forever. Momma loves you, little man.

As a twin, myself, bless you Noah. Bless you Arielle. You've lost the person ever closest to you, so much too early in life. I'm so sorry.
posted by ericb at 5:15 PM on December 17, 2012 [31 favorites]

Do you feel that despite all of them being wrong you are right?

Yeah, I mean except for a decade or so in the 90s when we were living high on an unsustainable bubble, what time period had prospects for the future which looked less bleak than now? You had the threat (and indeed expectation) of imminent nuclear annihilation for much of the latter 20th century, you had the looming menace of conventional world warfare for the first half, you had slavery and the massacre of native americas, etc the previous century, then you're looking at Europe and the thirty years war, the subjugation of most of the population in more or less serfdom, and so on and so on.
posted by Justinian at 5:15 PM on December 17, 2012

Gun stores report brisk business after Conn. massacre
posted by dhartung at 5:16 PM on December 17, 2012

Damn it, ericb. I have not full on bawled since this happened, despite totally immersing myself in it -- the breaking news, this thread, every shred of new bits that come to light. I wanted to but I wouldn't let myself.

Today is my son's 8th birthday. We just sat at the kitchen table, two of us with a cherry pie full of candles. He asked for a second piece after our huge dinner and I made light of his obviously enormous stomach. He reminded me, "Uh, mom. Tacos! Remember when I ate 10 tacos? I loooove tacos."

Tacos, man. Damn those tacos, they finally won my gallons of tears. Bless you Noah, indeed.
posted by youandiandaflame at 5:21 PM on December 17, 2012 [6 favorites]

Do you feel that despite all of them being wrong you are right?

was socrates actually wrong? - he lived to see the defeat of athenian power, which was never recovered from

and now there are those who talk about the end of the "american empire"

interesting parellel you've given us
posted by pyramid termite at 5:22 PM on December 17, 2012

Actually, I found the statistic I was looking for:

Nationwide, 6% of the people in America hunted in 2011. The US Fish and Wildlife service does not differentiate between recreational hunting, and subsistence hunting, for the record.

By contrast, guns were a factor in 68 percent of the homicides, 42 percent of the robberies, and 22 percent of the aggravated assaults.

I find that a situation in which 6 percent of the people are dictating the rules for an item that affects 68% of the people to be somewhat contrary to how I was told a democracy worked.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:22 PM on December 17, 2012 [10 favorites]

As a twin, myself, bless you Noah. Bless you Arielle. You've lost the person ever closest to you, so much too early in life. I'm so sorry.

Oh wow, he was a twin? That must be so extra devastating to his remaining twin. If extra devastating is even possible.
posted by sweetkid at 5:23 PM on December 17, 2012

Oh, man, get a load of this guy Larry Pratt from Gun Owners of America on Hardball today.

At one point, he comes right out and says "we have guns and the Second Amendment in order to control the government." I don't think Matthews fully appreciated what a comment like that means in context, but later he followed up by asking how Pratt himself would use his Second Amendment rights to change the government, and Pratt responded with "by being prepared," adding that "it bothers lawmakers that we do have that capability."

I know we've heard stuff like this from the gun nuts before, but I always thought the "mainstream" gun rights organizations that appear on national television at least made it look like the focus was on self defense and not just using their guns as a political tool if you don't like the way things went at the ballot box. But here we have a guy on national TV telling people to "be ready" to "control their government" with the threat of armed insurrection.

Unbelievable.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:26 PM on December 17, 2012 [13 favorites]

I find that a situation in which 6 percent of the people are dictating the rules for an item that affects 68% of the people to be somewhat contrary to how I was told a democracy worked.

I support stronger gun control, but this is definitely not how math works. 68% of people were not the victims of gun crime. 68% of homicide victims were killed by a gun. That comes out to about 9,500 people in 2010. That number is way too high, but saying it "affects 68% of the people" is wrong.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 5:33 PM on December 17, 2012 [5 favorites]

The K-9 Comfort therapy dogs are in Newtown, doing what they do best.
posted by jamesonandwater at 5:34 PM on December 17, 2012 [10 favorites]

Of course, the fear of gun crime impacts nearly all of us. Even the gun owners who buy them for protection from gun crime.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:35 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

It was your favorite food, and no doubt you wanted to ensure that the world kept producing tacos.

I am a fraternal twin with a brother, and I am tearing up.

.

For all of them, so many times over, and for all the other victims of guns whose names we do not remember.
posted by jetlagaddict at 5:41 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's ok to hunt for both food and recreation, and not all hunting for food is subsistence. Not the Dick Cheney style - going to a farm, and walking 15 yards from the luncheon table to shoot birds (and a lawyer) that have been herded to you - but the hunters I know love being outdoors in the woods, in the morning or evening when deer are mobile, or on the lake when ducks and geese move out to fish. They hunt with family and/or friends, hang out in a deer stand and drink coffee and complain about the cold, and have a pretty excellent time, especially if they get a deer, but even if they don't.

I'm know there are plenty of jerks who hunt and aren't careful enough, or who abuse property. I know somebody who just moved because the yahoos next door liked to shoot guns and were sloppy about placing targets. Just like I know drivers and boaters who drink, and other dangerous asses. The law and the wardens do their best to enforce reasonable rules.

I eat meat. Cows, chicken and salmon, the occasional lamb, are killed for my table. Who am I to criticize someone willing to go into the woods with a gun and bring home a freezer full of meat? There are likely tourists who come to Maine to get a deer or moose, and don't use the meat, but the animal must be weighed and tagged, and if the hunter doesn't want the meat, the food pantry will be delighted to have it.

It's politically highly unlikely that we will ban or severely restrict personal ownership of guns used for hunting. It will be a massive battle to restrict semi-automatic weapons, and get rid of the gun show loophole. Like several hotbutton topics, we're polarized on gun management in the US.
posted by theora55 at 5:44 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

Except to say that as someone whose seen bears while hunting, you keep the bear spray.

I'm growing fonder of the second amendment the longer this thread runs. Some of you apparently do want to take away everyone's guns, I would not have believed it.

Because I told you something studies show are true? The bear spray is the better choice of weapons and you are less likely to be injured by the bear if you use it. I'm happy to let you keep your gun for the deer.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:46 PM on December 17, 2012

I'm picking up what you're putting down, spitbull (pardon the slang). I get you.

I live in NYC, where if you hear guns someone is most definitely getting shot at, and I don't want guns here (outside of sport ranges). Think even the police do not do well with guns here. But elsewhere, rural areas, for hunting, subsistence hunting or not frankly, herd management, yes I do think they need them.
posted by sweetkid at 5:47 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

So, my question is: Is there any middle ground? Is there progress we can make to slow/stop the proliferation of semi-automatic assault weapons? Can we look at some of the ways the NRA has tweaked lots of regulation to make guns absurdly easy to get? Can we close the ridiculous gun show loophole that lets people avoid registering guns?
posted by theora55 at 5:47 PM on December 17, 2012

there are way more serious hunters in the US than just Alaskans

Of course there are, but you were focusing on Alaska, with its unique combination of circumstances, and I was pointing out that the state's entire population is equal to that of the 14th largest American city, but gets two senators for itself.

I think it is necessary for pro-gun-control folks who are not gun owners to make common cause with gun owners who are for reasonable gun control

And I think it's necessary for gun owners who are for reasonable gun control to make common cause with people who don't own guns and have no interest in guns being part of their lives. Manchin's comments suggests the beginning of a new conversation to replace the one that has reached its point of absurdity.
posted by holgate at 5:49 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Except to say that as someone whose seen bears while hunting, you keep the bear spray.

The belief that your own singular experience (and you have none as I am assuming you have never fended off an attacking bear with a gun OR spray) trumps actual data from over 300 people FITS EXACTLY with the sort of person who feels their guns make them safer despite ACTUAL EVIDENCE to the contrary.

At least you are consistent.
posted by Cosine at 5:49 PM on December 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

I'm growing fonder of the second amendment the longer this thread runs. Some of you apparently do want to take away everyone's guns, I would not have believed it.

And there we go. Other human beings have a differing opinion about something, solution: hold on tighter to those guns! As far as I can see from the justification given to it here, the only purpose of the 2nd amendment is to enable people to have guns in order to prevent people taking those guns away. It's a circular argument.

But yes, rural people do need guns. Hunters do need guns. That's fine. Take a look at the "genuine need" table for an Australian jurisdiction shown above - thought has gone into what tools those people need, and in allowing them to use them. No-one is taking those tools away.
posted by Jimbob at 5:49 PM on December 17, 2012 [17 favorites]

EmpressCallipygos : So drop the crap about how people in Connecticut need unfettered access to guns because there are bears in Alaska because that makes no god-damn sense.

You, uh... might want to reconsider that hill you picked to defend...

We are not talking about restricting subsistence hunters in the Alaskan bush. We are simply pointing out that the other 49 states are not like the Alaskan bush, so it does not make sense to treat them like the Alaskan bush.

You realize, of course, that once you get 100-200 miles inland from the coasts - In most places in the US, you basicically do have the "Alaskan bush"? The US ain't just its coastal cities.

my father - didn't need a semi-automatic, he just used a simple pistol.

For (almost certainly not) the last time - Semi-automatic has nothing to do with the action or the rifle/pistolness of a gun. Pistols come in revolver or semiauto. Either can have single (two pulls per round) or double action (one pull, one shot).

MattWPBS : What sort of situation are you imagining? If you're getting attacked, how does this end up with you getting a chance to draw your gun, and sight it on your attacker?

Most likely scenario I see, a home break-in. Pistol next to the bed, I have the upper hand by default. Second most likely, a random mugging. I may or may not have the opportunity to respond quickly enough, but I'd damned well like to have the ability to respond, if possible.

If we're talking about a close quarters physically violent assault, I can't see it being something where they're going to back off enough to allow you to get your weapon out.

Not to sound like I consider myself a ninja or anything, but I've trained for that as well. And I know enough to know that I'd much rather "scare off" an attacker than get into either hand-to-hand combat or a gunfight.
posted by pla at 5:50 PM on December 17, 2012

I'm tired of responding to the same straw man argument (ironically what you seem to be accusing me of doing).

By all means, direct me to a comment you made that DIDN'T refer to subsistence hunting. I'm game to be proved wrong.

In fact, I'll prove I can be proved wrong --

I support stronger gun control, but this is definitely not how math works.

...You're right.

you inspired me to do some more digging, though, Bulgar - here's what I found.

All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 31,347
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2

Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,493
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.7

Firearm suicides
Number of deaths: 18,735
Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.1

Compare that with the number of hunters in the United States that same year:

4,285

And the number of people who fished and hunted both:

9,389

Now, if you take 4,285 and 9,389 and add them together, you get 13,674 - which is still less than half the number of people who died from gun misfortune in some fashion.

...Well, the math is a little more rigorous, but I still don't like it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:51 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Most likely scenario I see, a home break-in. Pistol next to the bed, I have the upper hand by default.

And evidence showing this is not likely at all be damned!
posted by Cosine at 5:52 PM on December 17, 2012 [6 favorites]

How many hunters need semi-auto weapons that hold a zillion bullets?

Is that common ground? Can we start there?
posted by rtha at 5:54 PM on December 17, 2012

My high school classmate, Rob Cox, wrote this WSJ piece When Your Town Is Newtown.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:54 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Most likely scenario I see, a home break-in. Pistol next to the bed, I have the upper hand by default.

Yep, this sounds like movie fantasy to me.
posted by sweetkid at 5:54 PM on December 17, 2012 [17 favorites]

Most likely scenario I see, a home break-in. Pistol next to the bed, I have the upper hand by default.

Yep, this sounds like movie fantasy to me.

Exactly, the one common denominator in this entire thread by those in favour of guns for all is a consistent and unwavering belief that math, stats, likelyhoods, evidence DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM, that they are somehow different.
posted by Cosine at 5:57 PM on December 17, 2012 [12 favorites]

You realize, of course, that once you get 100-200 miles inland from the coasts - In most places in the US, you basicically do have the "Alaskan bush"?

Really? The western portion of North Carolina is pretty rural in parts, and lots of people like their guns and hunting, but its population is somewhat greater than that of Alaska. The entire state of North Carolina is less than a tenth of the size of Alaska.

Please don't equate "owning ten acres with a dirt track to the mailbox and a long drive to the grocery store" with "subsistence hunting with Native Alaskans." There's a long way in America between "rural" and "back of beyond."
posted by holgate at 6:01 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

I think the concept of hunting is really cool. I'd love to live off the land like that.

People who do, I support you. I see absolutely no need to take away your ability to live off the land. How that ability is defined is going to be a matter of some debate. I think obviously it will be limited to some extent. Right now you can't nuke a deer, and maybe later on you won't be able to shoot a deer with a xyz.

Because all of our rights are limited. Our first amendment rights certainly are. Our right to privacy certainly is.

The reason why I think a repeal of the second makes sense is that you get rid of the constructionists or whatever Scalia's ilk is called. No more parsing that crazy language. But you don't do that without enacting some legislation that enshrines the rights of hunters.

Or do the above in conjunction with a buy-back program. This is doable.

People with guns, I don't get a lot of what makes guns important to you. That's cool. I mean that honestly. I think you should be able to use your guns in a way that doesn't hurt people.

That seems like a fine middle ground to work from, right? It seems like articulating the idea of repealing the second amendment is pulling a knife. It's not; it's just a way of looking at a legal way out of it.
posted by angrycat at 6:03 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

spitbull: I'm growing fonder of the second amendment the longer this thread runs. Some of you apparently do want to take away everyone's guns, I would not have believed it.

See, here's the thing. I've read this whole thread and I've read it carefully and more than once (truly). I want to be informed about my opinions and I'm open to changing them if the facts just aren't my side. But I have see just one or two people outright say that we should get rid of every gun. But for the most part what I've seen is people saying that look, there is a reasonable, responsible way to do this that does not involve killing the 2nd nor tearing your dear gun from your hands. By and large I have not seen what you're insisting is there.

It's possible my reading comprehension is piss poor, spitbull, but I think it's more likely that you're refusing to even see the other side for whatever reason. That's so very disheartening to me, given the tragedy that is the basis of this thread.
posted by youandiandaflame at 6:08 PM on December 17, 2012 [6 favorites]

EmpressCallipygos: " I'm game to be proved wrong."

I see what you did there.

(Sorry, I sort of feel like the thread could use a moment of levity.)
posted by tonycpsu at 6:08 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Exactly, the one common denominator in this entire thread by those in favour of guns for all is a consistent and unwavering belief that math, stats, likelyhoods, evidence DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM, that they are somehow different.

perhaps - but one thing that the evidence so far cited doesn't take into account is the deterrence factor - how many break-ins or confrontations don't happen because the person who might commit them thinks that their target may be armed?

i'm not convinced that this would counterweigh the dangers cited of owning a gun - which is why i don't have one - but it seems as though we ought to look at this side of the question, too
posted by pyramid termite at 6:09 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Now, if you take 4,285 and 9,389 and add them together, you get 13,674 - which is still less than half the number of people who died from gun misfortune in some fashion.

This (PDF) study about hunting says that 6% of the United States population 16 and over hunted and that that is 13.7 million people. That 13,674 number is off by three orders of magnitude. Your link isn't working on this computer, so I can't say what it says there. This is sort of a niggling point, but if you live in an urban area it's easy to miss how many hunters there are; if it possible to stop gun violence without placing too many restrictions on their hobby (and I think it is), it's worth it to try.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 6:10 PM on December 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

EmpressCallipygos : Compare that with the number of hunters in the United States that same year: 4,285 And the number of people who fished and hunted both: 9,389

I don't know where you got those numbers, but Maine alone issued 34,160 "any deer" permits in 2012. Which excludes bucks-only, every other animal, and fishing.

You should probably double-check those numbers - multiples of a thousand, perhaps?

sweetkid : Yep, this sounds like movie fantasy to me.

Yeah, the movies do tend to draw from reality, sometimes (though firing a gun indoors - last resort, if you like your ears).

Cosine : Exactly, the one common denominator in this entire thread by those in favour of guns for all is a consistent and unwavering belief that math, stats, likelyhoods, evidence DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM, that they are somehow different.

Not quite - The least common multiple here, Mr. Math whiz, involves people who would rather die defending themselves. Die by their own weapon accidentally. Die at their own hand when a debilitative disease strikes them (for all the "gun owners commit suicide X times more often than non-owners) - Amounts to nothing more, and nothing less, than a selection bias. Some of us would rather die defending ourselves than cowering in the corner begging for mercy, begging not to get raped, begging our kids to please please please put us out of our misery.
posted by pla at 6:11 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

how many break-ins or confrontations don't happen because the person who might commit them thinks that their target may be armed?

Actually break-ins searching for weapons are one of the most common reasons.
posted by Cosine at 6:14 PM on December 17, 2012 [6 favorites]

pla: "Most likely scenario I see, a home break-in. Pistol next to the bed, I have the upper hand by default."

While you were away from the thread, you may have missed the links (1, 2, 3) to eight peer-reviewed studies showing that this is not the case. What is it about you specifically that makes you think you'll beat the odds?
posted by tonycpsu at 6:14 PM on December 17, 2012 [13 favorites]

but one thing that the evidence so far cited doesn't take into account is the deterrence factor - how many break-ins or confrontations don't happen because the person who might commit them thinks that their target may be armed?

Just some quick googling pulls up this from the National Bureau of Economic Research (which I'll admit, I have done no research on -- they might well be non-reputable):

The Effects of Gun Prevalence on Burglary: Deterrent vs. Inducement

Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence.

FWIW, anyway.
posted by youandiandaflame at 6:15 PM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

... people who would rather die defending themselves. Die by their own weapon accidentally.

Really?

You might want to rethink a few things if you put accidental death in the pro category.
posted by cmyk at 6:17 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

thanks for the answer
posted by pyramid termite at 6:18 PM on December 17, 2012

Maybe the NRA is being silent; so that the anti-gun furor spiels itself into a spiral that is so near wacked, that the NRA will be able to step back in after a week or so... positioning itself like a wise parental sort of organization... now you kids; you stop that crazy squabble! Things are ok now; just calm down, there ... see. Everything is ok. Lets enforce those gun laws more seriously; with penalties for convictions, and those city gangsters; just look at what is happening in Chicago everyday.

Here's Tom, Rebecca, and Roy; they make guns, and over here, Jacob, Debra, and Jonesy; they work in the firearm factory. They are in a nice PSA about gun safety. Why look here; a silver haired couple that perhaps recently had to use a firearm to shoot a rabid skunk, in Missouri of all the places.

Meanwhile; frothing at the mouth, the anti-gun populace try to go all 100% seizure tax restrict; and the 'engine' so to speak blows up again. Complete with the omg OMG omg NRA outrage OUTRAGE outrage ( caps will be played! ) !!! factor. Clunk.

The earlier referenced Tom Tomorrow illustrated political statement, too true.
posted by buzzman at 6:18 PM on December 17, 2012

Upthread a bit, the man of twists and turns said pretty much exactly what I wanted to come in here and say. Putting a gun in your hand allows you to do more than simply defend yourself—it allows you to win, potentially. I think there's at least a philosophical difference between defending yourself and winning. Nobody who buys a gun for "self-defense" really wants to defend themselves. They want to win.

And you win by becoming the aggressor, not the defender.
posted by emelenjr at 6:22 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Some of us would rather die defending ourselves than cowering in the corner begging for mercy, begging not to get raped, begging our kids to please please please put us out of our misery.

Yes, we are all sniveling cowards. It's not that we would prefer to die with a taser, pepper spray, or a baseball bat in our hands rather than a gun that is more likely to be used on a family member than in this heroic death scenario.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:23 PM on December 17, 2012 [6 favorites]

youandiandaflame: I don't think data is going to convince gunners of anything, if it could they wouldn't likely be believers in guns=safety in the first place.
posted by Cosine at 6:24 PM on December 17, 2012

Some of us would rather die defending ourselves than cowering in the corner begging for mercy, begging not to get raped, begging our kids to please please please put us out of our misery.

BLAZE.
OF.
GLORY.

I wonder how much overlap there is in this blaze of glory belief and Adam's blaze of glory belief.
posted by Cosine at 6:25 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Putting a gun in your hand allows you to do more than simply defend yourself—it allows you to win, potentially. I think there's at least a philosophical difference between defending yourself and winning. Nobody who buys a gun for "self-defense" really wants to defend themselves. They want to win.

Link?
posted by Cosine at 6:26 PM on December 17, 2012

CBI Deals With Massive Influx of Potential Gun Buyers
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 6:31 PM on December 17, 2012

It is SO disturbing to me that a response to a horrible event like this is to run out and buy a gun, a new toy, just in case it is regulated more heavily in the future.
posted by agregoli at 6:34 PM on December 17, 2012 [13 favorites]

It is SO disturbing to me that a response to a horrible event like this is to run out and buy a gun, a new toy, just in case it is regulated more heavily in the future.

I think it's something like this:

1. Guns make you safer, more guns mean more safety.

2. These people and children died because they were not safe enough.

3. We should make ourselves safer, see 1.

If Adam's mother were alive and this had happened to other people I would assume she would be one of the people shopping for more safety after such a tragic event.
posted by Cosine at 6:38 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

That said, don't worry y'all because Megan McArdle has come up with a Libertarian solution to our gun-nut problems -- teach first-graders to stop simpering under their desks like litte cowards, man up, and bum-rush the dude with the assault weapon!

If we simply learn to Go-Go-Galt on these psychopaths then all of our problems are solved. The nanny state has spoiled us for far too long.

This is who they are.
posted by bardic at 6:38 PM on December 17, 2012 [5 favorites]

http://www.cafemom.com/articles/baby/148011/incredible_dad_battled_gunmen_while?utm_medium=sem2&utm_campaign=prism&utm_source=outbrain&utm_content=0

"Dads with Nads".
posted by buzzman at 6:38 PM on December 17, 2012

snickerdoodle : A friend of mine bought a gun when his wife became pregnant. She told him on no uncertain terms that she would never be comfortable handling the gun. So he took it back, because it's irresponsible to make a weapon accessible to someone who cannot handle it.

I absolutely agree with that, and could tell a similar story about a friend of mine.

I even agree on the liability count (though as regards registration, not so much).

I accept full responsibility for the firearms in my possession. If I die by them, not your problem.

agregoli : It is SO disturbing to me that a response to a horrible event like this is to run out and buy a gun

I know that Jess kinda shot down Jacqueline's subthread, but what do you expect to happen when the national discourse turns to stripping us of one of our handful of basic constitutional rights?

Count the number of people you know who stocked up on 100W lightbulbs and T8 fluorescents, for just the faintest of clues - And those matter a whole lot less.
posted by pla at 6:39 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

CBI Deals With Massive Influx of Potential Gun Buyers

Anyone who rushes to buy a firearm in the wake of a school shooting like this one should be initially considered a potential copycat and thus fail the CBI background check. Regardless of their stated intent, that kind of suspicious activity bears a closer look.

If they're cleared, then sure, let them have their weapons. But for the time being, they ought to be carefully scrutinized for mass homicidal tendencies.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 6:41 PM on December 17, 2012 [8 favorites]

Die by their own weapon accidentally. Die at their own hand when a debilitative disease strikes them (for all the "gun owners commit suicide X times more often than non-owners)

That must also explain why the adolescent children of gun owners commit suicide x times more often than those of non gun owners.
posted by jacalata at 6:42 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

I don't know where you got those numbers....

I linked to my source right in this thread -- the US Department of Fish and Wildlife.

And your source for the number of deer permits in Maine? I'd be happy to check my source for the number of people in Maine specifically that the US Department of Fish and Wildlife says are there, if that's easier for you.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:44 PM on December 17, 2012

I expect better out of adult persons, I guess. Because "I *might* not be able to own any single kind of gun I want" pales in comparison to murdered loved ones? I would hope (in vain, I'm sure) that MOST gun owners would sacrifice having those shiny exciting guns for a safer country. Guns have not, do not, and will not make this country safer.
posted by agregoli at 6:45 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm growing fonder of the second amendment the longer this thread runs. Some of you apparently do want to take away everyone's guns, I would not have believed it.

I'm absolutely certain that America would be a much, much much, much much much, MUCH MUCH MUCH better place if everybody's guns were taken away (with reasonable compensation of course).

You just need to try & step outside of that MUST HAVE GUNS mindset somehow, to imagine what things would be like if almost nobody had one. It's really quite awesome; anybody would love it.

Don't believe me if you don't want to. Your loss.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:47 PM on December 17, 2012 [5 favorites]

"Just, could we please stop the 'We should arm the teachers' jokes? They're not funny. It's trolling of the first order."

But it's not a joke, it's a direct proposal from Hugh Hewitt, one of the bigger names of the Republican blog-o-verse. (Not going to bother with a link, but easy enough to find.)

So while the humor is dark, the source is very real.

Again, we're beyond "adult conversation about gun control" with a certain segment of the American populace (not responsible hunters and sports shooters and home defense types, but the "cold dead hands" type). Views like "arm the teachers" or "teach the kids to act like little human shields" are beyond the pale of civil discourse. We are under no obligation to take them at all seriously.

We never convinced millions of southern whites that slavery was wrong, we simply acted. And we had no obligation to consider their tender little fee-fee's.
posted by bardic at 6:50 PM on December 17, 2012 [5 favorites]

> I know that Jess kinda shot down Jacqueline's subthread, but what do you expect to happen when the national discourse turns to stripping us of one of our handful of basic constitutional rights

Bit like inheriting your grandmother's old watch. It doesn't work any more but you just can't part with it. Worse. If the national discourse really is turning and you're not up to speed, perhaps you're standing in the nation's way.
posted by de at 6:51 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

I linked to my source right in this thread -- the US Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Okay so I finally got your link to open. It's the preliminary data for the Fish and Wildlife study that I linked to, but your missing something crucial. It's the part that says "numbers in thousands." That means that 4,285 thousand people hunted (but not fished) last year. That means 4,285,000 not 4,285. The two numbers together are thus 13,674,000 or the 13.7 million figure I mentioned upthread.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 6:52 PM on December 17, 2012 [11 favorites]

I implore some of you-your rhetoric is not helping.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 6:52 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

"your rhetoric is not helping"

Helping who?
posted by bardic at 6:53 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

I accept full responsibility for the firearms in my possession.

Do you accept a shared social responsibility for the legal structures that allow them to be in your possession? This is sort of the point I was making about the categorical imperative, and the issues that arise scaling models that make sense on a personal level to that of broader society.

what do you expect to happen when the national discourse turns to stripping us of one of our handful of basic constitutional rights?

When there's the faintest suggestion that there might be a shortage of gasoline, you get mile-long lines to fill up (with the occasional exchange of fire over cutting in line). While one side of the philosophical basis of political commonwealth is the preservation of liberties, the other is to check the tendency for irrationality to feed upon irrationality, because that way lies the mob.
posted by holgate at 6:54 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

"your rhetoric is not helping"

Helping who?

And who are you imploring?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:54 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

And who are you imploring?

Who is being implored, sheesh!
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:57 PM on December 17, 2012

(full disclosure, I'm absolutely certain I'd have succeeded in killing myself as a teenager if we'd had a gun in the house)
posted by jacalata at 6:58 PM on December 17, 2012

EmpressCallipygos : I linked to my source right in this thread -- the US Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Er... No, actually... You didn't?

And your source for the number of deer permits in Maine? I'd be happy to check my source for the number of people in Maine specifically that the US Department of Fish and Wildlife says are there, if that's easier for you.

Knock yourself out. But your number doesn't even sound plausible, for a national total - You must realize that, right?

UbuRoivas : I'm absolutely certain that America would be a much, much much, much much much, MUCH MUCH MUCH better place if everybody's guns were taken away

Urban America does not equal rural America. You need to come to terms with that fact.

(with reasonable compensation of course).

I bought the amount and geometry of land I own, in part so I could legally have my own range. Do you want the government to buy me out of my house, too? Because right about now, y'know, I might actually consider selling if a big enough suck... er... "cause" comes along to convince me.
posted by pla at 6:58 PM on December 17, 2012

I am getting sick and tired of the rhetoric on BOTH sides of this argument. All it does is make people dig in their heels and resist harder instead of come together and figure out HOW TO FIX THE PROBLEM.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 6:59 PM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

(grar, I thought St Alia was saying some of the "you/your" terminology wasn't helping. carry on)
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:59 PM on December 17, 2012

"Hmm...how about, if you own a gun and anyone but yourself (the registered purchaser) is ever killed or even injured by it, and you cannot prove that they were attacking you personally at the time, you're considered to be criminally responsible for their injuries? So suicide by your dad's gun becomes considered manslaughter by dad."

This is kinda-sorta how the US treats alcohol. If teenagers drink your dad's booze and then die in a car accident, Dad is directly responsible. If you buy a six-pack for some high schoolers, same thing.

But with guns, you know, Jesus Ted Nugent yadda yadda.

Personal responsibility flies out the window once bullets are involved, for some reason.
posted by bardic at 7:01 PM on December 17, 2012 [10 favorites]

EmpressCallipygos : I linked to my source right in this thread -- the US Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Er... No, actually... You didn't?

Er....yes, actually....I did.

But your number doesn't even sound plausible, for a national total - You must realize that, right?

I can only point you, yet again, to the PDF that I linked to in the comment I have linked to yet again just above.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:01 PM on December 17, 2012

Hmm...how about, if you own a gun and anyone but yourself (the registered purchaser) is ever killed or even injured by it, and you cannot prove that they were attacking you personally at the time, you're considered to be criminally responsible for their injuries? So suicide by your dad's gun becomes considered manslaughter by dad.

While strict criminal liability would be (in my opinion) completely crazy, I think there's something to liability for accidents/suicide that occur because of improper storage or handling. Make it a crime to store your gun improperly, where properly means bullets and gun in different locked safes at a minimum. Make it a crime to handle a firearm in an unsafe manner, where unsafe means according to the fairly simple rules they teach you in any gun safety class, i.e. all guns are loaded.

I think that would, even slowly, change the culture around storage and handling of guns in ways that would prevent some gun related deaths.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 7:02 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

"and figure out HOW TO FIX THE PROBLEM"

20 dead kids is not a rhetorical problem, it's a legal one.
posted by bardic at 7:03 PM on December 17, 2012

Cosine : Exactly, the one common denominator in this entire thread by those in favour of guns for all is a consistent and unwavering belief that math, stats, likelihoods, evidence DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM, that they are somehow different.

I don't own a gun and I'm not planning to anytime soon, but I think it doesn't necessarily make sense to apply these statistics to a personal decision about whether to buy a weapon (as opposed to a policy decision by the government). Statistics and likelihoods are not simply black and white facts about the world, they depend highly on how much information you already know about what you are estimating. I read the linked "peer reviewed studies" and the largest risk entailed in me purchasing a gun would be that I would shoot my wife with it. Well, can't I just decide not to shoot my wife then? From a policy-maker's perspective they don't know whether I will or not, so it makes sense to assign a number to my risk that includes this possibility. However from my perspective, I am aware of my own mental states and intentions, so I can adjust the likelihood accordingly, just like I could refine an estimate of risk based on knowing other extra information such as socio-economic level, age and so on. The risk of me shooting my wife or a family member is not some external risk that I could fall victim to like being struck by lightning or hit by a falling tree, it's something that I have direct control over. Statistics are only really useful for modelling the behaviour of others, and for other environmental risks, it's quite legitimate to think it doesn't apply to your own behaviour and in fact it doesn't really make sense to do so - why would I make statistical guesses about my own future actions? It's kind of like life expectancy - want to know how to add a bonus year or two to yours? Just decide not to kill yourself.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 7:03 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

I think rural America would be better off without high-capacity magazines and handguns too. Why not? As impossible as it is, letting myself visualize and *imagine* an America with hardly any guns is...absolutely breathtakingly beautiful. So many lives saved, so many untouched by gun violence.
posted by agregoli at 7:03 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Urban America does not equal rural America. You need to come to terms with that fact.

Both sides do. Law that will make the cities safer will have to include the rural areas too though. They can't make laws in Philadelphia that will change anything when guns are available everywhere surrounding the city. There isn't going to be a border crossing to enforce gun laws. It has to be a national policy that serves the interests of rural and urban citizens. The status quo isn't doing it and I'm seeing the gun control folks being a lot more open to compromise from that.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:06 PM on December 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

Someone on FB posted this link, can anyone explain it to me? 2.5 million gun defense uses annually?
posted by sweetkid at 7:07 PM on December 17, 2012

I can only point you, yet again, to the PDF that I linked to in the comment I have linked to yet again just above.

As I said, but I'll say it more plainly. Those numbers are in thousands, so the numbers you're digging your heels in about are absolutely wrong. If for no other reason that that 6% of the US Population isn't 13,674. The US population is 311,000,000. Six percent of that is 18,660,000. Now Fish and Wildlife is only counting people over 16, so the number is actually estimated at 13,674,000, but your 13,674 number is wrong by your own source.

I suspect we have some pretty broad agreement on this issue, Empress; there's no reason to pick this bizarre, wrong hill to die on.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 7:07 PM on December 17, 2012 [6 favorites]

20 dead kids is not a rhetorical problem, it's a legal one.

It's not a legal problem, it's a freaking nightmare.

To those that want to call gun owners everything but a child of God, have you ever stopped to think that you are feeding right into their fear and paranoia? That is what they expect of you and they do not trust your motives farther than you could throw them, and you are not giving them any reason whatsoever to believe otherwise. But you would rather be right and feel superior rather than persuade someone that perhaps they don't really need that gun in their house.

And some of you would rather be snippy with me rather than help me process my own thoughts on this subject. Think about that for a minute.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 7:09 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Those numbers are in thousands, so the numbers you're digging your heels in about are absolutely wrong.

I stand corrected. Without "digging in my heels", natch, I simply misread.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:09 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

L.P. Hatecraft: "However from my perspective, I am aware of my own mental states and intentions, so I can adjust the likelihood accordingly, just like I could refine an estimate of risk based on knowing other extra information such as socio-economic level, age and so on."

First of all, shooting your wife isn't the only risk that's elevated when a handgun is in the home. The others are not necessarily things you have control over. Second, even in the categories you theoretically have control over, you're going to overestimate your likelihood of not being the guy who shoots his wife or is shot while trying to kill an armed robber who just wants to steal your jewelry. Nobody does Bayesian equations in their head. People overestimate their skill in poker, investing in the stock market, and just about everything else. What makes you think they're going to be good enough at playing the percentages when firearms are involved?
posted by tonycpsu at 7:11 PM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

While strict criminal liability would be (in my opinion) completely crazy, I think there's something to liability for accidents/suicide that occur because of improper storage or handling. Make it a crime to store your gun improperly, where properly means bullets and gun in different locked safes at a minimum. Make it a crime to handle a firearm in an unsafe manner, where unsafe means according to the fairly simple rules they teach you in any gun safety class, i.e. all guns are loaded.

Absolutely. All accidental discharges are negligent discharges. Dick Cheney should have gone to jail. This guy, too.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:11 PM on December 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

Urban America does not equal rural America. You need to come to terms with that fact.

Same here, so beyond my overblown rhetoric, most of the people could lose most of their guns, leaving some in the hands of people with legitimate reasons or needs to own them, such as hunters, farmers and sporting shooters - none of which you're ever realistically likely to encounter any of the time unless you're one of them.

But it'll probably never happen because gun nuts, the Constitution, the NRA, apathy, status quo and so on. You should however try to take the opportunity to live a while somewhere where every second person isn't armed. It's a huge monkey off your back.

Hm, when was the last time I even SAW a gun in real life, not on an officer's belt? It would have to be more than two DECADES ago, on a cousin's farm. Can you imagine that? Two decades without even seeing a gun? Let alone having to worry all the time about armed break-ins, holdups, muggings, random shootings, drunken idiots with no safety, drug dealers armed to the teeth, and so on? All gone; sha-zing! Not anywhere in my consciousness! *Yay*
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:12 PM on December 17, 2012 [5 favorites]

But to clarify my point another way, bulgartonkos, I find it incomprehensible that the answer to the question "why can we not come up with a better way to control access to guns in in suburbia and urban America" is "because we need to preserve the rights of gun owners in rural America". I fail to see how those two very different parts of the country must be related in this particular instance.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:12 PM on December 17, 2012

Someone on FB posted this link, can anyone explain it to me? 2.5 million gun defense uses annually?

It's likely true, when the numbers go to "verbal threats" like yelling "I have a gun!" when someone breaks in. But think about things like how many burglars are driven off by a barking dog, a turned on light, a security system sign, a verbal threat of "I'm calling police!, or things like bars on the windows. If you could actually count all that stuff it would dwarf gun use and those methods lack the increased risk of killing someone in the family that comes with guns.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:12 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

And some of you would rather be snippy with me rather than help me process my own thoughts on this subject. Think about that for a minute.

Everyone has a lot of thoughts to process here. This thread is not a referendum on any one person's thoughts and it would be good of you and everyone else here to be mindful of that.
posted by jessamyn at 7:12 PM on December 17, 2012 [5 favorites]

The 2.5 million figure comes from a national random digit-dial telephone survey of 5,000 dwelling units...The 2.5 million figure requires us to believe that burglary Victims use their guns in self- defense more than 100% of the time.
posted by jacalata at 7:16 PM on December 17, 2012 [11 favorites]

Persuading people who don't want to listen is a waste of time, I agree. The time for persuading is past. We need actual action, not another endless round of congressional hearings and protests and ineffectual bills that don't go anywhere.

I live in Chicago - which at times feels like a playact of a warzone. I'm tired of it, and I'm tired of the endless news stories of senseless violence like this, and I'm starting to get pissed about this CONSTANT American fear of being shot, of getting guns to defend against getting shot, of being shot anyway. I agree with the President - we need to do better.
posted by agregoli at 7:16 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

"Urban America does not equal rural America. You need to come to terms with that fact."

First off, I completely agree. Second, it's interesting that until not long ago the conventional wisdom of the NRA types was that US cities like New York and DC, which for very good reasons (population density, for starters) happen to have strict gun control measures esp. with regards to concealable hand-guns, would somehow become national models for rural areas.

So as briefly discussed up-thread, a group of overwhelmingly white, southern congressmen decided to take away Washington, DC's right to local governance (DC residents, after decades of gun violence, are hugely supportive of restrictive gun control) and impose "rural" standards for gun ownership (cf. District of Columbia vs. Heller).

Up until that point I guess I was pretty agnostic on gun control. Rural American folks for the most part are responsible gun owners who like to hunt or whatever, and there are so many handguns out there that legislation would simply never stop a committed person from buying/stealing one and doing something horrible.

But now it's clear to me that the NRA and gun lobby simply won't rest until they've pushed their agenda onto (mostly urban) areas of the country where gun control is demonstrably effective. We are far beyond "reasoned discourse" when the Gentleman from Tennessee tells a predominantly black city ravaged by decades of handgun violence (many of which were purchased in the NRA's home state of Virginia) to go fuck themselves and their dead, murdered sons and daughters.
posted by bardic at 7:17 PM on December 17, 2012 [13 favorites]

sweetkid: "Someone on FB posted this link, can anyone explain it to me? 2.5 million gun defense uses annually?"

Wikipedia page for Kleck (cited in your link).

In another article, Hemenway notes that Kleck has armed women preventing 40% of all sexual assaults, a percentage he considers unlikely because few women go armed. In the same article, Hemenway notes that Kleck's survey shows armed citizens wounding or killing attackers 207,000 times in one year, contrasted against the total of around 100,000 Americans wounded or killed, accidentally or intentionally, in a typical year.

Impressive!
posted by tonycpsu at 7:17 PM on December 17, 2012 [8 favorites]

Pla:Most likely scenario I see, a home break-in. Pistol next to the bed, I have the upper hand by default. Second most likely, a random mugging. I may or may not have the opportunity to respond quickly enough, but I'd damned well like to have the ability to respond, if possible.

Keeping a loaded gun by your bed definitely does not put you in the category labelled 'responsible gun owner'. It doesn't really fit with your earlier statement that you always treat a gun with fear and respect, either. I mean, you said you need to handle it as a deadly tool, even when it's in bits being cleaned, and you keep it where you can grab it while half asleep...?

Not to sound like I consider myself a ninja or anything, but I've trained for that as well. And I know enough to know that I'd much rather "scare off" an attacker than get into either hand-to-hand combat or a gunfight.

That makes you sound like Walter Mitty.
posted by MattWPBS at 7:22 PM on December 17, 2012 [14 favorites]

agregoli: It is SO disturbing to me that a response to a horrible event like this is to run out and buy a gun, a new toy, just in case it is regulated more heavily in the future.

Cosine: It is SO disturbing to me that a response to a horrible event like this is to run out and buy a gun, a new toy, just in case it is regulated more heavily in the future.

I think it's something like this:

1. Guns make you safer, more guns mean more safety.

2. These people and children died because they were not safe enough.

3. We should make ourselves safer, see 1.

If Adam's mother were alive and this had happened to other people I would assume she would be one of the people shopping for more safety after such a tragic event.

I don't own a combat rife, but it's crossed my mind to move it up the priority list in the last few months. For me it's more like, "If James Howard Kunstler is right and civilization goes tits up in the next couple of decades, I'm going to really kick myself if I didn't make sure to put by a couple of rifles while I had the chance." I say this as somebody who thinks about buying a mimeograph machine and wood-fired steam engine for the exact same reason.
posted by ob1quixote at 7:23 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

"It's not a legal problem"

Wut?

"have you ever stopped to think that you are feeding right into their fear and paranoia?"

Simply by being a registered Democrat who votes Obama I "feed" their paranoia.

"they do not trust your motives farther than you could throw them"

I have stated numerous times that I support responsible gun ownership. Yet, by virtue of my political affiliation as a fairly tepid Democrat, they have already decided that I am their enemy. They decided.

I'm just the supposedly effete tree-hugger Nobama guy who's suggesting that maybe a 30-round magazine is too much, and that the gun-show loophole is a really bad idea, and that if someone steals one of your precious guns and uses it to commit a crime you should be held directly responsible.

Again, this existential crisis ain't on me -- it's on the extremists.
posted by bardic at 7:24 PM on December 17, 2012 [13 favorites]

Jimbob : Fat lot of good that "contitutional right" is doing you. You've made your bed, I guess you just got to sleep in it then.

If by "fat lot of good", you mean "I can still buy, own, and use firearms in the US", then I guess... Um... We agree? Not sure what point you meant to make there.

sweetkid : Someone on FB posted this link, can anyone explain it to me? 2.5 million gun defense uses annually?

Yeah, I've seen that number. I don't believe it myself.

Basically, the government collects statistics on gun use for self defense purposes. They get somewhere around 60-80k per year. That, however, only includes reported uses, and honestly given the vitriol around guns, even in my gun-friendly area if I personally scared off an assailant with a gun, I sure as hell wouldn't report it, just opening a legal minefield I'd rather not cross.

So, various groups have done their own studies. Unsurprising, anti-gun groups consider 60k absurdly high (though at 300 million people in the country, I have no problem with that number), and pro-gun groups consider it absurdly low. 2.5M seems like the official "pro-gun" number, though I've seen as high as 4.7M from other studies.

Realistically, I put the number somewhere between 60k and 2.5M - Quite a wide range. When you consider those as people who may otherwise have ended up dead, however... Quite a wide range! I'd love to see more reliable numbers, but despite what either side may feel about it - at least 60k??? And we still need to argue this?

UbuRoivas : such as hunters, farmers and sporting shooters - none of which you're ever realistically likely to encounter any of the time unless you're one of them.

Erm, (timidly raises his hand), all of the above? Though only a "farmer" as a hobby?

Again, rural America does not equal urban America. You guys need to get out of the city before you tell us how many bears don't walk down Main St. in Hartford, CT.

(Edit, to avoid yet another post): MattWPBS : Keeping a loaded gun by your bed definitely does not put you in the category labelled 'responsible gun owner'. It doesn't really fit with your earlier statement that you always treat a gun with fear and respect, either.

A farkload of a lot of good a gun would do me in a safe in the basement, eh?

I have no kids. Rarely get visitors (and make sure to secure anything dangerous when I do). Anyone in my house except me and Ms. pla doesn't belong there, as a rule.
posted by pla at 7:24 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

You wouldn't...file a police report about someone who attacked you? What about everyone else?
posted by agregoli at 7:27 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm curious, now: what normally happens when bears wander around urban areas? Are there bear response teams? Do people have an unspoken agreement that you can run for shelter in peoples' houses? Are there bear attack bunkers? Are there tranquiliser darts that would stop a bear in its tracks? Or do people normally just pull out handguns & shoot them? Honest question.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:29 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

thank you jacalata and tonycpsu.
posted by sweetkid at 7:29 PM on December 17, 2012

Do not do the "edited to add" thing here, please.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:30 PM on December 17, 2012

Here in town what usually happens is people stay in their homes and Animal Control gets the tranquilizer gun out.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 7:30 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

"Are there bear response teams?"

Animal Control baby.
posted by bardic at 7:32 PM on December 17, 2012

I'm curious, now: what normally happens when bears wander around urban areas? Are there bear response teams? Do people have an unspoken agreement that you can run for shelter in peoples' houses? Are there bear attack bunkers? Are there tranquiliser darts that would stop a bear in its tracks? Or do people normally just pull out handguns & shoot them? Honest question.

Bear Patrol. Sure, the studies show the bear spray works better, but in my gut I want a B-2 bomber on my side.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:32 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

If James Howard Kunstler is right and civilization goes tits up in the next couple of decades, I'm going to really kick myself if I didn't make sure to put by a couple of rifles while I had the chance.

I'll just put some money aside for a plane ticket. Or a slow boat.

You guys need to get out of the city before you tell us how many bears don't walk down Main St. in Hartford, CT.

ITYM Keney Park. You need to get into the city before you pontificate on its geography.

(FWIW, we had a bear and cubs in our back yard last year. No biggie. So please, again, less of the ruraller-than-thou-ing.)
posted by holgate at 7:33 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Some of us would rather die defending ourselves than cowering in the corner begging for mercy, begging not to get raped, begging our kids to please please please put us out of our misery.

Wait, so you need a gun around in case you are miserable and decide to commit suicide? This... this is a good reason to have a gun around? I have been surprised by many of the nonsensical justifications for having a gun that I have read in this thread, but my mind is now officially boggled.
posted by Wordwoman at 7:34 PM on December 17, 2012 [11 favorites]

> I had a grandfather who was an occasional hunter. And even he did not have a problem with the kind of gun regulations we're calling for here.
...

So drop the crap about how people in Connecticut need unfettered access to guns because there are bears in Alaska because that makes no god-damn sense.

Empress, spitbull has repeatedly spoken up in this thread in favor of gun control. Why are you lying about this? What do hope to gain by blatantly misrepresenting other people's positions this way?
posted by nangar at 7:39 PM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

We need a new interface for this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUw9BJS06NI

With all the poor wordplay; it really does match the discourse.

How would urban defense cope?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eijIiEbeVqo
posted by buzzman at 7:45 PM on December 17, 2012

Fox News Execs Squashed Talk Of Gun Control After Newtown Massacre: Report.
posted by ericb at 7:45 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

I read all of spitbull's comments in this thread and found them mostly to have been stated in reasonable terms even when I didn't agree. I'm bummed that they won't be adding further because I thought they were providing interesting and useful counterpoints for people like me who didn't grow up hunting.

Connecticut isn't Alaska, but when we're talking about potentially national policies and the same flavor of very broad question, "why would anyone ever want/need X, I can't think of any legitimate reasons," keeps coming up from people without much firsthand knowledge, I don't think it's fair to protest someone's providing examples just because they have to come from their experiences in a different state and environment. It was information, given civilly, and in this context not a priori dismissable as irrelevant for being grounded elsewhere.
posted by hat at 7:48 PM on December 17, 2012 [14 favorites]

Pla: A farkload of a lot of good a gun would do me in a safe in the basement, eh?

I have no kids. Rarely get visitors (and make sure to secure anything dangerous when I do). Anyone in my house except me and Ms. pla doesn't belong there, as a rule.

It doesn't do you a lot of good to keep a lethal weapon where you can grab it while you're half asleep either. You never woken up mid dream confused about what is or isn't real? That plus a gun really doesn't sound like a good combination, it sounds like a tragic news story introduction.

Do you really think it's that likely that you're going to wake up with a burglar in your room?
posted by MattWPBS at 7:51 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Stepping away: what's being asked of responsible gun owners is to start a conversation that is not a continuation of the "pack more heat" line that was in full effect after Aurora, because that kind of thinking is done, kaput, over. It is to be treated as an absurdity. What Manchin said today seems like a decent start.

That isn't to gloss over that there are gun owners who are responsible in their own personal ownership of guns, but who fear that new conversation, and all I can say there is that there are social responsibilities to which we are also beholden.
posted by holgate at 7:54 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

MattWPBS: Yes, that is exactly what they are saying, they do not make mistakes, they do not screw up, they do not discharge weapons accidentally, they do not grab a gun by mistake, they do not have kids in the house ever, they do not have a temper, they do not ever do anything that makes keeping a loaded weapon under their pillow dangerous.
posted by Cosine at 7:56 PM on December 17, 2012 [8 favorites]

If you're going to sleep next to a weapon, I suggest an axe.

It silent. It won't blind you with muzzle flash. Won't threaten your neighbors. Makes for a much more grievous injury and it has far more utility -, for example, in a fire you can use it to break a window and make your escape.

And, it won't accidentally go off and kill a fireman.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 8:05 PM on December 17, 2012 [24 favorites]

Guns at home more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defense
posted by sweetkid at 8:06 PM on December 17, 2012 [5 favorites]

UbuRoivas : such as hunters, farmers and sporting shooters - none of which you're ever realistically likely to encounter any of the time unless you're one of them.

It so often happens on metafilter that I feel like I live in a parallel universe. I live in as urban an area as can be, and yet I know all three of the above.

And no, if I scared off an intruder with a gun, I sure as hell wouldn't tell the police about it, are you crazy?

I know that anecdata doesn't equal data, but I am lucky enough to know no one who died by being murdered with a gun, or accidentally shot with one. I know a couple of people (a few, maybe even) who have scared off intruders and attackers with a gun. (And no, I don't think they reported it to anyone.) I also know people who have scared off intruders with baseball bats, but they had the advantage of being large, male, and scary looking, which are advantages I will never have as a woman who has all her teeth, a soft voice, and no noticeable scars...

Another parallel universe idea is that the police will a) be within useful distance, b) come immediately when called, assuming you can call them, & c) not turn into part of the problem when they arrive. Either you've been lucky and haven't actually needed them, or you've been lucky enough to live in a neighborhood where this is the case. I have lived in one of those that I know of, so obviously they exist, but I don't think they're exactly common, are they?
posted by small_ruminant at 8:14 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

A farkload of a lot of good a gun would do me in a safe in the basement, eh?

I have no kids. Rarely get visitors (and make sure to secure anything dangerous when I do). Anyone in my house except me and Ms. pla doesn't belong there, as a rule.

It explains so much.
posted by codacorolla at 8:17 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

And no, if I scared off an intruder with a gun, I sure as hell wouldn't tell the police about it, are you crazy?

What is crazy about telling the police an intruder came into your home? What?
posted by sweetkid at 8:17 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

Doesn't look like Smedleyman is going to weigh in here, which is unfortunate, but he's had a lot to say about guns and gun control in the past.
posted by desjardins at 8:18 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Why wouldn't you tell the police about an intruder in your home? My mind is officially boggled. Like, flabbergasted. What about your neighbors? Don't you care about their safety? Or is everyone on their own, and that's why everyone needs a gun?
posted by agregoli at 8:19 PM on December 17, 2012 [11 favorites]

MattWPBS : It doesn't do you a lot of good to keep a lethal weapon where you can grab it while you're half asleep either. You never woken up mid dream confused about what is or isn't real?

Hmm, nope, can't say I have. As a lucid dreamer, I even recognize my dreams as dreams. Yes, I have about 5-10 seconds after an abrupt and unexpected waking-up where I wouldn't consider myself at 100% capacity. But confused about reality? No. Just unable to stand up.

Do you really think it's that likely that you're going to wake up with a burglar in your room?

No, actually, I don't really expect someone to break into a 2nd story window - I have to admit, that would surprise me! I consider it far more likely that I'll wake up with a burglar downstairs, and either my stomping around (again, I don't want to kill anyone! How many times do I need to repeat it?) will scare them off, or if their meth-addled brains insist on moving forward, they'll never make it to the top of the stairs.

small_ruminant : Another parallel universe idea is that the police will a) be within useful distance, b) come immediately when called, assuming you can call them

LOL... Even ignoring your option "C", it would take at least 15 minutes for the police to get to my house, unless pure luck had them passing by right at the time I called.

Oddly enough, I have two fire stations within five miles. But police? Nope. Anything I don't handle personally will have killed me, my SO, my cats, ransacked the house, and made a clean getaway long before the police arrive.

codacorolla : It explains so much.

No doubt. You, uh, might want to get used to DINKs, though - An increasing percentage of the population sees no point in adding to the planet's overpopulations... And hey, Disposable income! Awesome thing, dawg!

sweetkid : What is crazy about telling the police an intruder came into your home? What?

Ater experiencing the trauma of having a stranger rummage around in your house (screw the valuables, like I give a shit about my TV? I don't even have cable!), do you really want to spend a night explaining over and over and over how your went "stomp... stomp... stomp motherfucker!", and heard the front door slam?

Sorry if "Sesame Street" counts as your only exposure to US law enforcement - But even in places where they may count as your drinking buddies - They just want to close the case in the simplest way possible. And very, very rarely does that include taking fingerprints, footprints, tireprints, dog-smelling-prints, and 27 colored 8x10 colored glossy photos just to catch a litterbug. The guy with the gun? Guilty. And if you need proof, I suggest you re-read this thread.
posted by pla at 8:29 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm curious, now: what normally happens when bears wander around urban areas?

I'm not in an urban area, but I am in a pretty dense suburban area that I think a lot of people outside my broad geographic region might think of as urban. I once saw a bear cub running down a little forested area on the side of a highway offramp about 2 miles from my house. I pulled over, called 911, told them, and that was the last I heard of it.

Didn't even need a gun to do it.
posted by Flunkie at 8:30 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Who are you people in involve the police in your life when it isn't absolutely necessary? They're a nightmare! And if you're not white/middle class they're worse! Now that I'm white, middle aged, and middle class I can play the entitlement card, and I do, and it works, I'm sorry to say. But I can sure as hell tell you that wasn't the case when I was a hippie kid, or when I was a punk teenager in a "cholo" car, and I was still white with the right accent.

As a side thing, our social group was harassed pretty relentlessly by the authorities (pets shot, windows broken, etc) when I was a kid in the name of the war on drugs, and it made a strong impression on me. Even though, unlike my neighbors, I look more or less like the "right sort" these days I'm very aware that my safety of privilege can disappear in a twinkling.

Since my pistol is uselessly locked up in a safe place, yes- I will call the police if there's an intruder. And then I will hide. But I completely understand people who choose not to.
posted by small_ruminant at 8:30 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

Because the odds the police are going to actually arrest a person whom they've never seen and who hasn't actually hurt anybody are significantly lower than the odds that they'll arrest you for something related to the confrontation?

Unless you shoot somebody, I doubt it. Have any examples? Finding drugs or something isn't related to the confrontation.

Sorry if "Sesame Street" counts as your only exposure to US law enforcement

Probably not necessary to be condescending to folks.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:31 PM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

It so often happens on metafilter that I feel like I live in a parallel universe. I live in as urban an area as can be, and yet I know all three of the above.

Uh, ok, I guess there are farmers who come to sell their produce at the farmers market, and I've got various relatives who own or have owned farms. Don't know of anybody who shoots in a range for fun, but we had a range & shooting team at school, so there's that. I know a spearfisher or two, but no actual hunters that I can think of. Suffice to say, these groups aren't a big part of day-to-day life.

Another parallel universe idea is that the police will a) be within useful distance, b) come immediately when called, assuming you can call them, & c) not turn into part of the problem when they arrive. Either you've been lucky and haven't actually needed them, or you've been lucky enough to live in a neighborhood where this is the case.

Maybe I've been lucky. I've lived & studied & worked for decades in inner city areas crawling with junkies & meth-heads & whatnot, but have only been exposed to violence exactly once (a surprise king-hit mugging that cost me a crappy phone and about $30 cash). It's nice to know that if people do have guns, they're probably off in the outback shooting kangaroos, because there's certainly not much evidence of them in my local areas, dodgy as they may be at times. I mentioned much earlier that when guns are so very de-normalised, even the "bad guys" rarely use them because they draw so much attention.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:32 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

I consider an intruder in my home to be an absolutely necessary time to let the police know about it, yeah. And I don't like the police.
posted by agregoli at 8:32 PM on December 17, 2012 [13 favorites]

Not telling the police that a potential intruder tried to enter your home, but you scared them away, endangers everyone in the neighborhood and puts the rest of the community at risk. This person may have committed a crime elsewhere already and be wanted, or they may move on to pick another house to commit their crime.

I guess I wouldn't be surprised, though, that not thinking about the community aspect of the issue at all sort of goes along with the "property defender" fantasy.
posted by Miko at 8:34 PM on December 17, 2012 [17 favorites]

You know what's useful for protection against home invasion, can be acquired for practically free and probably won't acctentally kill the kids or neighbors through the wall while you're cleaning it?

A well-trained dog.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:35 PM on December 17, 2012 [13 favorites]

Marissa Alexander. Pulls a gun on her abusive ex-husband (who admits he was physically threatening her at the time), gets a 20-year prison term.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:36 PM on December 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

Part of my obsession with military history is the dissection of the efficacy of various firearms. You have no idea how fast this happens. Make a pretend pistol, or pick up a water pistol. Squeeze the trigger just as fast as you can. Or, just take this simple ryhtm exercise... one-And-two-And-three-And...

That's how fast the murderers are pumping bullets into the innocent.

The little boy who was buried today, he had eleven rounds fired into him. By himself.

OK, so, let's say I'm an American patriot. The election doesn't go my way, and instead of waiting two years for the next one, I need to overthrow a government right now by killing my fellow Americans. Or, worse, that carpetbagger sherif, he doesn't respect me, so I need to kill him and his deputies. How will we do that now that we can't own weapons with high-capacity rounds?

The answer is the shotgun, an equalizer greater than anything General Kalashnikov could have envisioned, something no gun legislation would dare touch due to its legitimate usefulness, but that's not sexy enough. Sexy is when you can off two classrooms of first graders, and their teachers, firing from the hip, reloading only once, maybe twice.

"But I need to defend my home..." Shotgun. Six rounds.
"But I need to overthrow tyranny..." Shotgun. Six rounds.
"But I need to kill deer to feed my family..." Shotgun. Six rounds.
"But I need to kill a grizzly in the field..." Bear Medicine. Six rounds.
"But I need to kill as many unarmed human beings as fast as I can," Sorry. Can't help you.

Anything beyond a six round capacity is a toy, purchased and owned by those who enjoy showing off their toys to others. The psychos and gangsters loooove them some toys, it makes killing the helpless so much easier.

OK. Let's pray, and pray that the principle had an M4 carbine in her office. She'd need to...

1) Make her way to her office without being shot.
2) Be of a presence of mind to retrieve her assault rifle from where it was safely stored, with a key or combination or somesuch.
3) Cock and unset the safety.
4) March back to where the killer was.
5) Not despair after seeing he had already killed two classrooms full of first-graders and their heroic teachers before offing himself like the worm he was.

...one-And-two-And-three-And...

We are going to restrict your access to ammunition. We are going to restrict your access to high capacity magazines. Fight us, and we will be going after handguns and any rifle in .223, .308 or 7.62x39, and any other rifle or handgun capable of self-loading, including DA revolvers.

We will likely win, in the long run. We'd rather compromise and win now.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:38 PM on December 17, 2012 [21 favorites]

Marissa Alexander. Pulls a gun on her abusive ex-husband (who admits he was physically threatening her at the time), gets a 20-year prison term.

She went outside to her car to get her gun (she could have run away here), and came back inside and pointed it at him, and then fired it as a warning to drive him away. You're not calling the police for that? The issue there was the sentencing, not the police action.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:41 PM on December 17, 2012 [9 favorites]

Half of this "conversation" is a sad joke. I haven't read ANYONE suggesting that there should be no guns at all in rural America, pretty much everyone who is in favour of gun control accepts that hunters and farmers need guns.

The most that people are calling for is a ban on automatic weapons and handguns.

If advocates for guns accept that this is the maximum that is called for, all this nonsense about bears and Alaska can be safely put to one side. Unless you can explain why rural people need handguns and automatic weapons.
posted by wilful at 8:45 PM on December 17, 2012 [12 favorites]

I guess I wouldn't be surprised, though, that not thinking about the community aspect of the issue at all sort of goes along with the "property defender" fantasy.

Miko, that is an inflammatory interpretation of my comment and I'm surprised you would say it, and after so many years you should know me well enough to know that I'm community-minded to excess. You are also assuming that reporting does something useful in every city, and that your experience of police is the same as everyone else's.
posted by small_ruminant at 8:50 PM on December 17, 2012

Okay, done with the fighting for tonight. I had a few more zingers, but really, none of us will convince the other side.

Personally, I think dealing with this at the state law level works well - You want to live in NYC or DC? More power to ya. You want to live in Maine or Montana, etc, hey, cool, let me know if you want to visit my private range sometime.

We don't live in the same world, realistically. I can accept that. I would appreciate it if you could as well. My "corner store" takes a 10 minute drive to reach, and sells chips, beer, and ammo (and good cheese! Don't forget the cheese, the true hallmark of civilization).

Good night, and yes, I sincerely wish the abomination in CT had never happened, we all do. 'nuff said.
posted by pla at 8:50 PM on December 17, 2012

that is an inflammatory interpretation of my comment

Really, isn't a reasonable interpretation to say that if someone had seen a potential criminal sneaking around their neighborhood and did not call the police? When that could mean either putting the neighbors at serious risk, or letting a criminal that could have been apprehended go free instead? You think a vigilante homeowner would handle this better?

Yeah, that usually works out great.
posted by Miko at 8:52 PM on December 17, 2012 [6 favorites]

Unless you can explain why rural people need handguns and automatic weapons.

I'm interested in the thoughts of the pro-gun folks here on this. I've had this conversation in a number of places lately.

From what I can tell, the bottom line is that they feel the 2nd Ammendment allows them these weapons, regardless of their need for them. And also that prohibition of these weapons would not work and would be a failure like the War on Drugs.

I find the first point weak. I do respect the Constitution, it's just that if that is the only thing holding back change here the gun owners need to help us change the 2nd so we can have more reasonable agreed upon policy. (pla wants state by state or local rules, well we can't have them, dude! Not to the degree we need.)

The second I have sympathy for, but I think there are enough differences between drugs and alcohol and guns that a ban could work (over decades). It also appears to be working well in other countries without the type of backlash other forms of prohibition have had.

There is also the self defense thing, but I think there are better ways and after all we would not be banning all guns so you would still have a wide array of options. Also, the need for guns is less when gun crime is less and gun control helps with that.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:53 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Personally, I think dealing with this at the state law level works well - You want to live in NYC or DC? More power to ya.

What if I want to live in Newtown, CT?
posted by Flunkie at 8:54 PM on December 17, 2012 [5 favorites]

none of us will convince the other side.

I'll keep saying this: we don't have to convince "the other side." THose who chose to retreat to the extreme absolutist position, to ignore data and evidence and continue to daydream about fantasy situations and how they would behave in them if they had firepower, do not need to participate in the conversation if they feel unable to yield on a single point.

The majority of Americans can come together and make reasonable policies that reduce the risk of gun violence. There are more than enough of us, and we are already getting started. Those reasonable gun owners who want to preserve their right to keep their firearms will, I expect, also be at the table so they can influence the outcome. Those who want to dig in to the extreme entrenchments will not be represented there.
posted by Miko at 8:55 PM on December 17, 2012 [20 favorites]

It also appears to be working well in other countries without the type of backlash other forms of prohibition have had.

Not just no backlash...profound relief.
posted by Miko at 8:58 PM on December 17, 2012 [5 favorites]

"You want to live in NYC or DC?"

Um, as mentioned at length DC happily exercised its local right to enforce strict handgun laws until Republican congressmen bankrolled by the NRA got involved and enforced "rural" handgun laws.

So no, it's no longer just a question of moving to the place where you agree with the gun laws.
posted by bardic at 8:59 PM on December 17, 2012 [9 favorites]

The most that people are calling for is a ban on automatic weapons and handguns.

Which would be summarily rejected by every federal court in the country as in clear violation of Heller. The NRA wouldn't even have to fight it. They'd just stand back, laugh to themselves, and win the inevitable lawsuit as soon as it started. If your starting point in the conversation is a threat that is utterly without credibility, you're not going to get anywhere.

Really, isn't a reasonable interpretation to say that if someone had seen a potential criminal sneaking around their neighborhood and did not call the police? When that could mean either putting the neighbors at serious risk, or letting a criminal that could have been apprehended go free instead? You think a vigilante homeowner would handle this better?

Again, if your experience with police is that they would spend more than three minutes looking for someone one person has seen briefly, who hurt no one and stole nothing, you've got police that are a hell of a lot better than any I've ever dealt with.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:01 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

> The little boy who was buried today, he had eleven rounds fired into him. By himself.

Upthread I learned that little boy would have been knocked off his feet by the equal and opposite force his firing those very shots himself would have thrown him backwards.

Much earlier upthread I was deleted for saying much softer, but realistic things.

Slap*Happy? I love you! And your threat makes me want to stand, clap and applaud.
posted by de at 9:02 PM on December 17, 2012

Slap*Happy: "We are going to restrict your access to ammunition. We are going to restrict your access to high capacity magazines. Fight us, and we will be going after handguns and any rifle in .223, .308 or 7.62x39, and any other rifle or handgun capable of self-loading, including DA revolvers."

This kind of bullshit is why reaching any compromise and passing sane gun control is so difficult and why the NRA gets so many donations. "If we give an inch they'll take a mile."
posted by the_artificer at 9:03 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Really, isn't a reasonable interpretation to say that if someone had seen a potential criminal sneaking around their neighborhood and did not call the police? When that could mean either putting the neighbors at serious risk, or letting a criminal that could have been apprehended go free instead? You think a vigilante homeowner would handle this better?

If I see someone creeping past the multiple pitbulls in my neighbors' yards in a stealthy manner, yes I will report it.

However, if I'm in a position that I have somehow pulled a gun on someone, I will not be calling the police because I know that doing so will make my life miserable. I will tell all the neighbors, though. (And they won't tell the police either, I bet. I doubt most of them are even documented.)

This assumption that someone in another life, practically another country- east coast to west coast, or rural to urban, or safe-urban to unsafe-urban, the list could go on, and I know not all these differences apply to you and me, Miko- we have more in common than most- with different on-the-ground experience and data, can KNOW that my decision was made because I'm ignorant, haven't thought it through, or am too selfish to consider community is incredibly arrogant.

And sarcasm generally sucks.

I am going to leave this now. See all y'all tomorrow.
posted by small_ruminant at 9:06 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

"I'll keep saying this: we don't have to convince 'the other side.' THose who chose to retreat to the extreme absolutist position, to ignore data and evidence and continue to daydream about fantasy situations and how they would behave in them if they had firepower, do not need to participate in the conversation if they feel unable to yield on a single point."

Bingo.

If it makes certain non-gun people happy to "hear out" the other side bully for them, but it's really not a goal in and of itself.

Lots of people still resent slavery being made illegal, women getting to vote, gays getting to marry, etc. Democracy is messy above all else, but it's never been about getting a consensus beyond 51% (at times 66%).

And honestly, in over 1,000 thousand comments nobody has suggested complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment beyond somebody arguing that this was the only way to change things, because incremental gun policy can't be done (a well known NRA talking point that is complete bullshit).

Anyways, after the horror that took place in those two first grade classrooms I think we've reached a tipping point nationally. I certainly hope so.

Nine times out of ten America has had to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming, not reasonably stroking our chins as we calmly ponder over the mysteries 30-round magazines and no-background-check gun sales.
posted by bardic at 9:07 PM on December 17, 2012 [14 favorites]

"If we give an inch they'll take a mile."

You're leaving out the part where the NRA took about 100 miles without ever giving an inch. They've won so much that they're fighting little nickel and dime laws in states, small cities and towns. They've taken away the rights of states and municipalities to regulate as they see fit. It's absurd to think that even an event like this could cause the NRA to lose even half of the ground they've gained just since the 1990s.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:11 PM on December 17, 2012 [14 favorites]

We are going to restrict your access to ammunition. We are going to restrict your access to high capacity magazines. Fight us, and we will be going after handguns and any rifle in .223, .308 or 7.62x39, and any other rifle or handgun capable of self-loading, including DA revolvers.

We will likely win, in the long run. We'd rather compromise and win now.

Your comments in this thread are long on this sort of thing and short on understanding of the actual problems gun control proponents face. A ban on handguns can't be taken seriously because the current Court would find it unconstitutional. I can't imagine that Heller, that was in part based on the question of whether a particular weapon was normally possessed by civilians for law abiding purposes, would allow a ban on popular features like self-loading or common types of ammunition either.

Bans on high capacity magazines would probably be okay, limitations on commercial sales of ammunition would be probably be okay, but when that's all the Court will let you have, it's not exactly a good "go along with us or else" position.

I don't think there's political will for anything approaching a handgun ban, and even if there was, you'd have to repeal the 2nd Amendment to get it into law. That's not happening anytime soon.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 9:15 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

"If we give an inch they'll take a mile."

No. The new game is... if you don't give an inch, we will take every damn thing we can, light it on fire, and spread the ashes to the winds. So give an inch.

Welcome to Reality 2.0. The talking points no longer work. I could say that semiautomatic weapons are the work of reptile aliens, and if a Republican Gun Nut said otherwise, the public will believe me by default. After the 2012 elections, after Aurora, after the Sikh Temple, After the Clackamass Mall, after Newtown... the reality-based community is back in town. And the reality-based community cannot help but note that the NRA lost all but one of its senate races, 17 of its 30 house races, and the presidency, and that the Republican Senator from West (by God!) Virginia is now in favor of gun control.

Why should I fear the NRA? I don't fear it. I want it to go back to promoting civilian marksmanship as a non-partisan sportsman's organization, and will not rest until that happens.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:17 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

to take you back to the Alaskan bush one more time, if you're hunting with a relatively low-caliber rifle like a .223, you carry a .357 handgun for bears strapped on your person.

That's your problem right there, spitbull. Unstrap the bears and step away quietly.
posted by MuffinMan at 9:18 PM on December 17, 2012 [17 favorites]

And get this elephant out of my pajamas!
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:19 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Republican Senator from West (by God!) Virginia is now in favor of gun control.

I don't know about that. The things he was saying sound sort of reasonable, and maybe don't even go as far as I would like or address the things I think should be.

The things you have been proposing in that dick waving tone of yours have bordered on absurd.

I'm just sayin' maybe you should dial it back a bit.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 9:31 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

Chait on McArdle's Libertarian kiddie suicide-squad philosophy:

"Unless I am missing a very subtle parody of libertarianism, McArdle’s plan to teach children to launch banzai charges against mass murderers is the single worst solution to any problem I have ever seen offered in a major publication. Newsweek, I award this essay no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
posted by bardic at 9:31 PM on December 17, 2012 [10 favorites]

holgate: "The only question I have for Jacqueline (who reminds me of some friends born and raised in the South) is this, along the lines of the Kantian categorical imperative: would you wish that everybody lived as you do?"

tonycpsu: "So, tell me, how do you see the rapid rise of socialism, liberalism, and economic redistribution playing out?"

I realize that my perspective is very strange to most of you. I have led a strange life, and continue to travel in strange circles.

Although I moved to "the South" a year ago, I was actually raised in the suburbs of Seattle by former Teamsters Union activists / Trotskyite would-be revolutionaries. So from the perspective my childhood indoctrination, the rapid rise of socialism etc. seems WAY OVERDUE. :)

My upbringing included my father giving me shooting lessons supplemented with lectures on the necessary evil of using assassinations and purges (i.e., mass executions) to effect radical political change. He wanted me to understand why it was important for us to be well-armed and prepared to do what was necessary "when the revolution comes." I am not making this up. :(

The fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union undermined my faith in my parents' ideology just in time for my rebellious teenage years. I discovered Robert Heinlein, evaded my parents' threats to have me re-educated at socialist summer camp, and joined the Libertarians. Eventually I found myself routinely in the company of extremist militia members who would write fan letters to Claire Wolfe asking her, "Is it time yet?"

Although I've personally de-radicalized quite a bit over the past few years (in part thanks to MetaFilter), most of my life has been spent surrounded by ideologues who are armed to the teeth and vocal about their willingness to kill to achieve their political goals. They're just waiting for "the right time."

So yes, I would like it if more Americans would live as I do and arm themselves. Not just to protect themselves against crime or tyranny, but also as a check against the advocates for violent revolution. These wannabe revolutionaries are not only delusional about their ability to topple the federal government but also tend to assume that they will become the new rulers of the post-revolution (or post-collapse) society by virtue of their superior firepower over the "sheeple."

I fear for the long-term survival of civil society if moderates continue to be outgunned by extremists. I want to see violent revolution taken off the table as a supposedly viable strategy not only because of the difficulty of taking on the eeeeeeeeeeevil gubmint but also because they know that their "ordinary American" neighbors won't tolerate it either.
posted by Jacqueline at 9:38 PM on December 17, 2012 [6 favorites]

Gotta admit, while I desperately want reasonable firearm regulation in this country I will be absolutely floored if anything actually comes of this, latest in a long line of massacres. Seriously, when the argument is we need semi auto rifles because hunting prairie dogs! And large handguns because BEARS!!!
They shot St Ronnie and things have just gotten worse. 60+ mass shootings in 30 years... All the pro lobby has to do is wait 6 months and things will be back to their new normal. Hey remember Trayvon Martin? No laws have changed since then. Columbine? Red Lake? Aurora? Virginia Tech? Geneva, Ala? Columbus? Omaha? Killeen, Texas?

Yeah. Nothings happening to guns.

We tried to get good mental health care in the county under the guise of health care reform, and got called pinko Communists who wanted to erode freedoms. And what we have now is better than before but still an ugly mess that is going to die a death of a thousand cuts.

So take yer guns, shoot your prairie dogs, stand your ground, defend your castle. Go out tomorrow go get yourself a few more just for an even dozen because nothing says peace on earth, good will to man like a brand new killing toy. No worries you're safe, nothing will change.

bang
bang
posted by edgeways at 9:38 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

I don't defend McArdle, who could equally have recommended arming children with pieces of 2x4, but suspect this is a wrongheaded application of the old saying "rush a gun; flee a knife."
posted by MuffinMan at 9:42 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

I don't know about that. The things he was saying sound sort of reasonable, and maybe don't even go as far as I would like or address the things I think should be.

I think he's a good bell weather of where Slap*Happy's reality 2.0 really is. A conservative* senator from a rural state is willing to talk about magazine size limitations and a renewed assault weapons ban. That's really, really good news, but it's far from public opinion turning in favor of really strict gun control. Post-Sandy Hook polling is starting to come in and there looks like some decent shifts in favor of stricter regulation. Again, that's good, but it's still close and it's not any more support than there's been at times in the past (it's less than after Columbine), when we didn't see dramatic reform. I think there's some changes that will come of this, but they're not going to be huge.

*He's also a Democrat, not a Republican
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 9:43 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

So yes, I would like it if more Americans would live as I do and arm themselves. Not just to protect themselves against crime or tyranny, but also as a check against the advocates for violent revolution.

I feel silly bothering to continue arguing about this, but more guns do not end up being a check against violence. They just add to the possibility of violence. You are out of the cult now. Leave it behind.
posted by mdn at 9:43 PM on December 17, 2012 [11 favorites]

Some of us value our constitutional rights. YMMV.

I value my constitutional right to life.

Rights don't exist in a vacuum, but in a balance against each other. Right now in the U.S. our balance is shifted far, far, far, far, far too far in the direction of the supposedly unalienable right to own and wield dangerous weapons.

My right to life, and to not be continually endangered, means that we can put some reasonable, sane limits on the competing right to own and use guns.
posted by flug at 9:43 PM on December 17, 2012 [16 favorites]

Sorry if "Sesame Street" counts as your only exposure to US law enforcement

Sorry I live in NYC so no, not Sesame Street. And I did have a break-in (and actually had 11 officers respond. 11!) The guy broke my door down ( I wasn't home) and my landlord was reluctant to get out of bed to get me a new door, so I put the sargeant on the phone, who yelled into the phone, "You can't have her sleep here with no door!" Someone arrived in 20 minutes, but he only spoke Chinese, so they got a Chinese speaking officer to explain to him that he had to replace the door and what had happened.

(I mean I know that's not at all everyone's experience) but that's what happened.
posted by sweetkid at 9:44 PM on December 17, 2012 [9 favorites]

I haven't read ANYONE suggesting that there should be no guns at all in rural America

You are reading different comments than I.

I concur, Slap*Happy, the shotgun's lesser combat utility makes it useful in these discussions.

I sincerely wish the abomination in CT had never happened, we all do. 'nuff said.

I don't believe you, pla. Here's why:

By now, we know that the massacre at Newtown is not exceptional. The perpetrator used commonly available firearms and equipment, gotten from a "responsible" gun owner. By now, we know that these types of incidents are the predictable outcome of the existing regulatory regime for firearms. By now, we know that unless changes are made to the way we regulate firearms, we can expect another Newtown massacre, another Aurora massacre, another Oak Creek massacre.

This is not acceptable to me. But many people are totally opposed to any such change. Why is it acceptable to them?

Why is it acceptable to you?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:50 PM on December 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

"I fear for the long-term survival of civil society if moderates continue to be outgunned by extremists."

Sez the person with 15 unsecured guns in their closet.
posted by bardic at 10:05 PM on December 17, 2012 [6 favorites]

Bardic: Um, as mentioned at length DC happily exercised its local right to enforce strict handgun laws until Republican congressmen bankrolled by the NRA got involved and enforced "rural" handgun laws.

And as I mentioned, your comments were false. You're compounding the error now. The ban was in fact, not repealed (the legislation didn't pass the senate) and the ban was instead struck down by the Supreme Court.

The current legislation that allows gun ownership is still highly restrictive and it's laughable to compare it to "'rural' handgun laws" and was not passed by Republican congressmen, but by the DC City Council.

And since you even mentioned Heller in another comment, I'm confused about whether you don't know how the U.S. government functions or are just letting your rhetoric run ahead of the facts.
posted by Jahaza at 10:07 PM on December 17, 2012

I fear for the long-term survival of civil society if moderates continue to be outgunned by extremists.

The implications of this seem immoderate to me. And that's all I'll add.
posted by holgate at 10:10 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

dealing with this at the state law level works well - You want to live in NYC

For what it's worth, NYC might be a pretty good example of why state-level law is a poor solution. First off, it's a highly concentrated population center that sits at the bottom of a state with vast, bear-filled rural areas. Second, state regulation alone fails to take into account that, per an estimate from the ATF, approximately 82% of the guns that were in New York State last year were purchased out of state; for comparison, that figure is closer to 30% in most states. Stroudsburg, PA, is two states over, but it's half as far away as Albany is. Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida are a lot farther, but somehow, their handguns keep ending up on our streets.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 10:11 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

But thanks, Jahaza, because I had no idea Heller was actually masterminded by Cato i.e., the Koch brothers.
posted by bardic at 10:13 PM on December 17, 2012

Maybe "rural" was a bad choice of word. "Lax gun control law that generally works fine in southern, rural areas" being imposed on DC residents who genuinely did not want to lose stringent gun control because they suffered a two-decade holocaust of gun violence due to straw buys in Virginia.

The problem isn't the word rural, the problem is that your comments bear little relation to reality.

You said white republican men repealed the DC gun ban when in fact the legislation a) had bipartisan support b) weren't all male or all white and c) didn't pass the senate and so didn't actually repeal the law.

Now you're saying that DC has "Lax gun control law that generally works fine in southern, rural areas" that's complete nonsense. DC has highly restrictive gun laws compared to southern states.
posted by Jahaza at 10:20 PM on December 17, 2012

DC has less restrictive gun laws compared to DC before Heller.

The point was that southern, NRA-backed congressmen did their duty and played a game with the political rights of DC citizens to decide for themselves just exactly what kinds of gun laws they want. It was pushed by Cato/Koch brothers as well (surprise!). Maybe you don't find this racist, but I can assure you that black residents of DC did.

One of us is having trouble understanding politics and how Congress works and it isn't me.
posted by bardic at 10:30 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

This piece from n+1, a journalist's reflections on covering the trial of Anders Behring Breivik, wasn't available online when this thread began, but as soon as I read it I wanted to share it here. Now it's online, so here it is.

(n+1 writes, "We’re posting this piece at a time when Americans are reckoning with another terrible act of mass violence, and we hope that the work of a mind grappling with sadly similar circumstances will provide something like solace.")
posted by bubukaba at 10:36 PM on December 17, 2012

What's frustrating beyond words is how the NRA/gun-nut contingent wants to push their very specific demands on urban populations. For example, as a former DC resident (former and literal "murder capital of the world") I was appalled that Republican congresspeole, all of whom were whtie males, pushed through a bill to allow private ownership of handguns in DC.

Bardic, you wrote this. It's false. Just own up to it.

Then you wrote this:

Um, as mentioned at length DC happily exercised its local right to enforce strict handgun laws until Republican congressmen bankrolled by the NRA got involved and enforced "rural" handgun laws.

It's also false. In two ways. First, the current laws were not made less restrictive by congressmen. Second, the current laws are still very restrictive.

DC has less restrictive gun laws compared to DC before Heller.

Sure. But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that DC has the kind of "Lax gun control law that generally works fine in southern, rural areas" which is false.
posted by Jahaza at 10:37 PM on December 17, 2012

You don't realise how precious they are 'til someone tries to take them away...
posted by the duck by the oboe at 10:48 PM on December 17, 2012 [10 favorites]

Lots of well-articulated arguments here exploring the risks of keeping a loaded gun next to one's bed for defense against a home invasion, got me thinking.

Idea: Keep the guns locked up at night, but rig up a motion sensor that, if triggered, plays a high-quality sound file of the scary KA-CHUNK noise of a shotgun round being chambered followed by a deep voice commanding "Get the FUCK out of my house before I shoot you!"

Drawback: The cat would probably set it off 20 times a night. :(
posted by Jacqueline at 11:00 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

We live on a fairly busy 2-lane avenue, with a bus stop about 20 paces from our front door (there's a hedge, so you can't really hear the bus). It's a townhome complex, so there is a common garbage area. So besides the foot traffic at the bus stop, we also get a fair number of binners.

I've never felt the need to arm myself, and we leave bikes locked up outside out front door. A neighbour had some stuff stolen from her kitchen (she left the window open and some valuables sitting on the table) but the police came right away.

When we first moved back to Canada, we lived out on an acreage. One night, someone started pounding on our door. I phoned 911 and, once again, the police came right away. They never did catch the person, but I'm pretty sure they would have helped us out if there had been a problem.

What is the big difference here?
posted by KokuRyu at 11:11 PM on December 17, 2012

Isn't it weird that owning a thing is a right? All the other rights are intangibles. And how weird to have the right to possess death, but not a right to health. And why only guns? Why not swords and ninja stars as well? A society armed with swords is a polite and classy society. The right to bear arms is just failing all over the place. Let's have the right to bear tophats and sabers. Let the second amendment be the classy amendment!
posted by five fresh fish at 11:15 PM on December 17, 2012 [13 favorites]

Gin and Tacos (again, I know) on American "responsible gun owners":

"Boy, the internet is just buzzing with Responsible gun owners letting everyone know how unfair it is to 'punish' them for the actions of a Few Bad Apples. Lately I find it quite interesting to press a little on this issue of responsible ownership. Rarely are more than a few questions necessary to reveal that most individuals' conception of Responsible Gun Ownership means that they have never murdered anyone with their gun. While commendable, I'm not sure that alone qualifies.

I may have forgotten a lot since the last time I fired a gun (about two weeks ago, at a range) so I consulted an owner's manual (2010) from Smith & Wesson. As I recalled, the manual contains a very clear list of precautions to take with one's firearm to use them in a safe and responsible manner. The next time you encounter one of the internet's apparent millions of Responsible gun owners, try out some of the following. . . ."
posted by bardic at 11:28 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Keep the guns locked up at night, but rig up a motion sensor that, if triggered, plays a high-quality sound file of the scary KA-CHUNK noise of a shotgun round being chambered followed by a deep voice commanding "Get the FUCK out of my house before I shoot you!"

Thing is, the technology for doing this with AI and facial recognition (($OBJECT != $MASTER)AND($OBJECT !=$CAT)) is almost certainly within 5-10 years to the consumer market. Cue Darrell Issa barking "Step AWAY from the CAR!"

That sounds relatively benign, but what's scary to me is the likelihood that so is hooking a system like that up to a weapon. Cue Sentry Guns. Look at Trayvon Martin; look at Slinger, Wisconsin. The legal regime is in place for being shot by an autonomous security gun a presumption of trespassing and threat of violence. You have twenty seconds to comply.

I don't want to steer this thread into utterly uncharted waters (we're debating enough hypotheticals as it stands), but I am saying the challenges to having so. damn. many. guns are not going to get any easier once you have little CPUs in the mix. Why do I bring this up? Because the presumption is that a machine in charge of a gun should have perfect judgement and perfect performance. It can't even be half as bad as a human operator; maybe not even a tenth as bad. We see that in the discussion of autonomous cars. This presents the conundrum of why current car operation safety outcomes are acceptable. Similarly, why are current gun operation safety outcomes acceptable? In effect, the legal presumptions out there -- protestations of self-professed responsible gun owners notwithstanding -- that the gun is, once employed, effectively automatic. It cannot be gainsayed. The deployment itself resolves any question of its appropriate presence in the situation. And, in a broader sense, the mere availability of guns does the same.
Sorry about any lapses of sense here, it's late. But I hope my point is clear and not too far afield.
posted by dhartung at 11:42 PM on December 17, 2012

I can only reiterate what I said many comments ago: ignore the people who say it can't be done, because they're wrong and speaking either from ignorance, apathy or despair; ignore the people who say you have to persuade the extremists and be nice to them, because you don't need their numbers to win this fight. And it is a fight - a fight to reclaim your right to live without getting shot while you're at the cinema, or in school, or doing your grocery shopping. I wish you Americans could understand what it's like to live without that fear (I got 99 fears but gun death ain't one).

Don't ignore the people who nitpick at solutions. Listen to them, question them, and question the answers they give you. They're fearful and emotional, but at least they're willing to talk about it. You probably won't persuade one to support gun-control in one go, because they've got a lot of cognitive dissonance to work through, and that's always tough. They're mostly nice people who haven't thought through the consequences of their decisions. Think of it as paving the way for someone else to persuade them later on.

Take a leaf from the book of civil rights and work on incremental change in any area you can affect. Look at local laws and let the Second Amendment be. The right to bear arms does not guarantee to the right to bear them irresponsibly, cheaply, dangerously, for shits and giggles, or to prop up your insecurities.

And maybe start that "Gun Owners Sick Of All This Tactical Fetish Shit" group. It sounds like fun and could work really well. I'd definitely go to a meetup of the MeFi chapter and buy a round.
posted by harriet vane at 11:47 PM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

A round of beers, not ammo, just to clarify :)
posted by harriet vane at 11:48 PM on December 17, 2012 [5 favorites]

The McArdle post, in addition to arguing against gun bans in favor of teaching toddlers to rush people with guns, downplays the weapons used in the attack. According to the press reports and police statements, all of the victims at the school were killed by a Bushmaster .223. She refers to it as "a commonly-used rifle" and after explaining it is modeled on the M-16 military assault rifle says "The civilian version is normally used for target shooting and varmint hunting; my understanding is that it is not really big enough to humanely take down a deer."

That is just not true. Read Bushmaster's own literature and the majority of the coverage. From Seattle Times: "The optional grenade launchers offered on some models have a particular appeal, one gun salesman said.

He added that although he did not want to make his customers sound crazy, the different types of ammunition available for AR-15s made them attractive to people 'who want to be prepared for an Armageddon-type situation.'"
posted by Cassford at 12:05 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Bushmaster considers their typical potential customers insecure with their masculinity, not crazy.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:19 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Please don't take this personally, US Mefites. I've learned a lot from this thread, and while I still think our Aussie gun control is better, I have a better understanding of why some of you are defensive about retaining your status quo.

The Christmas concert at my 11 year old son's school was held today. I was watching an entire kindergarten of five and six year olds (maybe 90 kids) sing "All I Want For Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth". I was thinking about losing 20 of them in one fell swoop. I was thinking about 20 of them just suddenly not being there tomorrow.

Then two policemen in bullet-proof vests walked up the side of the area where the outdoor concert was being held, and disappeared behind the corner of a classroom.

My blood ran cold. I didn't know whether to cry or freeze or shout or run up to my son's classroom. I still don't know why they were there, but I do know I spent the rest of the concert so frozen that my body is now aching from the stress and tension.

Fuck you, US gun laws which enable massacres of schoolchildren (and adults for that matter). Fuck you very much.
posted by malibustacey9999 at 12:37 AM on December 18, 2012 [8 favorites]

Cassford: given that Megan McArdle is confused by (among many other things) the dimensions of a 2x4, I generally question her understanding of whether the sun has risen.
posted by holgate at 12:42 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

"I generally question her understanding"

One of the bestest internet memes re: McArdle -- "Gastritis Broke My Calculator"
posted by bardic at 12:46 AM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

I appreciate my armed neighbors.

Standing up to evil and injustice isn't an easy thing to do, but it makes the world we live in a much better place.
posted by neversummer at 12:51 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

given that Megan McArdle is confused by (among many other things) the dimensions of a 2x4

I assume you know a 2x4 is actually 1-1/2" x 3-1/2", but that kind of makes your analogy less clear about whether you mean she's stupid or ignorant.
posted by BrotherCaine at 12:56 AM on December 18, 2012

pla Not to sound like I consider myself a ninja or anything, but I've trained for that as well. And I know enough to know that I'd much rather "scare off" an attacker than get into either hand-to-hand combat or a gunfight

How hard have you trained? See how hard a boxer or MMA fighter trains for a fight? Have you trained that hard? Eight weeks of non-stop full on practice and work? If you haven't trained that hard then you are deluding yourself. You could be sucker punched on the jaw and KO'd before you even draw. Preparing for less than that is unprepared

If you believe that you walk around with a level of awareness and preperation that allows you to preemptively defend against this I put it to you that you are living in an unhealthy fantasy world and need to to look at adjusting your mindset. It's the sort of thing that gives serving soldiers PTSD and stops them from being able to reintegrate with civil society and it's certainly not a positive way to engage with real people.

This later statement from you...

We don't live in the same world, realistically.

...is absolutely bang on the nose at least. You do not live in the world realistically at all.
posted by longbaugh at 12:58 AM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

"I appreciate my armed neighbors. "

Would you appreciate living next to the Lanzas?
posted by bardic at 1:15 AM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

Standing up to evil and injustice isn't an easy thing to do, but it makes the world we live in a much better place.

How much of this have they done?
posted by longbaugh at 1:15 AM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

Not at all. Adam was a terrorist, and he won. He exploited a soft target and was very successful at it.

What if he had a gallon of gas, a school bus and a railroad crossing? Who would you blame for that?
posted by neversummer at 1:16 AM on December 18, 2012

"Adam was a terrorist, and he won."

Adam was a terrorist who had easy access to assault weapons thanks to a poorly locked-down arsenal that happened to be under his own roof.

I don't think you understand what "neighborly" means.

"What if he had a gallon of gas, a school bus and a railroad crossing? Who would you blame for that?"

Him solely and not the NRA.
posted by bardic at 1:18 AM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

He wouldn't likely pour the gas on himself and set himself alight for a start. That takes willpower and a desire to make a statement. The sort of person who has to kill a bunch of kids to work up to kiling themself? Wouldn't happen.
posted by longbaugh at 1:21 AM on December 18, 2012

neversummer - the theme you're following there, a version of "guns don't kill people", has been discussed at length and debunked in the thread. It is a sufficiently well trodden path it has its own cartoon.
posted by MuffinMan at 1:23 AM on December 18, 2012

He could of sucked the oxygen out of that classroom with a pint of gasoline tossed in. Could of done it in a fraction of the time he spent using his big scary gun. Probably could of visited more classrooms as well.

I'm not seeing how this isn't being blamed on pure evil.
posted by neversummer at 1:23 AM on December 18, 2012

Re: How Can We Make This Discussion More Solutions-Focused?

St. Alia of the Bunnies: "I am getting sick and tired of the rhetoric on BOTH sides of this argument. All it does is make people dig in their heels and resist harder instead of come together and figure out HOW TO FIX THE PROBLEM."

I think one obstacle for those of us who really are trying to discuss / debate this in good faith is that none of us are being explicit enough in defining which specific problem or aspect of a problem that we're trying to fix before we propose solutions or criticize others' proposed solutions.

This discussion has covered everything from spree killings to children killed by guns to gun violence in general to standardizing/nationalizing gun regulations to restricting specific types of guns/ammunition/accessories to constitutional law to the ethics/economics of subsistence hunting to practical safety concerns for home or personal defense to the best way to repel bears.

Obviously there is no single solution that addresses all of those issues.

So when someone posts "Let's do this" as a suggestion for solving problem X, other people who are more focused on problem Y become angry or frustrated because it wouldn't do anything to address problem Y. The person who made the suggestion is bewildered by the attacks of his/her idea, and begins to suspect that their detractors are crazy and/or willfully obstinate if they can't acknowledge that it would make a big dent in problem X.

A SUGGESTION / REQUEST: Going forward, can we all please spend a moment up front to explicitly state the specific issue or aspect of an issue that each of our individual comments is meant to address?

I have been as guilty as anyone else here of vaguely jumping from topic to topic, so I don't want anyone to take this as a personal criticism of your writing style or your contributions to this thread. This is a very complex topic with many issues that are legitimately related to the main topic (and not just derails). I think that if we all make an effort to explicitly state the specific thing we are talking about that we'll be able to spend less time talking past each other and more time collaborating on reasonable and realistic solutions.
posted by Jacqueline at 1:24 AM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

This is great though -- the first real authentic example of the "could have murdered just as many with a rusty pair of scissors as he could have with a semi-auto assault rifle."

Let's call it reductio ad Heston.
posted by bardic at 1:24 AM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

What if on 9/11 the terrorists had used a truck bomb instead? Well, it would have been a less damaging weapon against the target even if it was still a terrible attack. The door locks on the planes would still be a smart idea though, because they mitigate the potential damage from an even worse event.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:25 AM on December 18, 2012

"A SUGGESTION / REQUEST: Going forward, can we all please spend a moment up front to explicitly state the specific issue or aspect of an issue that each of our individual comments is meant to address?"

Anyone here is welcome to take it to Metatalk. Otherwise, it's our wise mods, not us, who get to steer the discussion.
posted by bardic at 1:27 AM on December 18, 2012

bardic: it's reductio ad absolutionem.
posted by MuffinMan at 1:32 AM on December 18, 2012

Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.

METHODS: We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.

RESULTS: During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

CONCLUSIONS: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:35 AM on December 18, 2012 [7 favorites]

Yea, I know. Because it's been debunked upthread.

Exactly where did you debunk selfishness? That's what killed those kids. It wasn't a bushmaster.

If it's just you don't want to talk to people that don't share your beliefs. I understand.
posted by neversummer at 1:36 AM on December 18, 2012

As for steering the discussion, I'd like to do as little of it as possible. I trust the wisdom of you guys to create the discussion you want to see. But please know that any mod on duty will have this thread open at all times, and for the love of all things holy, please be civil, even when facing strong disagreement. And if we could ease off on the hypotheticals a bit, that would be very nice indeed. Thank you, carry on.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 1:37 AM on December 18, 2012

nangar: "> Can somebody offer a legit explanation why the gun range as repository thing is wrong? Aside from cultural norms, that is.

Slap*Happy's proposal is designed to make hunting as expensive and inconvenient for rural people as possible, while keeping it available as a hobby for rich people like himself. This has absolutely nothing to do with regulating guns or what users can do with them from a point of view of public safety."

I don't own guns, have never fired a real gun in my life, and live in an urban setting. But somehow, this was my first impression too. That is to say, I have no idea whether Slap*Happy is rich or not. But he definitely isn't using his guns out of necessity. And he definitely isn't thinking about how rules he's suggesting would affect people who don't live in easy distance of a gun range.
posted by Deathalicious at 1:40 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Exactly where did you debunk selfishness?

It's funny you asked. I posted a long comment about how gun ownership, as it is currently regulated in America, was inherently selfish.
posted by MuffinMan at 1:41 AM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

It's funny you asked. I posted a long comment about how gun ownership, as it is currently regulated in America, was inherently selfish.

Yea, I read that. I like your comments. You're a vital part of this discussion.

I knew this thread was here on Friday. I came in on Sunday to post a story about a child, and a kindergarten classroom, and I just couldn't do it. Maybe I will eventually.
posted by neversummer at 1:49 AM on December 18, 2012

"That's what killed those kids. It wasn't a bushmaster."

Something about the limits of civil and/or logical discourse. . . .

I guess Lanza's assault piece was loaded with pure hatred instead of .223 as well.

How much extra is that at ye old gun-shop or gun-show, anyhow?
posted by bardic at 1:55 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

neversummer: "What if he had a gallon of gas, a school bus and a railroad crossing? Who would you blame for that?"

Thank you for bringing up gasoline as a weapon of choice when attacking schools. In May 2009, a 16 year old girl tried to attack her high school in a town some 15 km from where I live. News story in German.

The girl came to school armed with 10 Molotov cocktails and a knife. She was foiled by another girl who discovered her trying to light the first firebomb in the girls' loo. The would-be murderess then attacked her discoverer with the knife (slicing off her thumb, which was later reattached) and subsequently fled. If she had had a handgun rather than a knife, a lot of people would likely have died.
posted by brokkr at 2:02 AM on December 18, 2012 [12 favorites]

Neversummer. I live in the UK and have hesitated to post on this thread as it seems to me to be an American issue, to be solved by Americans.

But you say "He could of sucked the oxygen out of that classroom with a pint of gasoline tossed in. Could of done it in a fraction of the time he spent using his big scary gun. Probably could of visited more classrooms as well." and I have to point out that at Dunblane a gunman shot 16 children and one adult.

Since the UK banned handguns, and significantly restricted gun ownership and use we have had no massacres and comparatively few deaths due to firearms but, more importantly, no massacres of children in schools by petrol wielding fiends. This suggests that your example is not grounded in reality.
posted by Gilgongo at 2:03 AM on December 18, 2012 [22 favorites]

I guess the limits are what you're willing to listen to before cutting yourself off from discourse.

I would say that that .223 round was enjoying a peaceful Friday morning before a terrorist successfully used it to exploit a soft target.

Just wondering how legislating selfishness is going to work.
posted by neversummer at 2:05 AM on December 18, 2012

Common locations are softer targets for the individual attacker than they are otherwise when guns are involved.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:17 AM on December 18, 2012

neversummer: "Just wondering how legislating selfishness is going to work."

Good thing there's a 2000-post thread here discussing that, then.
posted by brokkr at 2:18 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Common locations are softer targets for the individual attacker than they are otherwise when guns are involved.

Occupants of trade center 1 and 2 might disagree with you.
posted by neversummer at 2:22 AM on December 18, 2012

> Just wondering how legislating selfishness is going to work.

The US has only ever legislated for selfishness. Look at the fine mess. Anything away from that selfishness and people start quivering (if only at the trigger finger) over the inherent socialism in the decision making.
posted by de at 2:22 AM on December 18, 2012

Occupants of trade center 1 and 2 might disagree with you.

Sure, if you think it's easier to hijack a plane with a boxcutter than a gun.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:23 AM on December 18, 2012

There's been plenty of interesting debate in this thread and some stuff that has left me pretty disturbed, but referring to the murder of 20 kids and 6 adults as "exploit[ing] a soft target" takes the prize.
posted by Len at 2:26 AM on December 18, 2012 [13 favorites]

Good thing there's a 2000-post thread here discussing that, then.

Yep. Obama was right. This is something we need to talk about.

I'm just defending my position about appreciating my well armed neighbors. My world would be a much different place if honest people of moral character were limited in their ability to oppose evil. It's not even really something you can quantify, but the bad guys know there's a strong chance they're going to be met with some force.

Maybe I should just move. Where's the safest place in America?
posted by neversummer at 2:27 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Maybe I should just move. Where's the safest place in America?

You should consider Kennesaw, Georgia. Very safe and all the neighbors are armed. You will need to get a gun too though.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:30 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Sure, if you think it's easier to hijack a plane with a boxcutter than a gun.

Apparently it was easy 4 times.

Then we got wiser. But where did the notion that someone with a gun might try to breech security at a school slip passed us?
posted by neversummer at 2:32 AM on December 18, 2012

It's not even really something you can quantify,

You'll pardon the rest of us for not believing it then, since all we've got as proof that neighbourhoods with guns are safer than those without is your gut feeling. And I'm not sure that your feelings are the most appropriate basis for legislation that will affect so many millions of people.
posted by harriet vane at 2:33 AM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

neversummer, your use of the term "soft target" is making me ill. And yes, it was a bushmaster that killed those kids.
posted by futz at 2:38 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Sure, if you think it's easier to hijack a plane with a boxcutter than a gun.

Apparently it was easy 4 times.

It worked well because of the audacious strategy to use the planes as a weapon. It was not an easy attack, it was a brilliant once in the history of the world attack on hard targets. The hijackers were immediately overcome by passengers on the fourth plane when that became known, a task that is more difficult when the attackers have better weapons.

Do you think taking guns off planes has had a negative or positive impact on airline safety?
posted by Drinky Die at 2:38 AM on December 18, 2012

You'll pardon the rest of us for not believing it then, since all we've got as proof that neighbourhoods with guns are safer than those without is your gut feeling. And I'm not sure that your feelings are the most appropriate basis for legislation that will affect so many millions of people.

Well if you don't want to believe, in your gut, that bad people want to exploit soft easy targets, I guess that's your right. If you can't grasp that the percieved threat of force doesn't discourage them, I don't know what to tell you.
posted by neversummer at 2:39 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

And yes, it was a bushmaster that killed those kids.

no, it was a very disturbed young man.
posted by neversummer at 2:42 AM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

But where did the notion that someone with a gun might try to breech security at a school slip passed us?

From a rest of world perspective, it's more than a little fucked up that Americans have security checkpoints in elementary schools in the first place, not to mention lockdown drills which imply that this kind of occurrence is seen as a significant day to day risk, not a bizarro aberration that can be written off as a freak unforeseeable event.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:43 AM on December 18, 2012 [5 favorites]

neversummer, yes, bad people want to exploit soft targets. And a cheap, accessible and reliable tool - a gun, for example - to enable them to do that is a coward's gift. In a way that complicated, more involved methods of killing like you keep mentioning are not.

You're going over the same ground covered multiple times in the thread above. Guns are a poor deterrent, and furthermore having them in homes, schools etc raises the risk dramatically of a gun death.
posted by MuffinMan at 2:45 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

It is a day to day risk.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:46 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

"A hammer drove in those nails." is just as true as "A woman with a hammer drove in those nails."

Does one phrasing have more or less information? I don't think so, when you say it the first way everybody knows the woman with the hammer is implied.

It's a semantic debate that ultimately means nothing of consequence and has been done to death.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:46 AM on December 18, 2012 [5 favorites]

If you can't grasp that the percieved threat of force doesn't discourage them,

Perceived threat of force results in an escalation of force.

You can look at evidence of this on a global scale, in the US v USSR arms race.

You can look at evidence of this in the fact that people outside the US working in risky occupations are more likely to be held by by people with knives, than people with guns.

Criminals who enter homes in the US are more likely to be carrying guns, because the homeowners are more likely to have guns.

If you can't understand this, I don't know what to tell you.
posted by Jimbob at 2:50 AM on December 18, 2012 [7 favorites]

neversummer: "but the bad guys know there's a strong chance they're going to be met with some force."

... which is why there's a good chance you'll be shot by a burglar. Here, where few people have guns and even fewer people use them, people are by and large not afraid of home invasions.
posted by brokkr at 3:01 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

The suggestion of a pint of petrol being used is silly. He would have to have been carrying dozens of bottles of petrol to carry out the same amount of murders and there would have been a lot more opportunity to stop him whilst he was preparing the petrol bomb.

Murder-suicides happen because people are unable to just pull the trigger on themselves. They must work themselves up to this by murdering innocents. Once they reach a certain tipping point (run out of ammunition, room is empty, reality dawns etc) they realise that they are done for and either suicide by cop or end their own life directly. The Denver shooter is a rare instance of a spree killer being taken alive. By removing rapid-fire weapons with large capacity magazines you reduce the chances of this happening. When people have to use alternative methods they come across two obvious things

1. Guns are the amongst the most efficient way to kill lots of people fast. That is why the Army is not armed with petrol bombs, swords, screwdrivers, cars etc. They allow someone to carry a weapon with lethal capability and sufficient ammunition for 6-8 magazines doesn't weigh so much as to prevent the user from being able to move around.

2. Using other weapons opens you up to being stopped a lot easier. I would encourage people to run away from a man with a gun but if he had a knife or a petrol bomb and there were more than one person I'd recommend tackling them. Getting the resources together for a bomb takes a lot of time and preperation and it is not easy to make one reliably.

Spree killers generally retain enough mental acuity to know this, hence them preferring firearms. If you remove the high-capacity, repeating firearm from the arsenal of a potential spree-killer you will make them think twice about the actions they will take. The ease of shooting and existing only in the now are removed. Now they must plan in advance, scope out a property and over time gather ingredients. An extended planning phase is quite rare because in general time and exposure to people will humanise what was previously just a target. This is in comparison to a fantasy stage which most spree killers will have gone through many times before being triggered.

On being triggered, the killer will take the closest, most dangerous thing and run amok with it. In the UK within the last 12 months there have been two instances of people in vehicles driving into a crowd of people at bus stops but the number of deaths would be vastly larger if either of those two individuals had ready access to a .223 carbine and a bunch of magazines rather than just a set of keys.

The most recent gun-related spree killing in the UK involved a man with a single shot weapon who managed to kill 11. The reason he got that far is that it was a rural area and the time to get armed police out to him was excessive. I get that rural folk have this problem hence my recommendation that they get to keep a weapon. A bright orange longarm with a small magazine capacity is, in my opinion, a reasonable deterrent in these circumstances.

I notice nobody has commented on the suggestions I made above about a handgun/CCW ban. I'd very much like anti-gun safety folk* to comment on them and tear them apart. We can perhaps try to reach a sensible common ground in that instance. I'm not so confident in my ideas that I don't want them ridiculed. If there is something in there that warrants discussion then lets do it.

*preemptively framing the argument there ;)
posted by longbaugh at 3:12 AM on December 18, 2012 [14 favorites]

UbuRoivas: as I mentioned earlier, I'm trying to keep deletions at a minimum, but I'd very much appreciate it if things strayed not too far off-topic and/or into the hypothetical. You are correct: further meta-discussion goes to the contact form or in MetaTalk.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 3:14 AM on December 18, 2012

Apologies if this is up-thread (it's at browser crashing levels, but I thought this article from Gawker (Down With Big Gun) was interesting.
posted by Mezentian at 3:16 AM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

Little known fact -- the history books won't tell you this, but the Allied Invasion of Normandy was a failure until the US, UK, and Canadian soldiers threw down their M-1 Rifles and pulled out gas canisters and siphons. Oh, and pocket knives. They had these hella intense pocket knives going for them as well.

Shit, the Germans didn't even stick around and fight because they knew they were now DOOOOOOMMEDDD!

I wasn't kidding above. Absolute limit of logical and/or civil discourse re: "the Bushmaster assault weapon didn't kill 20 kids." I realize the mods are doing their best but let's face it -- by de facto, they're protecting idiotic speech in the name of a false sense of "balance." Measured, fact-based arguments ranging from very good to OK to possibly wrong do not -- should not -- have to sit down at the same table as crazy.
posted by bardic at 3:46 AM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

Well, I thought this whole issue couldn't make me any angrier or expose me to even more awful people, yet here we are. Guess this thread is a "soft target."
posted by maxwelton at 3:53 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Pla:

You guys need to get out of the city before you tell us how many bears don't walk down Main St. in Hartford, CT.

1. I have been in Hartford, CT before. Repeatedly. I saw no bears.

2. Hartford, CT is a city.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:13 AM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

From the (ugh) Gawker article mentioned just above:

I think it's a very good point

2. Re-brand the gun debate. The greatest PSA campaign in the history of advertising is the Truth campaign, which did away with the traditional "smoking is bad for you" ads that proved ineffective. Instead, what the "Truth" campaign did was demonize tobacco companies—NOT demonize tobacco or tobacco users—and say THESE PEOPLE ARE FUCKING YOU OVER. They are lying to you and trying to kill you and they are getting rich while doing it. When you change the language, you change people's perception of what's really at stake. Make this a crime issue, not an endless discussion about what guns MEAN to everyone.
posted by From Bklyn at 4:42 AM on December 18, 2012

People who used the bear spray escaped injury 98 percent of the time

It's a fantastic method with a near perfect success rate. Now maybe skilled hunters get up to 99% and it's the average gun users that lead to: people who defended themselves with firearms were injured about 50 percent of the time by the bear but I think it's more likely the gun users overestimate their skill and the efficacy of their tool for the job.

Here is an Alaskan study, there were only two polar bear attacks and the spray worked both times.

As for the hippies pissing you off, that's just a silly route to take with this. The bulk of America wants sensible gun regulation that you probably support. What is stopping us from passing it is NRA style Republicans who will not give one inch of compromise. Go get angry at them. The total lack of compromise leads a lot of people to get more extreme on wanting to ban guns rather than regulate them.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:06 AM on December 18, 2012 [8 favorites]

spitbull: I agree with you 100%. However, a question for you, and you may have addressed this upthread in a comment I just did not catch. I'm of the belief that hunters should be able to own and use guns - however, that there should also be restrictions on the types of guns that even hunters own. Either on the power of the gun or the amount on ammunition it can carry or fire. Do you propose any restrictions on types of hunting guns, or is it truly anything goes, simply because a hunter somewhere might need to shoot a polar bear?

I'm not concerned about hunters. However, I am concerned about psychopaths getting access to some of the types of guns hunters use. Would you favor more regulations, permits, etc. to own such powerful weapons? To pick the easiest example - why would someone in Indiana need a "polar bear gun"? In order to purchase and use such a weapon, you would need to meet a certain level of criteria, prove that you do encounter polar bears, maybe even "apprentice" with a person who interacts with polar bears or something.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:08 AM on December 18, 2012

Y'know, spitbull, I've liked the perspective you've brought to this thread, and I know you're frustrated, but these last few comments make me want to write you off:
And that's my point. I started out on Friday on the "something must be done and screw the NRA" side. [...]Screw it. I'm for what I'm for, but I see that the Anti -gun-nuts are just as paranoid and ignorant as the far right gun nuts are.

You sound piqued that people aren't simply agreeing with you, and in the face of that disagreement, you seem to be saying you'll take your ball and go home. But, surely, your conviction that something needed to change with gun laws in the US was not because of people in this thread. It doesn't make sense that your conviction, and the solutions you find reasonable, would be undone by people who want a more radical solution than yours. Seriously, you sound whiny and petulant here.

Your last comment, about those "paranoid and ignorant" Anti-gun-nuts is pretty rich. As far as I know they aren't shooting people dead, either by accident or because they go "crazy" and decide to go out in a hail of bullets. Your sense of proportion is skewed. We all know that severely restricted private gun ownership in the US is a dream that will not happen. Get a grip. Either you are for sensible gun laws or you are not, and if you are not, it doesn't make sense to blame people who want gun laws you do not agree with.
posted by OmieWise at 5:19 AM on December 18, 2012 [18 favorites]

Which is not an argument to stay in the thread. By all means, if people are frustrating you by not really engaging in good faith, or by simply repeating challenges you have already answered, leave the thread. Just don't threaten to change your convictions because people disagree with you.
posted by OmieWise at 5:21 AM on December 18, 2012

I know you said that Spit. What I am trying to highlight is that the road block that bulk of power needs to get by is the NRA type Republicans, focus your anger and efforts there if your goal is change. The left will be happy to compromise even if they sound annoying now.

And get back to me about bears when you've dealt with one.

Dude, we can drop it now. It's fine if you want to stick with the statistically overwhelmingly less wise method. You know the odds, do with them what you will.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:21 AM on December 18, 2012

Gun control would seem to be necessary because entire classrooms of children are being hunted. Colleges and universities full of teenagers and young adults are being hunted. People just going about their daily business are being hunted. That's what's brought this whole thing to a head. It's not about stopping the hunting of animals or making that difficult for people.

It's about stopping the hunting of humans.
posted by h00py at 5:26 AM on December 18, 2012 [11 favorites]

I just said the bulk of Americans want gun control. They don't want guns banned.

Neither do the bulk of people in this thread. Yes, there are a few outliers - but the bulk of people in this thread have been talking about gun control.

Which is why what you say is perhaps baffling to so many people; maybe you're not aware that your comments about what kind of guns people need is coming across as an argument to relax control. If you're in favor of gun control, can you explain what hunting and bear have to do with that particular argument? If you don't want those guns to be controlled, which ones should be? Or if you do want those guns controlled, then can you explain what your comments on subsistence hunting have to do with controlling those guns?

I'm just sincerely not able to make the connection between your positions, and need that clarified. Right now they appear contradictory.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:29 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

> I'm just defending my position about appreciating my well armed neighbors. My world would be a much different place if honest people of moral character

It's interesting that you conflate these. For you, obviously, both things are true: your armed neighbors are people of good moral character.

My armed neighbors mostly seem to be 17-year-old gang members. Mostly, they shoot each other (and as I've said before, neither "side" seems to care if the other "side" is carrying: this does not act as a deterrent and they shoot each other anyway). Sometimes, though, they try to shoot each other and accidentally kill or injure some bystander - or a kid asleep in his bedroom.
posted by rtha at 6:08 AM on December 18, 2012 [10 favorites]

... which is why there's a good chance you'll be shot by a burglar. Here, where few people have guns and even fewer people use them, people are by and large not afraid of home invasions.

I'm an American who is pretty afraid of home invasions right now because there was one in my neighborhood recently. Five guys (two with guns) broke into a house and tied up the occupants. I'm terrified of that happening, but what I'm afraid of is the breaking in and the tying up. Even though these guys were armed, I'm not that afraid of them shooting me because I don't have a gun and wouldn't resist. The idea that somehow I'm safer trying to reach for a gun and shoot people who come armed into my home is ludicrous. I'm much less afraid of armed criminals than what happens we I try to defend myself.

I live in a fairly high crime neighborhood, the odds of me being the victim of a gun crime are higher than average and higher than I'd like. The odds are, though, that crime would be either a gun assisted burglary or robbery; the odds that I'm going to get shot are pretty low. People who feel like they need a gun for "protection" should probably think about what the crime they're likely to experience actually looks like.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 6:14 AM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

When I had that gun pointed in my face all those years ago, I didn't think, "Damn, I wish I had a gun, too." I didn't think, "Damn, I wish someone else with a gun would come along and save me." I thought, "Damn, I wish he didn't have a gun."
posted by gaspode at 6:29 AM on December 18, 2012 [41 favorites]

David Simon wrote a short piece about the massacre.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 6:30 AM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

People profoundly overestimate their ability to handle these situations. Ridiculous depictions in media really mislead about us about how these things happen, and give us the wrong visualizations. That doesn't help us prepare for a damn thing. Neither does practice and frankly, neither does hunting. In military training, you know, they don't let you just show up at the rifle range once a month and plug a few outlines. They drill and drill and drill and run around mock cities and have obstacles thrown at them and fire e-bullets at actors protraying baddies and have to do this in bad lighting and unfamiliar terrain with the sounds of chaos around them. And they have to do it for hundreds of hours. Because that's what it takes to even begin to manage yourself in a chaotic environment.

Think about Newtown. How many cops could that guy have taken out? Large numbers. We really don't know the moment-by-moment in the school, but it's telling that cops didn't fire and drop him. He seems to have killed himself when he realized they were on the way. Even trained professional marksmen are walking into a chaotic, deadly interchange when they face someone like this. Neighbor Bob is, flatly, going to be unable to handle that; and I say that because I come from a family of veterans, hunters, gun owners who have never once suggested that there shouldn't be controls on guns.

In reflecting on OmieWise's comment to spitbull, I'm noticing that even the very fact that I have to offer my bona fides (I don't want to take your guns away, I don't want to repeal the second amendment, I like shooting guns for sport, I have hunters in my family) is something that we were all set up for by the NRA. Before their rise to extreme political power and their bizarro change in focus from promoting safety to promoting danger, they would not have led anyone to think that anyone who wants to talk about responsible ownership of guns is a left-wing ideologue who wants you to die at the hands of a killer. Because that's bullshit - more fantasy - and the very fact that anyone might suspect it is kind of evidence that the rhetoric has wormed its way to deep levels in our consciousness and been very, very successful.
posted by Miko at 6:40 AM on December 18, 2012 [26 favorites]

Empress, I don't know that I should put words in his mouth, but from Spitbull's second comment in this thread:

I am in favor of much tougher gun laws, and much more enforcement of those laws and the ones we now have, and yet I don't in fact favor repealing the second amendment, and resent the implication that I am somehow being disingenuous if I say "I want background checks for all gun purchases" and licensing and training requirements to be more stringent and not be against the second amendment, which says nothing at all about responsibilities entailed in the right to keep and bear arms.
...
I don't think even the most ardent second amendment fundamentalist believes every American has a right to a tactical nuclear weapon or a battle tank, both of which are "arms" by any measure; ergo, what's the difference if we draw the line lower down the scale at, say, a semi-automatic 9mm pistol with a 100 shot clip?

From which I'm inferring that he supports tight background checks, licensing and education requirements, and limitations on magazine capacities (5 rounds? 10 rounds?).

There are several reasons he brings up hunting so much. Partly as he states for the tactical reason that any gun legislation will need some buy in from hunters and/or conservatives to be successful. Partly because it's easier to make allies with the hunters than it is the "home defense" crowd. I'm guessing primarily he wants to educate on what people use guns for and how theoretical changes to gun law would affect them in ways that would make them want to fight those changes.

I personally can't conceive of a single federal level restriction on firearms that wouldn't provoke opposition from someone. Trying to restrict the power or caliber further could affect people's ability to hunt big game humanely. Restricting magazine sizes would probably irritate people who hunt varmints. Banning hunting outright would annoy farmers, cattle ranchers and some environmentalists unless you reintroduced predators in which case it would really, really irritate ranchers. Don't even get me started on the home defense crowd.
posted by BrotherCaine at 6:41 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

any gun legislation will need some buy in from hunters and/or conservatives to be successful. Partly because it's easier to make allies with the hunters than it is the "home defense" crowd.

Amen to that. Hunters are a thousand times more responsible and realistic. I agree with most things spitbull has been saying and agree that we absolutely want these people, with their knowledge and concerns, involved in negotiating new gun regulations. If we had them in alignment, and I'd say there is a portion of the "home defense crowd" that is not operating in the movie in their minds that would also be happy to align, we could really get somewhere that arguments for prohibition are not going to take us. As with all successful political movements that impact a majority, it's time for coalition-building with those who can agree on certain fundamental principles.
posted by Miko at 6:48 AM on December 18, 2012 [10 favorites]

Seriously, I love my dog. He's totally a volunteer -- I picked him up out of the street after watching him get run over by a truck when he was just a couple moths old, and never intended for him to be anything but a pet. He's apparently mostly black lab with some pit or rot (& perhaps a dash of chihuahua) mixed in, weighs about 50 lbs, and has a deep, loud bark. Whenever anyone knocks at the front door, he responds loudly -- loud enough that they can clearly hear him from the porch, and when I open the door he's right there at my heel issuing a low growl the whole while. I can tell him "It's okay! Be quiet!" if I like, & he'll stand down, or if its a dodgy stranger, I let him do his thing.

We had a guy come to the door about sunset a few nights ago who was giving me the magazine sales bullshit, but I looked him over -- dirty clothing & hair, multiple tattoos, and he smelled of booze. He was obviously feeding me a line about being the son of one of our neighbors who was out doing this to support a road trip for his championship baseball team, and his support materials were very worn DIY laminations of some generic subscription crap that he'd been obviously carrying around for a while. I'm 99.96% certain I was being cased.

It was pretty obvious to him that my house was not a good burglary option because the scary, growling dog with the huge jaw muscles was RIGHT THERE IN HIS FACE, & I didn't have to brandish a firearm to dissuade him. He even apologized for making the dog bark.

I know owning a dog is not as convenient as owning a gun in that you don't have to walk, groom & feed a gun every day, but neither is a gun a good and entertaining companion who greets you with a wagging tail at the door when you come home from work. Like I first said, I just wanted a fun pet, which he has been, but the added home security features that came pre-installed on this model have been a very positive boon.
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:01 AM on December 18, 2012 [17 favorites]

As with all successful political movements that impact a majority, it's time for coalition-building with those who can agree on certain fundamental principles.

Or we could continue to pursue an unobtainable moral absolute and polarize the issue and then every new massacre that comes along scream You see, I was right!

Or bank on stacking SCOTUS with liberals and revisiting the decision.

I know owning a dog is not as convenient as owning a gun in that you don't have to walk, groom & feed a gun every day, but neither is a gun a good and entertaining companion who greets you with a wagging tail at the door when you come home from work.

Owning a gun is not that convenient if you are responsible about it. I got rid of mine because as a renter there's no way for me to bolt a safe to the foundation, and anything less isn't really secure enough to know it won't be easily stolen. Not that dogs are easy either (stupid leash burn stings like hell).
posted by BrotherCaine at 7:06 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

And yes, it was a bushmaster that killed those kids.

no, it was a very disturbed young man.

No, it was the gun. He passed over more reliable and accurate weapons in favor of the one best at shooting a bunch of times quickly. He chose that weapon to kill with because it is better at killing than those other guns.

Had he chose the Enfield, or the Henry, or any of the others he had available, he would not have been able to kill so many kids. Those kids that died because he chose the Bushmaster.

That his mom had for "defense".
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:35 AM on December 18, 2012 [28 favorites]

OmieWise: "You sound piqued that people aren't simply agreeing with you, and in the face of that disagreement, you seem to be saying you'll take your ball and go home. But, surely, your conviction that something needed to change with gun laws in the US was not because of people in this thread. It doesn't make sense that your conviction, and the solutions you find reasonable, would be undone by people who want a more radical solution than yours. Seriously, you sound whiny and petulant here."

I'm not a gun owner and have always supported gun control but in this case I can totally see where some gun owners in this thread are coming from. There have been people on this thread advocating, not just limiting availability, but eliminating or severely limiting access to guns and/or ammo, and also putting serious constraints on that limited access. If I were a hunter, I wouldn't want to have to leave my home to get my gun, and I wouldn't want to hope that the animals I was trying to shoot that day were either very very still or that my aim was very very good.

I think what has turned some people off is the suggestion that because guns can do bad things, deep down there must be something wrong with people who own and use guns. It hasn't been said outright, but there's been a fair amount of vitriol directed towards gun owners, and a lot of people who don't own guns questioning why a person would need more than one gun, or more than a limited amount of ammo. And the truth is, yes, these things are dangerous, especially in the wrong hands. So are a lot of things. I think limiting magazine count is probably something that most gun enthusiasts on this thread (few of whom I am guessing are the Rambo-machine-gun-toting type) would support. But there have been people advocating pretty much getting rid of all guns, people making vast generalizations about gun owners, etc.

Let's say you decided to have a conversation with some conservative friends about the economy. You sympathized with their concern that there might be some overspending or waste in the government. But instead of talking about looking at areas of spending that were wasteful, they jumped right into sweeping statements about unwed mothers and said that the solution was to get rid of welfare altogether. That might turn you off from getting involved in any sort of discussion on being fiscally conservative, out of fear that it would lead to their extreme positions.

If you are a gun owner and cherish or need the ability to possess a gun and ammo, you're going to be uncomfortable around people who say that people who own guns are bad or that they shouldn't have access to ammo.
posted by Deathalicious at 7:36 AM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

CNN: Dick's Sporting Goods, one of the largest sporting goods retailers in the world, says it has removed all guns from its store nearest to Newtown, Connecticut, and is suspending the sale of certain kinds of semi-automatic rifles from its chains nationwide.

Appreciate the thought, but there will always be somebody else to sell them who isn't afraid of the bad PR.

Great - seems they should hear from people who appreciate this decision - because it will surely be commented on by the nra and wingnuts, they will no doubt be subject to pressure for this decision. I think I will write a thank you note now. Small steps can be important on the path to progress.
posted by madamjujujive at 7:37 AM on December 18, 2012 [5 favorites]

Appreciate the thought, but there will always be somebody else to sell them who isn't afraid of the bad PR.

I've kinda had it up to here with the "why bother" argument. Kids are dying by the dozen. That's why.
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:39 AM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

Amanda Marcotte advocates beginning with a ban on gun advertising, ala cigarettes, as a way to expose the NRA as a corporate lobby rather than a rights protector.

It would also help shift the discourse about guns away from individual gun owners and toward the enormous industry that profits handsomely from selling products made for no other reason than to kill. Right now, guns are understood as a culture-war issue, and when liberals call for gun control, gun owners feel personally attacked and demonized. But the brutal truth is that the gun industry treats its customers like marks, manipulating them with deceitful marketing into buying a bunch of guns that are more likely to lead to their violent deaths than to protect them from violence. If any other industry lobby dared react to a tragedy by saying the solution was buying more of their products, most of the country would recoil at the naked manipulation. This is what the NRA does, and focusing on their role as a spokesman for industry can help people see this.
posted by emjaybee at 7:39 AM on December 18, 2012 [10 favorites]

Appreciate the thought, but there will always be somebody else to sell them who isn't afraid of the bad PR.

Yeah, but Dick's Sporting Goods won't. This kind of argument from rabidly anti-gun-control folks continues to be absurd, as has been pointed out many times above. Reasonable small steps to minimize the availability of semi-automatic weapons (and increase background checks, and increase law enforcement sharing, etc) are wise and effective moves. No one expects them to be completely effective, any more than we expect seat belts to be completely effective. But they're an important part of any solution.

I was talking to a gun guy the other day who insisted "There isn't any gun show loophole! Most of the folks at gun shows are federally licensed dealers who already to background checks! Besides, any private citizen can sell a gun without background checks!"

The logic there is stupefying to me. Lots of folks at gun shows aren't licensed dealers, and forcing the private citizens who want to set up tables at gun shows, where gun-buyers meet, to use the background check system (imperfect as I'm certain it is), will have a significant, if perhaps small, effect on the easy availability of deadly guns. That's the goal. And we should definitely be talking about insisting on background checks for private individual gun sales, too.
posted by mediareport at 7:43 AM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

Meanwhile, writer Christy Wampole frets that young men kill because they feel unnecessary and are losing power.

From the civil rights and feminist movements of the 1960s and onward, young men – and young white men in particular – have increasingly been asked to yield what they’d believed was securely theirs. This underlying fact, compounded by the backdrop of violent entertainment and easy access to weapons, creates the conditions for thousands of young men to consider their future prospects and decide they would rather destroy than create.

Can you imagine being in the shoes of the one who feels his power slipping away? Who can find nothing stable to believe in? Who feels himself becoming unnecessary? That powerlessness and fear ties a dark knot in his stomach. As this knot thickens, a centripetal hatred moves inward toward the self as a centrifugal hatred is cast outward at others: his parents, his girlfriend, his boss, his classmates, society, life.
posted by emjaybee at 7:44 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

But there have been people advocating pretty much getting rid of all guns, people making vast generalizations about gun owners, etc.

Yeah; those people occupy an ideological fringe. They are at the opposite extreme of those on the "don't touch any of my guns or ammo at all ever" ideological fringe. Neither of these fringes are going to be part of practical solutions. We can set them both aside. Those of us in the pragmatic, concerned middle can be the adults in the situation and figure out what to do about it.

If you are a gun owner and cherish or need the ability to possess a gun and ammo, you're going to be uncomfortable around people who say that people who own guns are bad or that they shouldn't have access to ammo.

Nothing about this process is going to be "comfortable." Not for anyone. I'm sorry, but the moral sense needs to prevail here. We may all have to give up a little something that we'd prefer were different. If you want to be sure you can retain certain kinds of access and can show a good reason for it and that you can be trusted with it, then come to the table and sit down and negotiate. Don't stonewall and complain that people called names. If you are a gun fan who has the moral sense God gave geese, you are capable of realizing that it's time to make some change that will help far more clearly separate you from the dangerous wingnuts that are putting us through utterly needless misery and destroying entire communities.

Mature people, who really are as responsible as they would like us to think they are, can have this conversation.

It has been interesting to me to see my acquaintances and friends on Facebook weighing in. I know a lot of gun owners. Lots of them are responsible people who pose minimal threat. But the ones whose first instinct is to leap to gun-rights absolutism - are, in fact, people with the kind of personal character that I least trust around guns. It's been really eye-opening. I wish I didn't know that these folks were packing, because I don't trust their judgment. It's no surprise, then, that they have trouble with a reasonable conversation. They are making decisions on a purely emotional basis, not from a data-driven, public-health standpoint.
posted by Miko at 7:48 AM on December 18, 2012 [11 favorites]

the man of twists and turns : I don't believe you, pla. Here's why

You don't believe I wish Newtown hadn't happened... Because I oppose gun laws... That wouldn't have stopped Newtown from happening? That... That just does not make a lick of sense!

another Newtown massacre, another Aurora massacre, another Oak Creek massacre.

How about another Chenpeng? Another Makoto Hirata? Another Bruce Ivins? As long as you focus on the tools rather than the underlying problem, I agree with you completely. We will see another mass killing. Even if we completely ban firearms and somehow round up all the ones currently in circulation. And whether or not you choose to believe me, I do wish they wouldn't happen.

CONCLUSIONS: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

FLAW: The method doesn't address the objective - "...and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings" has nothing to do with "the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used".

EmpressCallipygos : 1. I have been in Hartford, CT before. Repeatedly. I saw no bears. 2. Hartford, CT is a city.

You don't need to believe me - Believe the The Hartford Courant - Believe the CT DEEP - Or believe the picture of a bear in frickin' Hartford from the cite I linked - But you do need to do a bit better than point out that you didn't see any bears on your last visit there, if you want to use the absence of bears as a key point in why no one south of Alaska needs guns.

Jahaza : The current legislation that allows gun ownership is still highly restrictive and it's laughable to compare it to "'rural' handgun laws" and was not passed by Republican congressmen, but by the DC City Council.

Emily Miller of the Washington Times wrote a great series of articles on the "ease" of getting a gun in DC. The city government recognized it as such an embarrassingly Brazil-like dystopian farce, they significantly reformed the whole process - Though it still takes several weeks, hundreds of dollars (not including the gun), and you still can't do anything with the gun except admire the knowledge that you have it locked up in a bomb-proof safe in a locked basement bathroom with the stairs out and a sign warning "beware of bears".
posted by pla at 7:48 AM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

Jacqueline: "So yes, I would like it if more Americans would live as I do and arm themselves. Not just to protect themselves against crime or tyranny, but also as a check against the advocates for violent revolution. These wannabe revolutionaries are not only delusional about their ability to topple the federal government but also tend to assume that they will become the new rulers of the post-revolution (or post-collapse) society by virtue of their superior firepower over the "sheeple.""

I've read this comment and your others where you allude to your ubringing, and I've read all of your links (well, I skimmed some of the longer ones.) After all of that... I still don't understand what you're trying to protect yourself from.

I get that you came up in a rather... highly-charged environment, but though you seem to have reduced the voltage a bit, more than anything, it sounds like you've just reversed the polarity, and you've just went from radical collectivist to radical... something. Objectivist? Revanchist? I'm not sure. I understand de-radicalizing is a process, but it sounds like you're just redirecting the GRAR instead of trying to de-GRAR.

I mean, you've said it yourself -- the "wannabe revolutionaries" are "delusional" about their ability to topple the government. Then why arm yourself and suggest everyone else be armed? There are little pockets of fringe groups everywhere, but they don't amount to a significant threat to anyone. If anything, the most popular type of fringe character these days is the kind of person you and your husband have become -- reclusive gun counters who are waiting for... something to happen.

Aren't you, in fact, the dangerous radical you're trying to protect yourself from?
posted by tonycpsu at 7:49 AM on December 18, 2012 [14 favorites]

Not to sound like I consider myself a ninja or anything, but I've trained for that as well. And I know enough to know that I'd much rather "scare off" an attacker than get into either hand-to-hand combat or a gunfight

Don't you think the attacker would try to scare you off too? The only success stories I've ever heard from people with guns have been vague - "there was a noise at the back door, I fired a warning shot so he left." But maybe you misheard. Or maybe it was your wayward son or drunk neighbor - could have had a tragedy there. Maybe it was an intruder, but if he was scared off by a warning shot, he was probably unarmed and not dangerous - just wanted to sneak in and take stuff, and as soon as a dog barked or you yelled from the safety of another room, he'd leave.

If he was armed & dangerous, a bully or rapist, would he back off because you were armed? I mean just put things the other way - would you back off because he was armed? Would you hide under the bed and call 911 now that you know he has a gun too? It just seems like once you're both tough guys, it becomes a much more dangerous fight.

And yes, it was a bushmaster that killed those kids.

no, it was a very disturbed young man.

We've talked about this before, but once again, if the gun is irrelevant to the actions of the "bad guys" here, then isn't it irrelevant to the self-defense of the "good guys" too? Can't you just arm yourselves with knives and gasoline? What is so important about the right to own guns if they are totally unimportant as weapons?
posted by mdn at 7:50 AM on December 18, 2012 [6 favorites]

Devils Rancher: "but the added home security features that came pre-installed on this model have been a very positive boon."

I'm with you, except for the part where I would let my dog put himself in harm's way to protect me. It'd be the other way around.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:51 AM on December 18, 2012

(Which is not to say I'm against owning guns for hunting and all that - I mean in the "right to bear arms" and save the country from tyranny category)
posted by mdn at 7:52 AM on December 18, 2012

How about another Chenpeng?

I'll take it. All those kids are still alive.
posted by Miko at 7:54 AM on December 18, 2012 [9 favorites]

There are several reasons [spitbull] brings up hunting so much. Partly as he states for the tactical reason that any gun legislation will need some buy in from hunters and/or conservatives to be successful. Partly because it's easier to make allies with the hunters than it is the "home defense" crowd. I'm guessing primarily he wants to educate on what people use guns for and how theoretical changes to gun law would affect them in ways that would make them want to fight those changes.

What confuses me, though, is why there is a need to clarify this - as I don't see much pushback against hunters from the gun control advocates in here in the first place. What it feels like is happening is, someone like, say, me, advocates stricter gun control laws - thinking of the type of semi-automatic weapons used in the massacre, and of the private gun shows and private sales. I am not even thinking of hunting at all, and when someone points out "but the hunters need guns," I say "yes, I know, that's not what I'm talking about." But I am repeatly reminded of the hunters, when I wasn't even talking about hunters in the first place, and even said so. So finally it just gets to a point where I'm "dude, why the hell are you talking about the hunters so freakin' much???"

I understand the concerns of the subsistence hunters and the responsible amateur hunters, and I understand the need to get on board with them. What I'm questioning is, is where the perception that we weren't on board with them came from in the first place. Yes, there have been a couple of outliers I've seen in here, but most of the gun-control advocates in here have been talking about control as opposed to confiscation, so it just got confusing.

And pla: okay.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:58 AM on December 18, 2012 [6 favorites]

Miko: "Saving the country from tyranny, or even armed insurrection of another faction, is just laughable. That's not serious talk. Let's set that aside too; it's fantastical nonsense, daydreams of heroism."

I'm with you, but there are enough people who believe in the fantasy that if we "set it aside", we'll just end up talking past each other. I'd rather confront it to find out how/why they've convinced themselves that tyranny is right around the corner.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:59 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Devils Rancher: "Appreciate the thought, but there will always be somebody else to sell them who isn't afraid of the bad PR.

I've kinda had it up to here with the "why bother" argument. Kids are dying by the dozen. That's why."

I have to feel that the odds of someone otherwise buying a gun at a sporting goods store and going on a spree in the vicinity of Newtown is vanishingly small. It is really a token gesture unless they make the decision to stop selling at all of their stores. Otherwise all they're doing statistically is moving it to another town.

The truth is for effective gun control we need to limit guns that are good at killing lots of people quickly, and we need to have even better ways of identifying people who are likely to go on killing sprees. We need to figure out why gun deaths are so frequent in this country, even compared to other countries where people routinely have guns.
posted by Deathalicious at 7:59 AM on December 18, 2012

What I'm questioning is, is where the perception that we weren't on board with them came from in the first place.

It's ingrained; it's the NRA conflating everything together to create their rhetorical fortress. That's what I was saying above - we don't even have to be saying anything like that; people have been efficiently psychologically trained to assume it.
posted by Miko at 8:00 AM on December 18, 2012 [7 favorites]

David Simon wrote a short piece about the massacre.

Oh man, the best thing about that (better than the sideways slap at The Walking Dead - "This isn’t mere entertainment, it’s national consensus") is the link at the bottom to some must-read biblical-level insight from Garry Wills: Our Moloch.
posted by mediareport at 8:01 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

I don't mind token gestures. They help change the culture. No, it's not a solution. But it's a statement.
posted by Miko at 8:01 AM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

You don't believe I wish Newtown hadn't happened... Because I oppose gun laws... That wouldn't have stopped Newtown from happening? That... That just does not make a lick of sense!

Just a quick search of this thread shows statements from you opposing gun safes (which would have prevented the assailant from accessing the guns) and assault rifle regulation (which the assailant used).
posted by zombieflanders at 8:05 AM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

I'm with you, except for the part where I would let my dog put himself in harm's way to protect me. It'd be the other way around.

I get that, but him barking & growling is like one of those "These premises are armed" signs. It serves as a deterrent.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:05 AM on December 18, 2012

Mega Investor Wants Out Of Gun Business After Newtown

Cerberus Capital Management, which counts former Vice President Dan Quayle among its executives, said in a statement Tuesday that it plans to sell its stake in Freedom Group, the parent company of some of the biggest names in firearms, including Bushmaster, the manufacturer of the rifle used to kill 27 people, including 20 first graders, in Friday’s massacre.

In its statement, Cerberus said, “We do not believe that Freedom Group or any single company or individual can prevent senseless violence or the illegal use or procurement of firearms and ammunition.” But, the company added: “It is apparent that the Sandy Hook tragedy was a watershed event that has raised the national debate on gun control to an unprecedented level.”

“As a Firm, we are investors, not statesmen or policy makers,” the company said. “Our role is to make investments on behalf of our clients who are comprised of the pension plans of firemen, teachers, policemen and other municipal workers and unions, endowments, and other institutions and individuals. It is not our role to take positions, or attempt to shape or influence the gun control policy debate. That is the job of our federal and state legislators… There are, however, actions that we as a firm can take. Accordingly, we have determined to immediately engage in a formal process to sell our investment in Freedom Group.”

posted by zombieflanders at 8:06 AM on December 18, 2012 [12 favorites]

It's ingrained; it's the NRA conflating everything together to create their rhetorical fortress. That's what I was saying above - we don't even have to be saying anything like that; people have been efficiently psychologically trained to assume it.

But by the same token, Miko, it seems that some of us have been psychologically trained to assume all of the pro-gun advocates here are members of the NRA. I'm not assuming that's the case, though.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:11 AM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

Walmart Pulls Bushmaster Rifle From Website In Wake Of Newtown Shooting
posted by Drinky Die at 8:15 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Assuming guns are supposed to be secured at central facilites; and checked out when enthusiasts want to go hunting; how and where will the 200,000,000 to 300,000,000 guns that are in the United States be inventoried and stored securely?

If a large scale buyback occurs; what will the basis be for the buyback value? - Few collectors or enthusiasts are going to have any interest in a $50 ?gift card? for an over and under Browning w/an eight tube set. Heck; about as many will have much of an idea what an over and under Browning even is.

The massacre is disgusting; but some of the literacy displayed between each of the uber polar sides from the 'I want my 5,000 round kill machine' to the 'OMG it goes bang and projectiles' is not an enlightening item to read or hear. I and many do appreciate the discussion from each side; but good heavens, please learn about the mainline subject that is being considered for regulation and new laws: Firearms.
posted by buzzman at 8:20 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

The move from Dick's Sporting Goods is an interesting one. It doesn't matter that the gap will be filled by other retailers. It potentially signals the start of an important movement of the conversation around guns from a lifestyle or cultural choice to a moral one.

Smoking was once just a lifestyle choice too. I'm not old, but in my adult lifetime smoking has gone from being something your hosts often allowed you to do in their home (or risk being bad hosts) to the reverse - you would never just to be able to smoke in someone's home. Similarly in bars - bars and smoking were inalienably linked culturally. If someone didn't like smoke, then too bad. Now the moral high ground sits with the non-smoker. Smoking has strong moral overtones. As a smoker, you are now more likely to be perceived as morally weak: they're addicted; they're losers; they die earlier. It's a far cry from the Marlboro Man.

If the momentum continues, the sale of guns will move towards the margins because they will acquire a negative moral overtone. They kill kids. It's not what our brand is about. This shift in the conversation is enabled by social media that allows you, the consumer, to destroy carefully built brand equity in a flash. In this case, it the exposure of Bushmaster's crass advertising by a single individual.

It's why Marcotte and others are correct: if you know the NRA and the gun industry (no, not the one catering to responsible hunters) is a marketing machine dressed up with messages about liberty, personal security, freedom and manliness, then attacking the message, rather than the machine, is the key to changing the conversation.
posted by MuffinMan at 8:25 AM on December 18, 2012 [19 favorites]

What confuses me, though, is why there is a need to clarify this - as I don't see much pushback against hunters from the gun control advocates in here in the first place. What it feels like is happening is, someone like, say, me, advocates stricter gun control laws - thinking of the type of semi-automatic weapons used in the massacre, and of the private gun shows and private sales. I am not even thinking of hunting at all, and when someone points out "but the hunters need guns," I say "yes, I know, that's not what I'm talking about." But I am repeatly reminded of the hunters, when I wasn't even talking about hunters in the first place, and even said so. So finally it just gets to a point where I'm "dude, why the hell are you talking about the hunters so freakin' much???"

It's not so much that - being more familiar than many around here about the various firearms laws, there is a lot that is quite stupid about them.

The gun show loophole for example. Or bans on certain types of guns mainly based on cosmetics. And state by state or even county differences make negotiating gun laws a byzantine effort. And so on.

I'm totally for limits in clip sizes - after all, almost all firearms for hunting are already limited (in WI and MN. Other states will vary). I'm totally for mandatory registration. And so on.

What I'm trying to say is that I believe it is possible to reduce the availability of the most deadly firearms without needlessly interfering in otherwise benign gun based activities or creating huge extra costs. There are smart ways to do things.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 8:26 AM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

I assume you know a 2x4 is actually 1-1/2" x 3-1/2"

Yes; McArdle was surprised to learn that the infamous 2x4 she invoked as a tool for dealing with anti-war protesters was that particular piece of construction-spec timber. Stupid or ignorant? Yes.
posted by holgate at 8:28 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

but good heavens, please learn about the mainline subject that is being considered for regulation and new laws: Firearms.

Buzzman, not even all gun owners are extremely knowledgeable about guns; jacqueline upthread mentioned that many people even used guns of varying value for barter. A buyback program doesn't have to be minutely calibrated, just convenient for people who have a gun but want cash instead. Even if you only capture 10% of guns out there, that's a significant amount, and there's plenty of room for discussion/refinement of a buyback program once it's implemented.

If you read the whole thread you'll find not only lots of people who do know a lot about guns, but others pointing out that you don't have to capture or register all the guns out there to have a significant effect. The long-term idea is to reduce the sale of the most dangerous guns, make the use of the existing ones more regulated, and in the long run, as guns wear out/get bought back, reduce gun ownership overall back to a few dedicated collectors willing to pay premiums/deal with the paperwork and licensing and those who use less dangerous guns for hunting.
posted by emjaybee at 8:29 AM on December 18, 2012 [11 favorites]

please learn about the mainline subject that is being considered for regulation and new laws: Firearms.

If you want to learn more about how firearms work, this FPP from earlier this year (or from 1945, depending how you're counting) is worth a look. The video is very basic but also very excellent, and a good place to begin.
posted by cribcage at 8:30 AM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

Walmart Pulls Bushmaster Rifle From Website In Wake Of Newtown Shooting
posted by Drinky Die at 8:15 AM on December 18

Whoa, shit. Can someone explain to me how one would go about buying a gun at an effing Walmart?! I live in a totally rural area where guns are certainly the norm (my military crazed neighbor likes to target practice with his Osama bin Laden cut-outs IN HIS FRONT YARD IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA) but, uh...does one just walk into a Walmart and snag a gun then take it to the closest checkout lane?
posted by youandiandaflame at 8:34 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

"Bear Attacks: Their Cause and Avoidance" is the definitive work on the subject, documenting and analyzing every bear attack event over the past hundred plus years.

Guns are not an effective deterrent nor are they particulary useful in stopping a bear attack. One will have just as much success fondling a rosary as attempting to shoot a pissed-off, charging bear.

Good book, though. Really well worth reading if you're going into real wilderness!
posted by five fresh fish at 8:35 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

But by the same token, Miko, it seems that some of us have been psychologically trained to assume all of the pro-gun advocates here are members of the NRA. I'm not assuming that's the case, though.

Well, I hope you're speaking for yourself with that "some of us," because I don't make that assumption. But I don't need to. The NRA is the leading voice and has been intentionally dominating the rhetoric for decades now. As we can see, you don't need to even be a member to spout their talking points. They have pervaded our culture. And it did not happen by accident or just as something in the zeitgeist; it was work done by people sitting around meeting tables and making plans to affect the rest of us with their ideas. The great Jill Lepore piece, Battleground America, is an excellent way to get a beginning understanding of how this rhetoric has come to infilitrate our very person-to-person discussions of this issue, and our psychological caricaturing of one another, regardless of membership in the group.
posted by Miko at 8:37 AM on December 18, 2012 [6 favorites]

Walmart Pulls Bushmaster Rifle From Website In Wake Of Newtown Shooting

Can someone who knows more about guns than I do (I know a bit, but I'm not an expert) explain that article's focus on .223 caliber ammunition? Am I missing something that makes that caliber worse than other calibers?

Whoa, shit. Can someone explain to me how one would go about buying a gun at an effing Walmart?! I live in a totally rural area where guns are certainly the norm (my military crazed neighbor likes to target practice with his Osama bin Laden cut-outs IN HIS FRONT YARD IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA) but, uh...does one just walk into a Walmart and snag a gun then take it to the closest checkout lane?

My memories of seeing guns for sale at Walmart or similar stores is that they're behind a counter or in a glass case and you ask an employee for them. They're not on the shelves.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:38 AM on December 18, 2012

Whoa, shit. Can someone explain to me how one would go about buying a gun at an effing Walmart? ...does one just walk into a Walmart and snag a gun then take it to the closest checkout lane?

No, most times buying a gun at a retailer will mean making the purchase at the gun counter. If there is no waiting period, they will do the background check right there, fill out the paperwork and provide you with a transport case.

The on your way you go.

If there is a waiting period, you'll have to come back after it has expired, and then they'll complete the transaction. But not at the regular checkout, it almost always is done at the gun counter because of the extra paperwork involved.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 8:38 AM on December 18, 2012

Can someone explain to me how one would go about buying a gun at an effing Walmart?

The gun buying process at Walmart differs according to state, but yeah it's a thing you can do there. You can do some googling and hear people talking about it. The big thing you wouldn't expect is being walked out to your car from the gun counter with your gun.
posted by jessamyn at 8:42 AM on December 18, 2012

It's in the sporting goods section. It's not dissimilar to buying a bike - you don't just grab one and walk to the checkout, you get someone's help.

I buy my BBs at places like WalMart, though KMart if I can. I have an air rifle and like shooting at soda cans.
posted by Miko at 8:43 AM on December 18, 2012

What Drives Suicidal Mass Killers

There appears to be a triad of factors that sets these killers apart. The first is that they are generally struggling with mental health problems that have produced their desire to die. [...]

The second factor is a deep sense of victimization and belief that the killer’s life has been ruined by someone else, who has bullied, oppressed or persecuted him. Not surprisingly, the presence of mental illness can inflame these beliefs, leading perpetrators to have irrational and exaggerated perceptions of their own victimization. [...]

The third factor is the desire to acquire fame and glory through killing.

posted by Golden Eternity at 8:46 AM on December 18, 2012 [5 favorites]

Can someone who knows more about guns than I do (I know a bit, but I'm not an expert) explain that article's focus on .223 caliber ammunition? Am I missing something that makes that caliber worse than other calibers?

It's not really a good caliber for hunting - it has a propensity to wound rather than kill outright. That's fine for varminting, when you don't care to retrieve the game, but for hunting - especially large game the bullet is too light to penetrate well. And if the deer or whatever doesn't die right away, it can run a long ways or hide and that's just wasteful.

It's a popular military round though, because wounding is more desireable than killing outright. And because it is so light, the recoil is not large, meaning it possible to shoot more bullets more accurately.

Of course, it was plenty lethal in that school - but that's more a function of the close range and how many times people were shot.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 8:47 AM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

The third factor is the desire to acquire fame and glory through killing.

I think that's one thing that needs addressing, but sadly the media doesn't seem to have any desire to do anything about it. It's completely wrong that I know this shooter's name. I'm trying not to use it. I'm trying to forget it. As long as it's known that this is a way to become famous, it's going to attract people. We should want to remember a victim's name, but forget who did the killing completely
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:52 AM on December 18, 2012 [5 favorites]

What Miko said, repeatedly. As I've noted through the thread, I have done my bit to listen out people whose attitude to firearms is radically different to mine. I have gone to the range with them, held (but not shot, thank you) their AR-15s. I'm mindful that if I want to live somewhere that adequately reflects my heart-of-heart feelings about the role of firearms in society, it'll require an AskMe about relocation companies and shipping containers.

But for now, I want hunters and target shooters to lead the conversation away from its current dead end; I understand the urge to focus on opposing arguments that provide cover to back away, but it doesn't help here.
posted by holgate at 9:06 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

The second factor is a deep sense of victimization and belief that the killer’s life has been ruined by someone else, who has bullied, oppressed or persecuted him

Well, this needs addressing, too. Because it sounds like a lot of the "self-defense" rhetoric. Someone else is going to get me. Someone else wants to threaten my safety. I am stronger than that someone else; I'll show them.

From the article -

we should think of many rampage shooters as nonideological suicide terrorists.

Excellent construction.
posted by Miko at 9:07 AM on December 18, 2012 [5 favorites]

I think that's one thing that needs addressing, but sadly the media doesn't seem to have any desire to do anything about it. It's completely wrong that I know this shooter's name. I'm trying not to use it. I'm trying to forget it. As long as it's known that this is a way to become famous, it's going to attract people. We should want to remember a victim's name, but forget who did the killing completely

I completely agree that we need to remember the victims and not glorify the shooter or go on and on in any way about it, but it doesn't make any sense to say we shouldn't know his name at all. What would we do, say "some person killed a bunch of children, teachers, and his mother?" Would we also not share his mother's name? "Investigators are researching the history of Some Person and why Some Person might have done this." It's unrealistic and I don't even think it's morally better in any way.

Yes, we should be less obsessed with crime and have all this sensational television where we label people "evil" and close in on their eyes and make TV movies about it, but not using the name Adam Lanza ever at all, I mean...really?
posted by sweetkid at 9:09 AM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

Sons of Guns and American Guns have been cancelled by Discovery.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 9:17 AM on December 18, 2012 [15 favorites]

I completely agree that we need to remember the victims and not glorify the shooter or go on and on in any way about it, but it doesn't make any sense to say we shouldn't know his name at all. What would we do, say "some person killed a bunch of children, teachers, and his mother?" Would we also not share his mother's name? "Investigators are researching the history of Some Person and why Some Person might have done this." It's unrealistic and I don't even think it's morally better in any way.

Yes, we should be less obsessed with crime and have all this sensational television where we label people "evil" and close in on their eyes and make TV movies about it, but not using the name Adam Lanza ever at all, I mean...really?

I was overstating a bit, but I honestly think that's a good aspirational model. Mass shooting events are, in part, a way to get famous and get your name and picture on TV. I need to know that there was a shooting, I need to know what happened, and I need to know why, but I absolutely do not need to know who did it. That's a meaningless bit of information for me. In practical terms, completely avoiding the name won't happen, but we should really dial back the name and pictures, etc. It needs to be clear that this is not a way to be famous.

This also isn't a moral case for me. I don't morally object to focusing on the killer, I object to it because I think it makes it more likely that this will happen in the future. It's a purely practical case, and other than awkward phrasing, I don't see the downside.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 9:20 AM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

pla: "Emily Miller of the Washington Times wrote a great series of articles on the "ease" of getting a gun in DC."

The Washington Times is not a reliable source. They've got a print edition and fancy letterhead, but they're very much a fringe publication. You're better off getting your news from Fox or The Daily Mail.

bardic: "The point was that southern, NRA-backed congressmen did their duty and played a game with the political rights of DC citizens to decide for themselves just exactly what kinds of gun laws they want. It was pushed by Cato/Koch brothers as well (surprise!). Maybe you don't find this racist, but I can assure you that black residents of DC did."

And there's the rub.

A bunch of people who were not from DC came in, decided that they were unhappy with DC's gun laws, and then changed them without asking the people of DC, or even evaluating whether or not it was actually appropriate to relax DC's gun laws.

That said, a lot of the Washington Times' points about the difficulty of getting a gun in DC ring true, and point out just how egregious the whole situation is:

Nobody in DC wants to buy a gun. Heck, nobody in DC even wants to sell guns. DC had one gun dealer, and it closed. The process for licensing a firearm here is weird and complicated because it almost never gets used.

That said, the process that she describes is considerably less complicated and time-consuming than what you'd have to go through if you wanted to buy a car. Even with the most restrictive gun laws that the Federal government will allow, buying a gun in DC is still easier than buying a car.
posted by schmod at 9:24 AM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

we should really dial back the name and pictures, etc. It needs to be clear that this is not a way to be famous.

I agree with this, I just think THAT NAME WILL NEVER BE MENTIONED is a little awkward and will only increase the interest. We can't just wipe people and all history of them off the earth. In fact I think it's a little inhumane.
posted by sweetkid at 9:26 AM on December 18, 2012

I've a question for those who may have been following the reporting on this tragedy closer than I have. How have the funerals that have already happened played out? There was mention upthread of Westboro, but sounds like they got bought off?

One of the funerals will be in my (very small, tight-knit, and geographically isolated) neighborhood tomorrow. I have no interest in my preschool kids witnessing any crazy. Do we need to hightail it to the grandparents' house? Thanks. Reading too much first hand coverage of this makes me want to vomit.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 9:31 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

THAT NAME WILL NEVER BE MENTIONED is a little awkward

After the initial investigation, which I do want to know about as a citizen concerned with the complexity of the whole thing, there's no problem with referring to him as "the Newtown shooter" on future references.

However, I think that name/not name is not the central issue in the debate. I don't think path of glorification is so direct - we swim in this water, it's all around us. It's in the pop culture.
posted by Miko at 9:38 AM on December 18, 2012

Gun lobby has opposed research on effects of gun ownership/gun laws
posted by homunculus at 9:42 AM on December 18, 2012 [7 favorites]

The buyback program should run Dutch auction style. Add in a first-week lottery for a million bucks. Guns would pour in.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:43 AM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

"the Newtown shooter"

You don't think this is also glorifying the shooter? "BTK" was a pretty famous serial killer without a name.
posted by sweetkid at 9:43 AM on December 18, 2012

Teh .223 is an inexpensive, strong; and about the most common rifle ( handgun exceptions do exist, and I am refering to a Thompson Center Pistol; not to a Kel-Tec piece 'o dreck...) cartridge available. They still run around .75 cents to a dollar a bullet; I'll add that it takes a few $$$ to take a day and simply blast off round after round after round; perhaps akin to blowing a bag of coke, or smoking a set of new tires; I'm sure at some point the financial waste is a demographic in itself. So. The .223. Cheap, and pretty much a world wide universal.

And although the OTC .223 cartridge will fit, fire, and function in a 5.56 NATO ( do some math and Wiki time here if you must; simply put the NATO version might cause a civvie weapon to breach ) rifle; the 5.56 will not 'fff' in the .223 rifle.

Bleagh. Another academic subject smeared with blood and soon to be governmentally papered; McVeigh had the same effect to fertiliser and fuel oils.
posted by buzzman at 9:43 AM on December 18, 2012

Is there a particular reporter or website who's doing a good job of reporting on the facts of the case, as the police release them? I'd like to follow that person or website.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:44 AM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

"BTK" was a pretty famous serial killer without a name.

I think it's a losing battle. The actions are famous, and people will find a way to name the actor, even if it's with an epithet. I appreciate the call for a reduction in glorification, but if we want comprehensive coverage and a good citizen understanding of events, we have to talk about what happened, and the actor has to be referred to somehow. I think where we need to look at reduction in glorification is in the broader media and culture, not in single catastrophic events where knowing what the events were is basically inevitable.
posted by Miko at 9:53 AM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

THAT NAME WILL NEVER BE MENTIONED is a little awkward

Call me naive, but I'm pretty sure newspeople can figure out a new ways of reporting stories.
posted by rhizome at 9:55 AM on December 18, 2012

Saving the country from tyranny, or even armed insurrection of another faction, is just laughable. That's not serious talk. Let's set that aside too; it's fantastical nonsense, daydreams of heroism.

Yeah, but it's a common interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

I mean I guess my question applies to anyone who wants to own a gun - it doesn't necessarily mean that no one can own one, but it does mean it's important to recognize the incredible increase in power that a gun provides. So hunters and hobbyists and home-protectors and revolutionaries alike should agree that a gun is a dangerous thing and that it does kill.

A gun has much greater range, speed, force and overall deadliness than a knife. That's just information, and it's true whether you are the good guy or the bad guy - or, as in real life, just a person who is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. Humans get angry and violent sometimes and they have more power when they have guns.

As long as it's known that this is a way to become famous, it's going to attract people. We should want to remember a victim's name, but forget who did the killing completely

I dunno. Trying to hide that these things happen doesn't make sense either, and the idea that this kind of fame is appealing to someone is already evidence of a pretty weird frame of mind. They'll impact their town whether or not media report on it, and in the other direction, plenty of people outside their town will forget them pretty fast.

It might make a bigger difference if the supervillains in movies weren't built up as such revered characters... Or really, we give people like this more power by seeing them as evil. Saying stuff like "guns don't kill people" makes it all about them. In reality they are just deeply troubled and unthinking individuals who had too much access to extremely dangerous technology.

These aren't masterminds or evil overlords - they don't have to be because we set them loose in a room with a red button. Yes, good, well-adjusted people won't press it, but maybe we should just keep people away from the option to start with.
posted by mdn at 9:59 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

we should think of many rampage shooters as nonideological suicide terrorists.

Terrorists is the operative word. An old friend of mine lives not far from Newtown and her FB posts about the school being on lockdown, about the police swarming all over the place, about the general level of "Oh crap, it's gonna happen again!" makes me sick. This is a community that is being, technically, terrorized. The mother of this friend is suggesting a move to Canada (they hold dual citizenship) because who wants to live with that as your default mode?

This is an aspect of the 'discourse' that escapes me entirely. There are guns out there owned by people who are maybe not stable/reliable. Therefore, rather than take their guns away(!) let's buy more guns to fight them with(!!) This does not parse, and it makes me deeply sad. It reminds me of a family member who was the victim of spousal abuse and could not see the forest (Spouse is abusive) for the trees ('but I did break that dish').

I don't sit in the camp that all guns are bad and should be done away with. I took gun safety in 6th grade, my dad hunted growing up, my uncles hunted. I never did but I'm about a thousand times more 'pro' hunting than not. Guns exist, they have a purpose and a value that is not universal, but is not to be discounted. On the flip side I've been on the wrong side of guns and I wish that on no one. And ultimately, I don't want (especially as I don't need) guns in my life.

The discourse needs to be taken back to one where common sense (do you really 'need' to own an assault rifle? Seriously. Living in the US) is the guiding principle. And where people feel unsafe in their neighborhoods, well the blame for that falls at the feet of the local police departments and they should be held accountable.
posted by From Bklyn at 10:00 AM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

The Washington Times is not a reliable source. They've got a print edition and fancy letterhead, but they're very much a fringe publication. You're better off getting your news from Fox or The Daily Mail.

Fine, you can read the Washington Post story that I linked to that makes the same point PLA did.
bardic: "The point was that southern, NRA-backed congressmen did their duty and played a game with the political rights of DC citizens to decide for themselves just exactly what kinds of gun laws they want. It was pushed by Cato/Koch brothers as well (surprise!). Maybe you don't find this racist, but I can assure you that black residents of DC did."
And there's the rub.

A bunch of people who were not from DC came in, decided that they were unhappy with DC's gun laws, and then changed them without asking the people of DC, or even evaluating whether or not it was actually appropriate to relax DC's gun laws.

It's not any more true when you quote bardic saying it than when bardic says it. The law wasn't changed by congressmen. People don't get to have the kinds of laws they want when they conflict with the Constitution. It's untrue that they didn't evaluate whether it was appropriate to change the laws, they just disagreed with you about whether it was a good idea. The previous law was overturned by the court and the current law was not imposed from the outside, but by the city council.

Nobody in DC wants to buy a gun.

No they do. Heller for one. That's why he filed a lawsuit. And from 2008- early 2011, the gun dealer operating in the District processed 1,000 handgun transfers into the District which is a heck of a lot of "nobody," not to mention that the number who did it is safe to say lower than the number who wanted to, given the onerous requirements.

Heck, nobody in DC even wants to sell guns. DC had one gun dealer, and it closed.

Because he lost his lease, not because he had no customers. And it wasn't permanent; he's open for business again.

The process for licensing a firearm here is weird and complicated because it almost never gets used.

A) It's not accidentally wierd and complicated, it's wierd and complicated on purpose to make it hard. B) It gets used a lot less than it otherwise would because it's wierd and complicated.

That said, the process that she describes is considerably less complicated and time-consuming than what you'd have to go through if you wanted to buy a car. Even with the most restrictive gun laws that the Federal government will allow, buying a gun in DC is still easier than buying a car.

What? Looking at the fee schedules, it appears I can buy a car, get a drivers license (since I hold an out of state one), and register the car for less money than it costs to register a gun (not including the cost of the gun or the car). I don't have to take a class to buy and operate a car, I do for a gun. I can buy any car that's road legal. I can only buy guns from a pre-approved white list, etc.
posted by Jahaza at 10:00 AM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

I don't have to take a class to buy and operate a car

Do you have to take the class for each gun purchase in DC, or only once when you get your license? Because if so, uh.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:03 AM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

Haha, but you haven't tried getting anything done at the DC DMV...and you also are eliding the costs and time of being trained to legally drive a car. Regardless, add me to the list of then-DC residents who saw Heller as a case primarily motivated by outside funding and desires. Although decided by SCOTUS, DC's own laws are frequently tampered with and used as bargaining pins by outside congressional forces and gun laws were in the past a frequent target by folks who didn't even live there.
posted by jetlagaddict at 10:08 AM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

Call me naive, but I'm pretty sure newspeople can figure out a new ways of reporting stories.

I think maybe 20 years ago the news could control the public dialogue on a lot of news stories, but with the development of the Internet, I think their ability to control it is severely limited. If certain key details are left out of certain events, then I have a really bad feeling that the vacuum will be filled with rumors, speculation, and the slow drip, drip, drip of photos and details that come out in weeks and months. I'm not sure how they could do it better.
posted by FJT at 10:13 AM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

Fox News: A Utah sixth grader who told classmates he was encouraged by his parents to bring a gun to school after the Connecticut school shooting, was apprehended by teachers after he was found with an unloaded .22-caliber handgun, Fox13Now.com reported.

The unidentified student, described in the report as an 11-year-old boy, reportedly pulled the gun from his backpack during recess Monday at West Kearns Elementary School, which is a Southwest suburb of Salt Lake City.

Isabel Rios, a fellow sixth grader, said the boy pointed the gun at her head and said he was going to kill her, the report said.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:14 AM on December 18, 2012 [15 favorites]

I dunno. Trying to hide that these things happen doesn't make sense either, and the idea that this kind of fame is appealing to someone is already evidence of a pretty weird frame of mind. They'll impact their town whether or not media report on it, and in the other direction, plenty of people outside their town will forget them pretty fast.

People outside your town only forget you if you don't kill enough people. The names of people who have committed massacres like this are commonly known; they're famous. A few of them have come up in this thread. Some of those are names I'll remember for the rest of my life.

I linked to this in the original MetaTalk thread on this, and I think it's instructive. He mentions pictures of the shooter, but I think it probably applies to excessive use of the name.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 10:17 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

So hunters and hobbyists and home-protectors and revolutionaries alike should agree that a gun is a dangerous thing and that it does kill.

Frankly, I think the revolutionaries should piss off.

We've got a Muslim Kenyan socialist Islamo-fascist fake American who stole not one, but two(!) elections using Acorn and other communist Chicago style trickery and who has nationalized vital American industries and forced gay socialism on everyone. Now, he wants to take everyone guns away, have the UN force us into camps prepared by Century 21 and rob us of our precious bodily essence.

If the James Madison quoting freedom fighting patriots of freedom and America can't be arsed to rise up and take back their country by these events, they aren't going to. Maybe they need to work that overtime shift next weekend to pay the alimony, maybe they promised the wife they were gonna work on cleaning the attic. Whatever it is, those crybaby chickenshits don't have the stones to actually do what hey threaten - choosing instead to pound out principled Facebook post after Facebook post about 300 years old doctrine about tyranny that was obsolete before Lenin was even born.

It's shameful that they have been allowed to dominate our political discourse for so long, because if there is a group we should not be taking political advice from it's those that can't seem to figure out that the revolutionary war ended centuries ago.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 10:22 AM on December 18, 2012 [17 favorites]

Gun lobby has opposed research on effects of gun ownership/gun laws

Holy shit. In a just world, this would be the lead story in every news show and periodical for the next several weeks.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:38 AM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

I'm curious, now: what normally happens when bears wander around urban areas?

Well if they're in L.A. they become stars, natch.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:41 AM on December 18, 2012

spitbull - people are being so extreme in response to this tragedy that it's forcing others to adopt extreme and caricatured views, and to caricature the views of others

This is a thread full of people who are experienced in owning and shooting guns, and people who aren't, largely talking about how America could find a fair middle ground on the gun control issue, and they aren't going around changing their arguments and opinions and rhetoric in reaction to others voicing extreme views on either side. The wider discussion in the country at large is much the same - a lot of loudmouths with extreme views on either side aren't forcing the people who want to find pragmatic gun control measures that still play fair with responsible gun owners to "adopt extreme and caricatured views, and to caricature the views of others". A reasonable person will change their position based on evidence, but how can someone participate in any kind of discussion in good faith if they're just going to move the goalposts based on what somebody else thinks or the way they say it? That's the tactic of someone who is arguing for the sake of arguing, and it poisons the conversation.
posted by jason_steakums at 10:51 AM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

with the development of the Internet, I think their ability to control it is severely limited.

Oh, absolutely. In fact, there was an excellent story on Morning Edition today about the way that utterly erroneous facts came out and were multiply reported by many outlets before they were officially confirmed. If anything, the Internet and the 24-hour broadcast news cycle places a premium on getting the most facts the fastest, meaning that groups seeking market share or attention are incentivized not to report thoughtfully on only confirmed facts, but to toss out the rumor to keep you feeling like you're getting information. Competition for first is going to pretty much gaurantee names get out.

And anyway, like I said, crimes are public information. I want the names.

Century 21

You mean Agenda 21! Get your conspiracy shibboleths right! You must be a filthy infiltrator!
posted by Miko at 10:54 AM on December 18, 2012

Oh, absolutely. In fact, there was an excellent story on Morning Edition today about the way that utterly erroneous facts came out and were multiply reported by many outlets before they were officially confirmed. If anything, the Internet and the 24-hour broadcast news cycle places a premium on getting the most facts the fastest, meaning that groups seeking market share or attention are incentivized not to report thoughtfully on only confirmed facts, but to toss out the rumor to keep you feeling like you're getting information. Competition for first is going to pretty much gaurantee names get out.

Seconding that NPR piece, its a good look at this embarrassing phenomenon in news reporting these days. I was planning on waiting for a few more articles about it to go up and making a FPP about it in a few days.
posted by DynamiteToast at 10:58 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Rick Perry advocates arming teachers.

Tennessee considers training and arming them.

So. Fucking. Angry.
posted by emjaybee at 11:02 AM on December 18, 2012 [5 favorites]

Rick Perry advocates arming teachers.

Tennessee considers training and arming them.

So. Fucking. Angry.

Yup, and after the first incident where a student gets their hands on a teacher's sidearm and murders classmates people like Rick Perry will reply that it's time to arm the other students (but just the good ones, not the ones who are going to go nuts).
posted by Cosine at 11:05 AM on December 18, 2012 [10 favorites]

You don't believe I wish Newtown hadn't happened... Because I oppose gun laws... That wouldn't have stopped Newtown from happening? That... That just does not make a lick of sense!

What gun laws do you oppose? My understanding of your comments in this thread is that you think the current regulatory regime is appropriate and should not be modified. Since large-scale attacks continue to occur under this system, I take it to mean that you think these are "tragic" but "unavoidable," and the correct price to pay for the current system of laws.

My thinking is that length restrictions, magazine capacity restrictions and others would have lowered the death toll (perhaps to zero, like in Chengpeng?). It's important to note that in the shooting in Arizona, the attacker was sudbued during a magazine change. Do you think there should be any changes to the regulatory regime for firearms in the United States? My understanding of your comments is that you do not.

This is how I know that you don't want to change things - because you don't want to change things.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:05 AM on December 18, 2012 [8 favorites]

This sticky thread at a gun discussion forum might have yielded something interesting, but alas we shall never know because it was closed after 3 posts. Which is too bad, because I came in there to post a moderate comment.

I'm a hunter and gun owner, and I think a program of training, certification, and waiting period is appropriate for at least certain types of weapons. Why should 30-round magazines not be subject to additional regulation like silencers, full automatic firing mode, and concealment?

Am I concerned that gun control laws may be applied unfairly to me at some point? Sure, but that potential exists for any law.
posted by maniabug at 11:13 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Saving the country from tyranny, or even armed insurrection of another faction, is just laughable. That's not serious talk. Let's set that aside too; it's fantastical nonsense, daydreams of heroism.

> Yeah, but it's a common interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

People who claim that constitution gives them a right to shoot police officers or form a terrorist organization are of concern to the FBI. They don't need to be involved in any debate about gun control.

I don't know of any surveys about this, but I'd be really surprised if the percentage of Americans agreeing with a statement like "I have constitutional right shoot and kill police officers and members of the National Guard if I disagree with the government about something" was anything more than a small fraction of a percent.

(Yes, I know, from media reports, that people like that exist. I'm denying that it's a common interpretation of the 2nd amendment, even in areas were gun ownership is common, and that it needs to be taken seriously from anything other than a law enforcement angle.)
posted by nangar at 11:23 AM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

You don't need to believe me - Believe the The Hartford Courant - Believe the CT DEEP - Or believe the picture of a bear in frickin' Hartford from the cite I linked

Once more, with feeling: that bear was in a remote part of a 600+-acre park on the far northern edge of the city. It was not ordering coffee on Farmington Avenue. I spent a fair bit of time in Hartford; you clearly haven't. The occasional bear there (or where I am now) is no big deal as long as you're not a dipshit who tries feeding them or leaves bird feeders up or dumpsters unsecured when they're foraging.

Thanks to spitbull's posts, I'm a lot clearer now about the difference between people who speak with experience and authority about the wild expanses of America, and those who invoke it as a schtick.
posted by holgate at 11:23 AM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

Silent Since Shootings, N.R.A. Could Face Challenge to Political Power

"...

But when she and other Tennessee Republicans decided earlier this year not to move forward with an N.R.A. bill that would have allowed people to keep firearms locked in their cars in parking lots, Ms. Maggart became an object lesson in how the organization deploys its political power.

Upset that the bill, which the N.R.A. called the “Safe Commute Act,” had stalled, the group began working to unseat Ms. Maggart, the only member of the House leadership with a primary opponent. Billboards with her picture next to President Obama’s went up in her district, along with radio ads, newspaper ads and mailings. The N.R.A. and the other groups that opposed her in the primary spent around $155,000, she estimated. It would hardly be enough to register in many political races these days, but it was more than enough to beat Ms. Maggart — and draw notice in the State Capitol.

“They said I was shredding the Constitution, I was putting your family in danger, I was for gun control, I like Barack Obama,” Ms. Maggart said.

...

The group spent millions of dollars on political ads this year and, since the beginning of 2011, has spent 10 times more on lobbying than every gun control group combined.

...

After the massacre at Virginia Tech in 2007, Congress did manage to pass a modest measure that was designed to provide money to states to improve the federal background check system. But the N.R.A. secured a broad concession in the legislation, which pushed states to allow people with histories of mental illness to petition to have their gun rights restored."
posted by rtha at 11:24 AM on December 18, 2012

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell: It's time to discuss arming school officials.

Sadly, not surprising.
posted by emelenjr at 11:27 AM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

Rick Perry advocates arming teachers.

Tennessee considers training and arming them.

So. Fucking. Angry.

McDonnell: Time to discuss arming school officials
By Michael Sluss
981-3373

Gov. Bob McDonnell said this morning that allowing public school employees to carry firearms is an idea worth discussing in the aftermath of last week’s mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school.

McDonnell addressed gun laws and school safety policies during an appearance on WTOP radio in Washington, D.C. He was asked during the program if Virginia should consider allowing teachers, supervisors and principals to be armed inside of school buildings.

“I know there’s been a knee-jerk reaction against that,” McDonnell said. “ I think there should at least be a discussion of that. If people were armed, not just a police officer but other school officials who were trained and chose to have a weapon, certainly there would have been an opportunity to stop aggressors coming into the schools. So I think that’s a reasonable discussion that ought to be had.”

Yep, looks like we're also starting that conversation in Virginia.
posted by sumdim at 11:28 AM on December 18, 2012

You know, I hear teaching is occasionally somewhat stressful.

But, hey, why not give teachers loaded guns before sealing them into rooms with incorrigible brats for six hours a day, five days a week, ten months of the year, plus extracurriculars, and endless unpaid overtime--and if they ask for a salary, give them a slap in the face.

What could possibly go wrong?
posted by Sys Rq at 11:29 AM on December 18, 2012 [25 favorites]

The points about gun control legislation being futile because of Heller are well taken, but I don't believe that it matters in the long run. If public opinion is changing to the point that people support gun control measures that fly in the face of Heller, and the representatives in Congress feel enough pressure from those people to pass that legislation, then they should do it, Heller be damned, and let the Supreme Court do what it does. And if the legislation is struck down in another 5-4 decision then it's up to the people who want that legislation to be the law of the land to push for an Amendment, push for confirmation of Justices who don't agree with Heller, etc. It's a bit of a ridiculous system, and it's very hard to get things like this done, but just because a single Supreme Court Justice will rule a certain way even if you've got the votes is no reason to not fight for what you believe in and do everything you can.
posted by jason_steakums at 11:31 AM on December 18, 2012

"Public school teachers are just a bunch of no-good, know-nothing union slackers who'd rather sit around in rubber rooms than teach our kids. They can't be trusted to tie their own shoes, let alone educate our children. Naturally, the solution to gun violence in schools is to give the teachers guns. WOLVERINES!"
posted by tonycpsu at 11:36 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Gov. Bob McDonnell said this morning that allowing public school employees to carry firearms is an idea worth discussing ...

Fuck our fucking governor. I don't like him, but now we're getting into serious hate territory..

[sorry, emotional outburst, pull hit post anyway]
posted by nangar at 11:37 AM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

Gee, I am surprised that the republicans now are thinking that union thug teachers might be appropriate people to arm?
posted by madamjujujive at 11:41 AM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

Gov. Bob McDonnell said this morning that allowing public school employees to carry firearms is an idea worth discussing ...

Guns aren't allowed in the Capitol and Legislature, either.

Sauce for the goose and all that.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:41 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

So how much would it cost to train and arm a significant proportion of Virginia teachers? And how would Republicans like to raise that extra money?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:43 AM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell: It's time to discuss arming school officials.

Armed school officials will only be heroes until the first protests for better wages and teaching conditions, at which point they will become a Fox News chyron reading "JACKBOOTED UNION THUGS ARMED TO THE TEETH THREATEN, CONTROL AMERICAS CHILDREN"
posted by zombieflanders at 11:44 AM on December 18, 2012 [8 favorites]

I say let them talk. If they think they have worried, anxious and pissed off parents now, wait until these great "arm the teacher" wingnuttery ideas start getting a full airing. I was pretty worried about Obama's election until some of these wackjobs started letting their freak flags fly.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:46 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Gov. Bob McDonnell said this morning that allowing public school employees to carry firearms is an idea worth discussing ...

I had friends, raging liberal democrat friends!, advocating this on facebook not 15 minutes after the breaking news in Newtown.

The mind, it boggles.
posted by youandiandaflame at 11:49 AM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

I'm just waiting for someone to propose that the public schools should all be closed for safety reasons. People can send their kids to religious schools or homeschool them instead. That crazy wingnut branch of the GOP that hates public schools should be right on board with that.
posted by ambrosia at 11:49 AM on December 18, 2012

I have raging liberal friends who said that they don't want only the police to have guns because we would then have a police state.
posted by sweetkid at 11:50 AM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

More Rude Pundit: On guns, the crazies make the laws.
posted by gaspode at 11:51 AM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

Bad enough the idea of arming emergency responders is being seriously considered in some localities. But teachers? This is so obviously barking up the wrong tree.
posted by maniabug at 11:54 AM on December 18, 2012

ok, here's something I find illogical

1. Guns are no more dangerous than any other tool. A knife or homemade bomb is just as accessible and deadly, therefore banning or regulating guns would not reduce deaths.
2. I need the right to own any and all kinds of guns because nothing else will keep me safe in exactly the way a gun will.

How are people capable of arguing both these things at once? Switching off one side of the brain at a time?
posted by jacalata at 11:54 AM on December 18, 2012 [31 favorites]

Brandon Blatcher: Is there a particular reporter or website who's doing a good job of reporting on the facts of the case, as the police release them? I'd like to follow that person or website.

Perhaps this, via The Daily Beast?
posted by youandiandaflame at 11:59 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Actually, the better page is accessed by clicking the "Newtown" header as opposed to the page I gave. Sorry...
posted by youandiandaflame at 12:00 PM on December 18, 2012

Not to stir shit up worse, but does anyone have an idea about how the interaction of guns and race will play out? In a quick look at the GSS data I find that while in the 2010 survey 38% of whites had a gun at home only about 14% of non-whites did. Could we end up with a demographic change ala gay marriage where the New America just wakes up five years from now and finds it has the votes to push through meaningful gun control?
posted by shothotbot at 12:05 PM on December 18, 2012

Blast From the Past: NRA Propaganda Anticipates Newtown

Post-Newtown, Sales Boom for Kids' Body Armor
posted by madamjujujive at 12:05 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

jacalata: "Switching off one side of the brain at a time?"

I think it's more like switching off both sides.
posted by Big_B at 12:06 PM on December 18, 2012

To Perry, McDonnell and State Senator Fuckleberry, there's a simple enough reply: "No. End of discussion. Try again."
posted by holgate at 12:06 PM on December 18, 2012

the man of twists and turns : What gun laws do you oppose?

I probably should have put the word "new" in there. But I would like to see a nationwide "peaceable journey" law (note that FOPA, while a good start, only counts as an affirmative defense, after Obie causes you to have a very, very bad day). So, tell ya what - Let me have that, and I'll settle for bright pink floral rifles that look nothing like the scary fake-military ones everyone gets all up in arms (no pun intended) over.

This is how I know that you don't want to change things - because you don't want to change things.

I didn't say I want to change things. I said I wished it didn't happen. Please don't put words in my mouth. That said, I would like to see the real - Human - causes of violence addressed, rather than scapegoating a tool. The problem with our conversation, when you proudly point out that no one died in the Chinese knife attack, comes from you completely missing the point that some whackjob still tried to kill 22 kids with a knife! I would rather prevent the incident, not merely minimize the body count when the next one eventually loses their shit.

My thinking is that length restrictions, magazine capacity restrictions and others would have lowered the death toll

It might, it might not. In Arizona, they got lucky in that regard. In Texas, they got lucky a different way. In any situation, though, prevention would save a hell of a lot more lives than tackling someone during a magazine change.

holgate : that bear was in a remote part of a 600+-acre park on the far northern edge of the city.

And that park: In the lower-48, or not?

I'm a lot clearer now about the difference between people who speak with experience and authority about the wild expanses of America, and those who invoke it as a schtick.

I made a laughable (but true!) post about bears in Hartford as counterpoint to a far more absurd notion that wildernesses, and more specifically, wild animals, don't exist South of Alaska. FWIW, CT - The "rich" parts or not - Has a hell of a lot of dense forests. Really though, that has no relevance to the discussion, so I apologize for taking the bait.

jacalata : How are people capable of arguing both these things at once?

An axe will very effectively cut wood in one particular direction. You wouldn't use one to build a modern stick-built home, however.
posted by pla at 12:09 PM on December 18, 2012

Not to stir shit up worse, but does anyone have an idea about how the interaction of guns and race will play out?

One of the interesting/troubling things about hunting in America is how few African-Americans participate in it. There seems to me, room for concern that things that make hunting even more expensive (registration, fees, etc) will disproportionately affect those who do hunt.

But that is a deeper topic I don't really know a lot about.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 12:11 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

> So how much would it cost to train and arm a significant proportion of Virginia teachers? And how would Republicans like to raise that extra money?

Who said anything about training? Only liberal elitists believe that operating a firearm requires training, remember?

No, we'll just require all teachers to purchase a firearm and keep it loaded and accessible at all times. Everything will be just fine, and it won't cost the taxpayers anything ...

[fucking nitwit]
posted by nangar at 12:11 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

People can send their kids to religious schools or homeschool them instead.

A thousand-odd comments ago in this very thread, someone suggested that very thing :(

How are people capable of arguing both these things at once? Switching off one side of the brain at a time?

Who knows? This occurred to me a little while ago, too. Someone here was arguing that the attacker could have been just as effective "with a can of gasoline" - which raises questions about why people aren't defending themselves with cans of gasoline, why the army doesn't go to war with cans of gasoline...

Such total, unmitigated, bullshit justifications, used to justify a macho hobby while innocent kids get killed.

An axe will very effectively cut wood in one particular direction. You wouldn't use one to build a modern stick-built home, however.

Like that.
posted by Jimbob at 12:12 PM on December 18, 2012 [9 favorites]

And that park: In the lower-48, or not?

Black bear, brown bear, grizzly bear, polar bear. And once again, you seem to be insistent upon conflating "wilderness" with "exurbia plus dirt tracks", which is why it sounds like a schtick. I have friends who lived in the Australian outback and did their grocery shopping in a Cessna, so I am not persuaded that having the cops 15 minutes away makes you Grizzly Adams.
posted by holgate at 12:15 PM on December 18, 2012 [12 favorites]

Blast From the Past: NRA Propaganda Anticipates Newtown

That article, if anything, undersells how completely off the charts crazy that piece is. The full version is here. It includes everything from an illustration of PETA activists coming to attack hunters (complete with owl carrying dynamite in its talons) to a discussion of how you need guns because of Jamaican gangs and Chinese triad human smugglers.

I kind of wish that tract could be the test for whether or not you get to own a gun. If it makes sense to you, the answer is no.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 12:20 PM on December 18, 2012 [7 favorites]

pla - I would like to see the real - Human - causes of violence addressed, rather than scapegoating a tool.

How would you address this? I'm genuinely asking, because while I don't share your views on gun control, any actions that would make us safer from gun violence are worth exploring and discussing.

The mental health issue seems a lot like the problems with suicide prevention, to me. You've got everything from people who seem like plainly obvious suicide risks who would never in a million years go through with it, to people who give no warning and surprise everyone by turning up dead at their own hand. And in the middle there are a lot of people who give varying degrees of warning to people who are either oblivious, in denial, or just don't care, and who may or may not actually go through with it. And it's much the same with killers. Who is really a risk? Who isn't? What can be done about it?
posted by jason_steakums at 12:21 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

Is there a particular reporter or website who's doing a good job of reporting on the facts of the case, as the police release them? I'd like to follow that person or website.

I suggest the websites of local newspapers, as well as those of neighboring towns, cities and counties.

Newtown Bee -- website | Facebook page (they update info on their FB page more often than their weekly paper website).

Newtown Patch -- website | Facebook page.

Fairfield Citizen -- website | Facebook page.

CTnow (Fairfield County) -- website | Facebook page.

Litchfield County Times -- website | Facebook page.

Danbury NewsTimes -- website | Facebook page.

Hartford Courant -- website | Facebook page.

Waterbury Republican American -- website.

posted by ericb at 12:22 PM on December 18, 2012 [8 favorites]

pla: exactly. Let me rephrase for you, as you appear to have only understood half the argument:

proposition 1. guns do not kill people any more easily than any other tool, and do not kill in a different way or at a different level of risk to the shooter than any other tool, therefore getting rid of guns will not change the number of people who are killed overall.
proposition 2. guns make it easier for me to realistically threaten a stronger, more aggressive person with death without putting myself in danger, therefore having a gun will keep me safe.

still not seeing the contradiction here?
posted by jacalata at 12:23 PM on December 18, 2012 [5 favorites]

From the Newtown PTA:

Sandy Hook School Fund -- Many people are looking to help by making a donation. Please be cautious before contributing money and make sure the fund is legitimate. With the help of CT PTSA, we have created the "Sandy Hook School Fund" and donations will be accepted through CTPTA.ORG. You can pay online or send a check to Connecticut PTSA, 60 Connolly Parkway, Building 12, Suite 103, Hamden, CT 06514 (if online contributing is made available, we will let you know). No fees are charged and all monies raised will go directly to help Sandy Hook School and Newtown. The beauty of this fund is that we can designate its use farther down the road, when we can determine where it will do the most good for the families of SHS and our town.

Newtown PTA/PTSAs thank both the CT PTSA and National PTA for their support at this time. Soon the media attention will fade and we will continue to support each other in private. We love Newtown and our wonderful families. Don't hesitate to contact your local PTA/PTSA officers with any of your concerns; we are here for you and each other.

Other information from the Connecticut PTA/PTSA about ways to help.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:26 PM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

The news that Lanza tried destroying his hard drive beforehand is making me wonder. The Dunblane primary school shooting linked upthread was committed by a similarly isolated and troubled individual, a disgraced scoutmaster dogged by allegations of child sexual abuse. Is it possible Lanza struggled with similarly twisted thoughts?

If his mother discovered something incriminating, for instance (she may have even been the one to smash the drive), I could easily see that pushing him off the deep end. For someone with longstanding psychological problems, abortive schooling, no job, no friends, no apparent web presence -- not even any contact with his own brother -- to have their sole social contact and caregiver discover a deeply painful and shameful secret like that? Add easy access to guns, and it's hard to imagine a more effective recipe for murder-suicide.

At least, like Dunblane, that offers a possible motive for his going after a school full of innocent kids he had no apparent connection to -- a final lashing out against the source of his frustrations. A lot more likely than "violent video games," anyway. (Really, CNN? Your go-to example is StarCraft?)
posted by Rhaomi at 12:27 PM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

A lot more likely than "violent video games," anyway. (Really, CNN? Your go-to example is StarCraft?)

It's a murder by Zerg rush simulator!
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 12:30 PM on December 18, 2012

When the only tool you have is a Zerg, every problem looks like a Protoss.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:33 PM on December 18, 2012 [6 favorites]

These Premises Are Alarmed: "There was mention upthread of Westboro, but sounds like they got bought off?"

Mr Pakman (whom I understand runs a radio show or something) had offered the WBC air time in return for them not picketing the funerals, but subsequent posts on Facebook seemed to indicate he had rescinded the offer after talking to Fred Phelps for a few minutes.
posted by brokkr at 12:35 PM on December 18, 2012

some whackjob still tried to kill 22 kids with a knife

Tried. Failed.
posted by rtha at 12:38 PM on December 18, 2012 [16 favorites]

One six-year-old girl survived by playing dead.

“She ran out of the school building covered from head to toe with blood and the first thing she said to her mom was, ‘Mommy, I’m OK but all my friends are dead,’” Pastor Jim Solomon told ABC News’ Lara Spencer this weekend.

(There's a video that auto-plays at the link.)
posted by lullaby at 12:38 PM on December 18, 2012

I don't know if anyone has posted this, (it's a long thread, I may have missed it), but Cerberus is selling Freedom Group, the gun company which makes one of the rifles associated with the Newtown massacre.

Also, stock prices for all major gun manufacturers were off earlier, but I don't know how they're closing.

And while the NRA may have shut down it's forward facing media/social connections; they haven't stopped broadcasting their radio show; where they attributed the shooting not to the availability of guns but to an absence of love. "I don't think the issue is an issue; I don't think the issue is parenting, or Hollywood, or guns, or rap music, or young men.... It is the foundational stuff... whether it's a lack of love, a lack of empathy for others, an apathy," host Cam Edwards said.
posted by dejah420 at 12:40 PM on December 18, 2012

I will miss you... I love you Jack.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:43 PM on December 18, 2012 [10 favorites]

"I don't think the issue is an issue; I don't think the issue is parenting, or Hollywood, or guns, or rap music, or young men.... It is the foundational stuff... whether it's a lack of love, a lack of empathy for others, an apathy," host Cam Edwards said.

Well shit then let's just force people to love everyone, problem solved.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:47 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Oh lullaby, oh Joey Michaels ...
*weeps*
posted by madamjujujive at 12:51 PM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

My body can't decide if it wants to cry first or if it wants to throw up first.
posted by rtha at 12:54 PM on December 18, 2012 [5 favorites]

Also, say what you want about Piers Morgan, but he has been bringing the high holy fury against gun lobbyists in recent days:

"So you want more guns, not less? 300 million guns in America isn't enough for you? How many more kids have to die before you guys say 'we want less guns, not more'?"
posted by Rhaomi at 1:01 PM on December 18, 2012 [5 favorites]

"I don't think the issue is an issue; I don't think the issue is parenting, or Hollywood, or guns, or rap music, or young men.... It is the foundational stuff... whether it's a lack of love, a lack of empathy for others, an apathy," host Cam Edwards said.

Ah, playing the autism / aspergers card. Classy.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:03 PM on December 18, 2012

That said, I would like to see the real - Human - causes of violence addressed, rather than scapegoating a tool.

Well, just to match the number of health care facilities with the number of gun retailers, we'd have to increase funding of the former from $113 billion to about $500 billion per year. Then you've got to add funding for building or improving highly responsive interconnected databases connecting all data for mental health, violent crime, and gun retailer background checks. On top of that, we've got to make sure that we have IT infrastructure capable of handling the transmission and protection of the data, and encryption for the data both in transit and at rest that meets highly confidential medical and privacy data security standards.

So, let's say $750 billion or more a year just for the mental health aspect of things, we'll leave the multi-trillion part about arming teachers out of it. I'm all for it, do we have your support on that?

The problem with our conversation, when you proudly point out that no one died in the Chinese knife attack, comes from you completely missing the point that some whackjob still tried to kill 22 kids with a knife! I would rather prevent the incident, not merely minimize the body count when the next one eventually loses their shit.

Well, no the problem with the conversation is that you present them as more or less mutually exclusive and/or that we shouldn't do one until we've done the other. Why not both, simultaneously?
posted by zombieflanders at 1:04 PM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

Looking at the fee schedules, it appears I can buy a car, get a drivers license (since I hold an out of state one), and register the car for less money than it costs to register a gun (not including the cost of the gun or the car). I don't have to take a class to buy and operate a car, I do for a gun.

In fairness, it appears that DC has, as of July, dropped the class requirement and replaced it with a required video tape watching. Reducing the cost of handgun licensing, since the class was a major part of the cost.
posted by Jahaza at 1:08 PM on December 18, 2012

President Obama backs Senator Dianne Feinstein's effort to ban assault weapons, the White House said today:

White House spokesman Jay Carney offered some of the first specifics on how Obama intends to make good on his promise to address gun violence in the aftermath of a shooting rampage at a Connecticut elementary school that killed 26 people, including 20 children.

"It's clear that as a nation we haven't done enough to address the scourge of gun violence," Carney told reporters. He reiterated that Obama "wants to move in the coming weeks."

posted by ericb at 1:09 PM on December 18, 2012

Also, say what you want about Piers Morgan, but he has been bringing the high holy fury against gun lobbyists in recent days

Yeah I generally hate his show but have caught him a couple of times in the last day or two and he has looked apoplectic.
posted by jamesonandwater at 1:13 PM on December 18, 2012

Rhaomi, I like it that Piers Morgan is getting the idea out there "we want less guns, not more." It could be reasonable public policy to try to reduce the number of guns in circulation while not touching one's legal rights to own most firearms. Or is that too subtle for many Americans?
posted by Numenius at 1:23 PM on December 18, 2012

I was honestly surprised that the local "Academy" sporting goods store, although not being sold out and having a seriously ramshackled ammo shelf; still had a few boxes of most of the ??? 30 - 40 ??? or so different calibers of ammunition available.

I proudly bought a box of .22mag 'snakeshot'. I'm ready. Testy rat in the feedbin; no prob. Watersnake in the fishpond ( seriously. I had to purchase the bullfrog tadpoles to raise to transplant into the actual ponds... snake + tadpole = quickly dispatched snake ) , ratller at my heel; no prob.

Large 6" x 15" x 4" sardine style cans of .223 and .45 ( ? ) from Russia and Poland; man, no way any of that junk is going near most enthusiasts weapons. Garbage ammo and junk assault rifles, el cheapo $39 gun show revolvers; tax ban melt toss it all in the history can. The bad crap; the simply visually vile or warfighter-esque items; the looks that collectors and respectors give and then look away; ... it generates revenue for the sellers, and young people just love the G.I. Joe fighten' for freedom fantasy day out shootin' hundreds of rounds. I think those days are over; kicking and screaming they will go, a "battle" will be won.

If there is an all out movement on all guns and all ammo types, woooooo.... talk about a ginormous waste of time and energy by both sides.
posted by buzzman at 1:29 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Also, say what you want about Piers Morgan, but he has been bringing the high holy fury against gun lobbyists in recent days:

One of the lobbyists kept looking to make the point that after the change in law following Dunblane, murder in the UK rose. The implication is meant to be that without guns for warding off attackers, more folk were killed. But it misses the truth that a gun for self-defense has never been (at least in the last tens of years) a common thing. A few years after Dunblane, there was the case of Tony Martin who shot intruders in his own home. Although there was some sympathy for him, it showed that such use of guns was not widely thought of as acceptable.

(Also, there was a huge spike in the murder rate after Harold Shipman was found out in the late 1990s, so it is hard to know whether the lobbyist was taking that into account.)
posted by Jehan at 1:37 PM on December 18, 2012

Know what?

If it's that important to be able to defend yourself against bears, hunting rifles with small magazines can remain legal. I'm perfectly okay with that.

Large cities (or, any municipality, really) should also be able to self-determine whether or not firearms are allowed within their borders.

In my mind, this compromise isn't perfect, but would be an enormous step in the right direction toward reducing violent crime.

And, seriously, is there any defensible justification for concealed carry?
posted by schmod at 1:38 PM on December 18, 2012

The problem with our conversation, when you proudly point out that no one died in the Chinese knife attack, comes from you completely missing the point that some whackjob still tried to kill 22 kids with a knife!

I can't believe you think the point is something other than allowing more people to survive when the inevitable breaks with reality by violent people occur.

We will never, never be able to prevent a small number of people from losing their grip on reality. I want to limit the destructive power they have access to when this inevitably happens.
posted by Miko at 1:42 PM on December 18, 2012 [15 favorites]

> It could be reasonable public policy to try to reduce the number of guns in circulation while not touching one's legal rights to own most firearms. Or is that too subtle for many Americans?

You mean limiting the entitlements associated with guns?

The most sensible conversations have been talk of minimal federal requirements for background checks for all purchases around guns (including gun shows), since making it hard to buy guns in one state just moves the illegal market to other states. Also banning characteristics of automatic weapons (magazine capacity being a major one), and not just the sale, but possession. Add a buy back program so people who suddenly have illegal guns can turn them in without penalty.

As for the cost associated it, make it part of the licensing process, along with taxes on the sales of guns and ammunition.

For folks where hunting is a means of subsidizing their income could be eligible for vouchers or coupons towards the training and licensing of their firearms, based on need.

This of course will piss off a lot of people, because they have to deal with the government on matters they deem personal and private*.

*The irony being there appears to be a large overlap between this group, and the group that wants transvaginal ultrasounds.
posted by mrzarquon at 1:42 PM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

Dylan Hockley died in Anne Marie Murphy's arms

Staring down the barrel of a rifle, Anne Marie Murphy pulled Dylan Hockley close to her, trying to shield him from the hail of bullets that would kill them both.

Dylan, 6, had special needs, his family said Monday. And Murphy was his "amazing" aide, they said. He loved her, pointing happily to her photo on the Hockley's refrigerator every day.
"We take great comfort in knowing that Dylan was not alone when he died," said his parents, Ian and Nicole Hockley.

A guardian angel, indeed!
posted by ericb at 1:44 PM on December 18, 2012 [5 favorites]

The problem with our conversation, when you proudly point out that no one died in the Chinese knife attack, comes from you completely missing the point that some whackjob still tried to kill 22 kids with a knife!

People aren't not talking about mental health reform in the midst of all this.

But that is going to be a much longer problem to solve, and will have a much more gradual success rate. For a very long time, no matter what we do to try to fix mental health access, we will still occasionally have people go into whackjob mode and try to kill kids.

That being said - wouldn't it be better if the weapon they tried to use was a knife, in which case they would FAIL at killing those kids, than if the weapon they tried to use was a gun, in which case they would SUCCEED at killing those kids?

We all agree that not having the whackjobs try to kill kids in the first place is the ideal. But it's going to be a long time before that happens, if ever.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:46 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

I agree with working on the mental health angle, of course, but the discussion has made me very aware of what a profoundly low level of literacy about mental illness many people in this country have. They really don't know the first thing about it, so it seems like such a simple fix. Let's just use our SCIENCE! to make everybody less unhappy!

Man, how I wished that worked so simply.
posted by Miko at 1:49 PM on December 18, 2012 [6 favorites]

The problem with cities/towns/counties having various and conflicting laws concerning firearms is that is leads to confusion and difficulties remaining in compliance and creates loopholes that can be exploited.

I'm not saying this is an argument against reforming weapons laws. I'm saying that there is an advantage to uniformity. MA apparently has a CCW requirement that is very stringent, but Utah's is not - so MA residents get a Utah CCW permit and avoid the hassle.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 1:49 PM on December 18, 2012

That article about Anne Marie Murphy and Dylan Hockley was tear inducing, but good. It should be. It sounds like he was a wonderful little boy and she was a remarkable and excellent person and teacher.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:54 PM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

jason_steakums : How would you address this?

If any of us had the entire "right" answer to that question, we (and the rest of the country) wouldn't need to have this discussion. I don't mean that fliply, I just don't know.

I don't, however, think that removing one particularly visible symptom will solve the problem - Hell, a few people in this thread can't even see that problem extends beyond guns, preferring to laud the lower death toll of a scarily similar event while failing to recognize it as the exact same problem, "Failed" or not.

jacalata : proposition 1. guns do not kill people any more easily than any other tool, and do not kill in a different way or at a different level of risk to the shooter than any other tool, therefore getting rid of guns will not change the number of people who are killed overall.

That differs from what you said previously, but I can answer your new version: No one in this discussion has made that argument. Cognitive dissonance resolved. And no, I didn't miss half your point - Both an axe, and a table saw, can more-or-less equally well break wood into smaller pieces. A table saw would take forever to chop firewood, however, and an axe lacks the finesse needed for cabinetry. Both, however, will take your fingers off with ease. That doesn't make them identical objects with no reason to prefer the one over the other; it doesn't reduce the total amount of wood getting chopped; it just means you should use the right tool for the right job.

zombieflanders : Well, just to match the number of health care facilities with the number of gun retailers

The US has 50,812 gun retailers (as of October). It has (or had, in 2010, can't find a more recent number) 942,000 hospital beds. We have 60,555 FFL holders in the US. We have 954,000 doctors in the US.

I'm all for it, do we have your support on that?

Aside from your numbers seeming exactly the opposite of the real ones - Yes, I already said as much. With one caveat - Payment depends on efficacy.

schmod : And, seriously, is there any defensible justification for concealed carry?

Open carry tends to scare people and attract unwanted attention. Simple as that.
posted by pla at 1:56 PM on December 18, 2012

mrzarquon, I mean for one thing market-based mechanisms like increasing taxes on guns and ammunition, as well as requiring gun insurance as discussed way up thread. Use the revenue generated from taxes and insurance to fund buyback programs. Of course the taxation will piss a lot of people off, but they still have their 2nd amendment right to have guns, it will just cost more. And couple that with a campaign to get people to reevaluate their risks - "you know, maybe you really aren't safer with that gun, after all". The campaign against smoking is the best analogue I can think of.
posted by Numenius at 1:58 PM on December 18, 2012

Is there reason I should understand the assault weapons ban as anything other than a meaningless bone thrown to gun control advocates? I mean, looking at the definition used in the Federal Assault Weapons ban, a lack pretty much all of the listed properties is a minor nuisance to someone who wants to use a gun to kill a lot of people. That hypothesis is well-supported by the seemingly overwhelming evidence in favor of the ban's ineffectiveness. So I'm not seeing much to get excited about with respect to a renewal of the ban.
posted by invitapriore at 1:59 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

National Rifle Association statement:

The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.

Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.

The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.

The group says it will be holding a press conference on December 21.
posted by ericb at 2:04 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

there was a huge spike in the murder rate after Harold Shipman was found out in the late 1990s

This page shows the year-on-year murder rate for England and Wales since 1980. Dunblane was in 1996.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 2:05 PM on December 18, 2012

I agree. I want to talk about changing the 2nd amendment.
posted by agregoli at 2:06 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

So I'm not seeing much to get excited about with respect to a renewal of the ban.

The original ban was ineffective, but I don't think it's impossible for one to be crafted that would be more effective, and Australia seemed to get it right:

Would it be possible to tighten the law? In theory, yes. Back in 1996, Australia imposed a much stricter version of the assault weapons ban after a mass shooting. The Australian version avoided many of the loopholes in the U.S. law: Not only did the country ban all types of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, but it also spent $500 million buying up nearly 600,000 existing guns from private owners.

As Wonkblog’s Sarah Kliff pointed out, Australia’s law appears to have curbed gun violence. Researchers in the British Medical Journal write that the ban was “followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides.”

The pro-gun folks do have a point that most gun deaths don't come from assault weapons, so I agree that banning the assault weapon category, regardless of whether there are loopholes, shouldn't be the priority. However, Dianne Feinstein and the White House have both made noises that in addition to retrying the AWB, they're looking into limiting magazine capacity and closing the gun show loophole, both measures that would be much more meaningful reforms.

I think the reason they're mainly focusing on banning assault weapons is political -- regardless of how effective such a ban would be, one did pass before. I would not consider merely banning this vaguely-defined category of guns sufficient, but doing so may be necessary for political and substantive reasons.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:07 PM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

The coaches and artists of NBC's 'The Voice' pay tribute to the Connecticut shooting victims with Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah.
posted by ericb at 2:08 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

> mrzarquon, I mean for one thing market-based mechanisms like increasing taxes on guns and ammunition, as well as requiring gun insurance as discussed way up thread.

I agree. I was just trying to position the phrasing of it. Again, one may have a right to own a gun. You aren't entitled for it to be cheap, easy, and available in all circumstances.

And to do any of this, there has to be a city/state/federal level implementation of this. It doesn't do any good to make it impossible to buy guns in connecticut when you can drive to a gun show in the south and buy one on the nearly unregulated gun show circuit. This is why urban mayors are involved in the discussion. They can't post guards at the entrance to their cities checking everyone for assault weapons as they enter.

> That hypothesis is well-supported by the seemingly overwhelming evidence in favor of the ban's ineffectiveness. So I'm not seeing much to get excited about with respect to a renewal of the ban.

I think it has been widely discussed that the ban definitely needs work. I don't think they are planning to reintroduce something with the exact same wording as the original legislation.
posted by mrzarquon at 2:11 PM on December 18, 2012

The group says it will be holding a press conference on December 21.

i.e. the Friday before Christmas, when all the press apart from the short-straw shift is headed out for holiday drinks. What a profile in courage there.
posted by holgate at 2:12 PM on December 18, 2012 [7 favorites]

So, tell ya what - Let me have that, and I'll settle for bright pink floral rifles that look nothing like the scary fake-military ones everyone gets all up in arms (no pun intended) over.

It's cute how you think I don't know anything about firearms and would support a reinstatement of the misguided assault weapons ban. How's this for starters: no non-integral magazines greater than six rounds (which would exempt revolvers) and nothing with a stock (in the fully-collapsed position) shorter than 40 inches from muzzle to butt plate? And then integrating the various state and federal databases, along with providing a means for private sellers to conduct background checks.

Again, your proposal (making it easier to transport guns) would have no effect on the gun-enabled massacres that occurred this year. Sarcastic comments aside, I understand you to mean that you think the current regulatory system should not be tightened. Since the massacres are a predictable systematic outcome, I understand that you think they are acceptable. Why are they acceptable to you?

If they are not acceptable to you, why don't you support systematic regulation reform to reduce their incidence?

I didn't say I want to change things. I said I wished it didn't happen. Please don't put words in my mouth.

You're right. I apologize for interpreting your statement that "you wished this didn't happen" to mean that you would work to prevent them from happening. That is clearly not the case.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:24 PM on December 18, 2012 [11 favorites]

MA apparently has a CCW requirement that is very stringent, but Utah's is not - so MA residents get a Utah CCW permit and avoid the hassle.

If you do not have a Massachusetts-issued firearm license, then you cannot possess or carry a gun in Massachusetts. A Concealed Firearm Permit (CFP) issued by Utah is not valid in Massachusetts.

However, a permit issued by Utah is valid in thirty other states, and Utah is relatively lax about issuing permits to nonresidents (eg, people from Massachusetts). If you travel often to different states, then obtaining a Utah permit will reduce the number of states where you have to worry, "Can I legally carry my gun here?" That's why some Massachusetts residents obtain Utah nonresident permits in addition to their Massachusetts license.

Those other states could choose, as Massachusetts does, not to recognize a Utah CFP. Without criticizing any state, I will simply point out that there are two levels of decision at play in the Utah CFP issue: Utah deciding how to issue its nonresident permits, and other states deciding whether to recognize Utah's permits.

The takeaway is that the field of gun law is heavily state-dependent. As another example of this: Someone upthread mentioned silencers, which are regulated by federal law but that doesn't matter in Massachusetts because they are illegal here.
posted by cribcage at 2:25 PM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

I don't, however, think that removing one particularly visible symptom will solve the problem - Hell, a few people in this thread can't even see that problem extends beyond guns, preferring to laud the lower death toll of a scarily similar event while failing to recognize it as the exact same problem, "Failed" or not.

Very few people are for the complete "removal" of weapons. Most proposals have to do with making it harder to obtain weapons and reducing a weapon's effectiveness in being able to kill many people at once. This is primarily about mitigation though, not to completely solve the problem. I find it strange when you're automatically suggesting to dismiss a potential avenue because it wouldn't be a perfect solution.

Yes, I already said as much. With one caveat - Payment depends on efficacy.

Efficacy? What do you mean by that? There's multiple directions to take this. For example, maybe some sort of cost-benefit analysis. Which would probably involve calculating present value of life time income for each person's life lost to gun related violence and other factors and compare it to the cost of finding and treating people for mental health issues.
posted by FJT at 2:26 PM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

"$500 million buying up nearly 600,000 existing guns from private owners" in 1996.

Soooo... apx 250,000,000 guns is ~= 300 Billion dollars in 2013?
posted by buzzman at 2:51 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

i.e. the Friday before Christmas, when all the press apart from the short-straw shift is headed out for holiday drinks. What a profile in courage there.

My immediate thought when I saw Dec 21st was that the NRA would hold a press release basically comprised of hot air & motherhood statements, but pushing the "do nothing" approach, hoping that the pussyfooting in-denial message would go unnoticed over the holiday break, so the fires of outrage would thereby be contained as much as possible.

An optimistic view is that the press conference will announce some useful changes, and the target audience for missing the message would actually be the gun enthusiasts, not the broader public.

I guess we just wait & see.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:56 PM on December 18, 2012

An optimistic view is that the press conference will announce some useful changes, and the target audience for missing the message would actually be the gun enthusiasts, not the broader public.

Just to save you from wasted hope:

Sources close to the issue had earlier alerted Fox News that the National Rifle Association -- which has remained silent since Newtown, chiefly to allow for a proper period for mourning -- would soon start to "push back" against the gun-control lobby.

"If we're going to have a conversation, then let's have a comprehensive conversation," said one industry source. "If we're going to talk about the Second Amendment, then let's also talk about the First Amendment, and Hollywood, and the video games that teach young kids how to shoot heads.

"If you really want to stop incidents like this," the source continued, "passing one more law is not going to do a damn thing. Columbine happened when? In 1999. Smack in the middle of the original assault-weapons ban."

Like I said, profiles in courage.
posted by holgate at 3:03 PM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

...not merely minimize the body count

Body count = death. minimizing the body count = saving lives. Sure, it would be better to stop all bad intentions than to "merely" save lives, but violence and anger are not new things, and even in the best version of things they're not likely to be completely eradicated. So while we work on making humanity better, getting rid of abusive, bullying, enraged and violent tendencies within people, at least we can limit the negative consequences.

It's why there are air bags in cars and helmets on football players and why not every american citizen can decide to bomb other countries. We don't all have the best judgment or the best states of mind all the time. Accidents or bad judgments happen. And sometimes, some people really go off the deep end. We need checks and balances to keep the consequences of these things from being tragic, whether it's one person unintentionally getting shot by a family member or a whole classroom dying at the hands of someone who's totally spun out of control.

Every day more people die by gunshot than were killed in Newtown. Over 30K per year is over 80 people every single day. Something like 10% of them are minors - this article looks at the 9 kids who died on just one random day. This is a continuing problem. It's more immediately horrifying when it's a group at once and it's in an environment you would never expect it, but there are still a lot of people dying on a regular basis because of the choices we're making here. And it's equally true in urban and rural areas - just more likely homicide in the city and suicide once you get to less populated areas.
posted by mdn at 3:06 PM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

Nate Silver has some numbers crunched, not surprisingly Republican feelings about the need to own guns sync up with studies showing conservative voters are generally more afraid of the world around them.

This certainly fits this thread, the yay-guns folks here consistently seem worried about bears, deer, cops, the government, thieves, rapists, etc...

(also interesting that gun ownership rates amount Democrats are half what they were in 1970)
posted by Cosine at 3:10 PM on December 18, 2012 [13 favorites]

mdn, agreed about the scope of the overall problem. One of the things I worry is that policy discussions will focus on trying to prevent mass slayings like Newtown when mass slayings are really a very small fraction of the total annual gun deaths, and that pattern holds when you look at gun deaths of minors as well.
posted by Numenius at 3:21 PM on December 18, 2012

The coaches and artists of NBC's 'The Voice' pay tribute to the Connecticut shooting victims with Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah.

Seriously? That's a really bizarre choice of song. Granted, the way it's usually performed these days is maudlin enough to draw tears from a stone, but, like, there's more to that song than just the feel of it. It's actually about stuff -- grown-up stuff. It has religious themes, yes, but the bible stories it alludes to are not exactly uplifting or consoling or faith-affirming or anything. "Hallelujah" would be appropriate after a bitter divorce; not so much after the loss of a bunch of six-year-olds.

Probably got great ratings, though.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:38 PM on December 18, 2012 [11 favorites]

Just because I'd really like to know and because I'm not a gun person (though I grew up with them in a family that had them but refused even then to touch them), can anyone tell me the difference between all the guns being talked about? The Sig Sauer, Bushmaster, and Glock were at the school with the perpetrator. At home there was a .45 Henry repeating rifle, a .30 Enfield rifle (which he shot his mother with, apparently), and a .22 Marlin rifle.

I'm not asking for anyone to give me details about why the guy took certain ones to the school (though maybe just telling me the purpose of each will inadvertently make that clear) but I'm genuinely curious. What is something like a Marlin rifle typically used for in sport or hunting? What about a Sig Sauer? Is there a practical hunting application for some but not others?
posted by youandiandaflame at 3:40 PM on December 18, 2012

CBC on Newtown United. Newtown United on Facebook.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:44 PM on December 18, 2012

Probably got great ratings, though.

Yup, my cynic-o-meter is pegged.
posted by Cosine at 3:44 PM on December 18, 2012

Seriously? That's a really bizarre choice of song.

I assume I Don't Like Mondays is too close to the bone, because that one is right on topic.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:45 PM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

The coaches and artists of NBC's 'The Voice' pay tribute to the Connecticut shooting victims with Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah.

Holy crap, how absurdly inappropriate.

Even ignoring that a whole lot of the song is essentially a melting pot where the sexual and the sacred mingle until the two are indistinguishable, and even ignoring the heavy dose of resigned defeatism, there's that whole "All I ever learned from love was how to shoot at someone who outdrew you" thing.

Jeez.
posted by Flunkie at 3:52 PM on December 18, 2012 [16 favorites]

> What is something like a Marlin rifle typically used for in sport or hunting? What about a Sig Sauer? Is there a practical hunting application for some but not others?

Marlin would be almost exclusive for target practice. It shoots a very small round and wouldn't do much against a human, even a small child. Maybe hunting squirrels.

The Henry was a non semi automatic rifle, you have to pull a mechanism to reload it after ever shot fired.

The enfield usually only holds six shots. It was used successfully in WW1, WW2, and also the Korean war. It was replaced by the M16 in the US Army, which the Bushmaster is a civilian, non automatic version clone of.

The Sig Sauer and the Glock can both be used for target practice and marksmanship, but they also fire rounds (9mm and 10mm respectively in this case) meant for stopping power against human targets. That is why they are commonly carried by police.

In short: he took the three guns best at killing people. And he brought along magazines that ensured he had a lot of bullets to fire without having to stop to reload, so he could kill a lot of people.

I realize I am grossly oversimplifying things, but this is what I picked up from talking with my gun carrying friends and my experience using some of theirs.
posted by mrzarquon at 3:55 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

.
posted by buzzman at 3:59 PM on December 18, 2012

I'm not asking for anyone to give me details about why the guy took certain ones to the school (though maybe just telling me the purpose of each will inadvertently make that clear) but I'm genuinely curious. What is something like a Marlin rifle typically used for in sport or hunting? What about a Sig Sauer? Is there a practical hunting application for some but not others?

I was under the understanding that his mother was shot with the .22. If she was shot with the Enfield, then.... that would be exceedingly gruesome.

The wikipedia entry has a good rundown of the various guns, but briefly :

As I mentioned upthread he almost certainly took the bushmaster to school because it is a semi-automatic rifle with large magazine. The shooter in Oregon last week also used this weapon. The shooter in Norway used a similar one.

I also spoke a bit about the round that gun uses.

The .22 is a good rifle for small game (rabbit, squirrel) and it doesn't have much killing power against larger targets - but can be particularly deadly in head shots, because the round won't escape, but instead ricochets around the head cavity. My father keeps a .22 revolver for big game hunting, for in the event he has to deliver a coup de grace to a wounded animal.

The Enfield was a WWI/WWII era 30 caliber long rifle. It has a bolt action and a clip of 5 plus one in the chamber. It's reliable, easy to maintain, difficult to jam and guns of that style are somewhat popular with big game hunters. My father used to have one he hunted with; I think he still has it.

The Henry is a 44 caliber rifle. You don't see many rifles of this size for hunting - not accurate over long range and too destructive. This particular rifle was also probably an antique, given their finances.

The Sig Sauer and Glock are semi-automatic pistols (not revolvers). They are popular with law enforcement, and target shooters - but are great for killing people, too.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 4:09 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

Thanks for the explanation, mrzarquon and Pogo. I figured it was that he took those best suited to what he'd planned with him and left the others home.

[Pogo: I misread - the mother was shot with the .22 Marlin. Apologies for the mixup on my end.]

So I guess my question is this: Why is something like an Enfield not good enough for hunting or home defense (however absurd I think that premise is)? What is the justification for needing or wanting something like a Bushmaster in a personal collection of firearms?

My taxed and sad brain, I guess, is just trying to flesh out why something like a Sig Sauer was ever made available to the general public in the first place.
posted by youandiandaflame at 4:15 PM on December 18, 2012

I completely agree that The Voice's choice of Hallelujah was lyrically baffling - like when people pick "Every Breath You Take" as a wedding song. When I watched it, though, I got choked up because musically, its still pretty gorgeous and because the names and ages still are terrible to behold.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:17 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

mrzarguon - you are generally right, but a .22 (the Marlin) will definitely kill a person. Here is a school shooting in Finland carried out with a .22 (although it was a juiced-up version of the .22, but that round would fit in the Marlin.)

The main thing to understand about the guns used is that, of all the long-guns listed, the Bushmaster .223 is the only modern "assault rifle" or "military style" weapon, which generally means semi-auto (it fires a bullet every time you pull the trigger, with no other action required, such as working a bolt), and the capacity for an extended magazine (in this case, 30-round magazines), which means you can keep shooting for a long time without stopping.

The last thing I read said that he fired 100 rounds inside of 10 minutes. That was only 4 magazines in the Bushmaster, or only three changes of magazines presuming he came in with one ready. This is how he killed so many people in so few minutes. People will say that you can change a magazine in a few seconds, but, if a magazine was limited to 8 or 12 rounds, even those short pauses would add up to more time for someone to try to do something.
posted by Mid at 4:18 PM on December 18, 2012

So I guess my question is this: Why is something like an Enfield not good enough for hunting or home defense (however absurd I think that premise is)? What is the justification for needing or wanting something like a Bushmaster in a personal collection of firearms?

Personally, if I were going to keep a firearm for home defense, it would be a shotgun. Bullets pierce walls and keep going. Shot guns spread out and stop when they hit something. So, you don't need to be as accurate and you don't have to worry so much about what is behind the target down range.

That said, the Enfield was good enough to stop Ze Germans. Twice. But, it is a big gun, with a big(ish) recoil, and bolt action. Unless you were proficient with it, its difficult to fire quickly. But if you do score a hit, the victim will almost certainly notice it.

The Henry would probably be an OK weapon - the sound of it firing would probably strike as much fear as being hit with it. Big caliber guns are loud and have big caliber recoil though.

The Bushmaster shoots a much smaller round. It's also shorter and has far less recoil, so its easier to handle in close quarters. Also, being semi-auto, you can shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. However, it's somewhat prone to jamming (which happened to the shooter in Oregon). With frangible bullets, you don't have to worry so much about shooting the neighbors, and that serves to increase it's lethality.

This sort of weapon is overkill for home defense. Pointlessly overkill. But it looks bad ass, and its fun to shoot.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 4:26 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

(also interesting that gun ownership rates amount Democrats are half what they were in 1970)

That shouldn't be so surprising -- a whole lot of gun-totin' southern anglos left for the Republicans.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:28 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

youandiandaflame : My taxed and sad brain, I guess, is just trying to flesh out why something like a Sig Sauer was ever made available to the general public in the first place.

The Sig really has nothing special about it - Not a bad gun (actually pretty pricey), but an otherwise run-of-the-mill higher-end semiauto 9mm pistol. It comes in a few different models, and none of the sources I've seen yet have mentioned which he had. The P226 (one of the more likely possibilities for what he used) has a reputation as the gun of choice among Navy Seals - No idea whether or not that holds true, but it sounds like the sort of meaningless stat that would appeal to the buyer in this case.
posted by pla at 4:29 PM on December 18, 2012

the Enfield was good enough to stop Ze Germans

The Russians had Enfields?
posted by Cosine at 4:31 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

For home defense you want a handgun of one kind or another.

If that's the case why not just a revolver? How does one justify owning a Sig Sauer for, say, the stated purpose of home defense when a regular old revolver would do the trick? How does one honestly say they NEED a Bushmaster when they could just get an Enfield?

Look, I'm trying to square this. I'll most likely have some sort of debate about this over and over as the next few weeks pass and my gut tells me that someone needs a Bushmaster because HEY! Look at my big gun! My dick is huge, obviously! I MEAN, LOOK AT MY GUN! But if I'm gonna engage in this debate (and I will because that's my nature) I want to avoid that kind of bullshit on my end if I can. I want to understand if there's a reason one needs a Bushmaster instead of an Enfield or a Sig Sauer instead of just a revolver. I don't see one, I don't think there is one, but I'm open to being wrong.
posted by youandiandaflame at 4:32 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Mark Ames, arguing that the individualist ideology promoted by the NRA functions as a political disarmament:

It takes years to cultivate a political mindset that voluntarily neutralizes itself by convincing itself that its contribution to world revolution comes down to purchasing a few guns at K-Mart, then blogging about it. That’s what reactionary plutocrats like the Koch brothers understood about the deeper politics of gun fanaticism, and why their outfits like the Cato Institute have been at the forefront of overturning gun regulations and promoting "Stand Your Ground" vigilantism as a substitute for political engagement: That by poisoning the political climate, it poisons the minds, which circulates back to the external environment, and back into the minds, until you lock the culture into a pattern in which you always get more and they always get fleeced, which makes them more fanatical and you more powerful...

posted by holgate at 4:37 PM on December 18, 2012 [5 favorites]

A revolver is a great idea for home defense.

The main differences you need to understand are long-gun versus handgun and semi-auto versus non-auto. Long-gun versus handgun is pretty obvious. Semi-auto means that the gun takes a magazine and automatically loads a new bullet after each firing, so the shooter does not have to do anything to get the gun ready for the next shot - you just keep pulling the trigger 'till empty. Guns that are not semi-auto require some kind of additional action to keep shooting - in a revolver, the cylinder needs to turn to get the next shot ready, in a bolt-action you have to work the bolt, in a pump-action gun you have to pump it, etc.

The main reason you want a semi-auto (i.e., not a revolver) is because your next shot is ready faster and because a semi-auto can hold more bullets before needing to reload. As you'll recall from Western movies, a revolver holds 6 or 7 shots, typically. A typical semi-auto pistol could hold 10-20 shots depending on the magazine, or even more in an extended magazine.

So, semi-auto handgun is typically picked for home defense because you can fire more rounds faster without reloading than with a revolver. People who pick revolvers do so because they are dead simple and less prone to jam or otherwise fail at the key moment.
posted by Mid at 4:42 PM on December 18, 2012

Pogo_Fuzzybutt : The Henry would probably be an OK weapon - the sound of it firing would probably strike as much fear as being hit with it. Big caliber guns are loud and have big caliber recoil though.

Fear? Try "permanent deafness". Firing any pistol, even a 22, indoors without hearing protection will cause some degree of irreversible hearing loss; a rifle (other than "rifles" firing a 22LR) tops that by a good 20-30db.

youandiandaflame : If that's the case why not just a revolver? How does one justify owning a Sig Sauer for, say, the stated purpose of home defense when a regular old revolver would do the trick?

A revolver doesn't in any functionally-significant way differ from a semiautomatic (with a small magazine, of course - you can get cylinders up to 10-shot for the smaller calibers), regardless of what you may have heard from the fear-mongering of the media. Both come in the same calibers, both come in double-action forms, both have comparable cycle times. The most practical difference (aside from cleaning them)? Thickness. Semis can shave a good bit off the width because they store the magazine single-file (or occasionally double/1.5 staggered) rather than in a bulky cylinder. That about covers it.

On preview, Mid didn't come too far off, but most modern revolvers come in DA versions, requiring no additional user steps per shot - One pull, one shot, just like a (DA) semi. Perhaps a little slower to fire, in practice, but not enough that most people would run up against that as a realistic limitation.
posted by pla at 4:47 PM on December 18, 2012

So, semi-auto handgun is typically picked for home defense because you can fire more rounds faster without reloading than with a revolver.

How many rounds do people think they honestly need to scare off a burglar? Or do they assume they might be home-invaded by a small army?

Which brings me to another point about these home defence wannabe vigilantes: do people generally understand that while self defence is OK, excessive self defence is not?

(Which is why, incidentally, you can't set up your house with lethal booby traps, because the booby trap cannot judge the reasonableness of the response to the intruder)

Do people who want to arm themselves in case of intruders realise there's a realistic chance of being jailed for murder or manslaughter if they kill the intruder, especially if the weapon usage was disproportionate to the actual threat (as judged by an imagined objective observer, the proverbial "man on the Clapham omnibus")?

Disclaimer: your jurisdiction may vary, but probably not by much.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:56 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

I want to understand if there's a reason one needs a Bushmaster instead of an Enfield or a Sig Sauer instead of just a revolver.

I think it's because the home defense crowd understands the types of weapons that are used in this type of crime, and simply feel the need to try and match the threat more equally. I would never consider an Enfield type weapon to be suitable for home defense.

The home owner is typically at a huge disadvantage in the initial home invasion situation due to the element of surprise. Given the large magazine capacity of the ar-15 allows them the chance to turn the tables pretty quickly.

Plus the AR-15 is more of a platform, so there's a lot of aftermarket parts and options making it more of an enthusiast weapon. People who love to shoot get kind of hooked on it.

There was a home invasion down the street a couple blocks down the street from me this summer where the two guys broke in with fully loaded Glock 9mms. So that's 30 rounds split between 2 separate shooters. They made the young couple sit in chairs and the girl tie up her husband. After they made her gather up a bunch of money and valuables, the one pulled down his pants as if he was going to rape her in front of her husband. His partner shot the husband in the head, and while they didn't rape her I'm sure that was the last thought that man had before they died. The two guys left and the one turned around and shot the women. She lived with a wound through the hand an neck.

They caught the guys and they're on trial fortunately. But I just decent people in this world that are willing to do whatever it takes to prevent anything like this from happening to their family. A lot of them feel it's their duty as citizens, because if they don't and just roll over and give the criminals what they want, sure they may make it though it, but what's going to happen to the next family.
posted by neversummer at 4:56 PM on December 18, 2012

The Russians had Enfields?

No, and thats why there was a western front. ;-)

If that's the case why not just a revolver? How does one justify owning a Sig Sauer for, say, the stated purpose of home defense when a regular old revolver would do the trick? How does one honestly say they NEED a Bushmaster when they could just get an Enfield?

Well, a sig sauer or glock can be lighter and thinner - since they are semi-auto. And a revolver is functionally the same (since the chamber isn't actuated by hand). So, if you're convinced you need a handgun, it really comes down to how able you are to use it and control it.

But mainly, a handgun is a handgun and there aren't many major differences between them.

As for the Enfield; If I were preparing for a zombie apocalypse, it'd be a decent choice. It will reliably put meat on the table, and lay down covering fire. If it were merely for "home defense"... its not so great. Unless you fit it with a bayonet.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 5:00 PM on December 18, 2012

pla, I was just going to make that addendum about double action revolvers, glad I previewed! It's one of the reasons why a magazine size restriction makes more sense than a blanket ban on semi-autos.

But, for a tricky situation with semi-auto pistols and magazine size, here's a problem using the Glock 17 as an example: typically, it fits 17 rounds in the magazine, stacked in a staggered way. They offer a 10-round magazine, with the bullets stacked in a straight line, for places where there are magazine size restrictions. If you wanted to make the magazine hold even less, it would still have to remain the same size - it would just have to have material blocking the bottom of the magazine on the inside to prevent more bullets from fitting.

The thing is, all of these magazines would look the same at first glance. And this would be a common problem, with a loooot more models than the Glock 17. So a ban on higher-capacity magazines would have to be very serious about inspection, punishment, buyback incentive and/or all three to be effective.
posted by jason_steakums at 5:05 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

> I think it's because the home defense crowd understands the types of weapons that are used in this type of crime, and simply feel the need to try and match the threat more equally.

So it becomes a war of escalation then? Where the home defense people demand the right to arm themselves with weapons equivalent to the criminals, but at the same time ensure that the criminals have same access to those weapons (since for the homeowner to buy it, it means it has to be on the market that the criminal can also get it from).

What you have described is a horrible incident, but I don't see how the couple having an AR15, stored safely, would have been able to use it against those criminals. They obviously had the surprise on the couple, were they not able to call 911? If the rifle wasn't stored safely, it might have possibly prevented the what happened, but it could have more likely caused accidental damage or discharge.

What would have an AR15 provide to that couple that a proper home security system with audible alarms wouldn't have?
posted by mrzarquon at 5:06 PM on December 18, 2012 [8 favorites]

Do people who want to arm themselves in case of intruders realise there's a realistic chance of being jailed for murder or manslaughter if they kill the intruder, especially if the weapon usage was disproportionate to the actual threat

I know I did when I moved to a new county. I had a .44 mag that was fun as heck to shoot out in the country, but wanted to make sure I wouldn't be breaking the law if I had to use it.

I called the local sheriff department and the local police station and asked them if anyone in their departments used .44 mags. They said they considered it to be excessive force.

So I sold it to a cop in a rural area.
posted by neversummer at 5:08 PM on December 18, 2012

I think some of you may actually be living in Uganda, not the USA, given your over-sized mortal fear of fellow citizens and government.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:10 PM on December 18, 2012 [9 favorites]

The thing is, all of these magazines would look the same at first glance. And this would be a common problem, with a loooot more models than the Glock 17. So a ban on higher-capacity magazines would have to be very serious about inspection, punishment, buyback incentive and/or all three to be effective.

When hunting waterfowl, hunters are limited to three rounds. Many shotguns hold 5 rounds, the maximum for upland bird hunting (though there are some that hold more). Anyway, it's not good enough to just not load more than three rounds - there must be a plug in place. And when stopped by a game warden, they will check for the existence of that plug that cannot be readily removed, and it's absence is big trouble.

Point is, this sort of thing can be made to work.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 5:13 PM on December 18, 2012

It definitely can be made to work, the reason I point it out is to show what kind of considerations need to be made with these things. Hunters, by and large, are very good about complying with those things. Suburban and urban gun owners would be trickier to police - maybe unannounced inspections at gun ranges?
posted by jason_steakums at 5:17 PM on December 18, 2012

neversummer: I think it's because the home defense crowd understands the types of weapons that are used in this type of crime, and simply feel the need to try and match the threat more equally.

I'm curious, are there statistics about the types of firearms typically used in home invasions? I was under the impression that most guns used in that manner were stolen and so it makes sense to me that if one never had access to a semi-auto weapon in the first place, they wouldn't ever need one to defend their homes. I know that assertion doesn't work towards a solution but there it is.

And that first tidbit doesn't address either that in cases where a homicide occurs in a home, the presence of a gun there is correlated with increased risk. Granted, I'm not looking at statistics about how many home invasions are stopped with a firearm or how many deaths are prevented by a man with a gun in his home stopping an intruder but still.

Trying hard over here to understand the NEED for that kind of gun in the home. Falling short.
posted by youandiandaflame at 5:19 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

'Birther' Orly Taitz Blames Sandy Hook Massacre On Obama.
posted by ericb at 5:19 PM on December 18, 2012

Tea Party Nation Blames Sandy Hook Shooting On Sex In Media, Teacher's Unions And Bureaucracy.
posted by ericb at 5:21 PM on December 18, 2012

The US has 50,812 gun retailers (as of October).

According to BAFTE, the total number of locations where retailers are licensed to sell firearms is 129,817 (as of August).

It has (or had, in 2010, can't find a more recent number) 942,000 hospital beds. We have 60,555 FFL holders in the US. We have 954,000 doctors in the US.

That's beds and doctors, not facilities, of which there are roughly 58,000. And 89m Americans, roughly a third of the country live in federally-designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas.

Aside from your numbers seeming exactly the opposite of the real ones - Yes, I already said as much. With one caveat - Payment depends on efficacy.

Well, now that I've re-established that my numbers were in fact correct, I'll point out that the government-funded health care systems are pretty damn good at efficacy. In almost every single objective comparison, they have shown to be more efficient and effective than most or all of the private alternatives, often by wide margins. Medicare, for instance, pretty much demolishes most private insurers when it comes to efficiency, despite being much larger. And it does it consistently from year to year, too.. Medicaid consistently has better cost constraints compared to private insurers (and, for that matter, Medicare and FEHP) because "no payer has been as motivated to undertake cost containment as state governments."
posted by zombieflanders at 5:26 PM on December 18, 2012 [10 favorites]

decent people in this world that are willing to do whatever it takes to prevent anything like this from happening to their family.

Yep, like banning / severely restricting the guns & removing them from circulation in the first place, so that over time increasingly fewer of the "bad guys" will have access to them. I hope that's a critical part of this "whatever it takes" strategy?

Also, if the constitution gives a right to bear arms & form militias to overthrow the government or ward off Queen Elizabeth II, what part of that necessitates the freedom to carry guns anywhere outside of the house unless there's some kind of revolution going on? It's just meant to be an emergency fallback against tyrrany, isn't it? Get onto it, SCOTUS, and come up with a restrictive interpretation that reflects the original intent of the amendment (*pigs flying past right now*).

From this, there should ideally be a penalty for being caught with a firearm outside your home, with no legitimate reason (eg hunting, moving house, imminent bear attack etc) = heavy fine / prison time + confiscation of weapon. Onus on the defendant to establish reasonable cause for having the weapon outside, ie a strict liability offence. No more "Hey, I've got a right to a gun and besides, you can't arrest me unless you see me using it for a crime..." - just criminalise inappropriate carrying of a weapon, full stop.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:28 PM on December 18, 2012 [7 favorites]

I completely agree that The Voice's choice of Hallelujah was lyrically baffling - like when people pick "Every Breath You Take" as a wedding song. When I watched it, though, I got choked up because musically, its still pretty gorgeous and because the names and ages still are terrible to behold.

Sure, it's an absolutely beautiful song in several different ways, and if you pare the terrible beauty away from it, it's still beautiful in a simple and straightforward way. But man, I sure hope that none of the parents are familiar with the real thing, and I hope that this performance of it doesn't inspire any of them to go to Youtube to look up the real thing.
posted by Flunkie at 5:28 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

What would have an AR15 provide to that couple that a proper home security system with audible alarms wouldn't have?

Security systems are great, they have their place. So do dogs. They can be very effective.

You bring up good points and I don't have all the answers. One thing I do have is options, and if I'm placed in a situation where I'm faced with a lethal threat I'm glad I have them.

Guns aren't for everyone. I realize this. A lot of the people I see that are really into guns and self protection are really the last people that should be owning them. The only reason they can is because someone they fell through the cracks of the judicial and mental health systems and ended up with a clean record.

I think that's why we're seeing so many of these spree killers being young, middle class white males. They tend to be able to get through the system without things on their records unlike their poorer minority counterparts.
posted by neversummer at 5:29 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

youandiandaflame : so it makes sense to me that if one never had access to a semi-auto weapon in the first place, they wouldn't ever need one to defend their homes.

Okay folks, repeat after me: semiautomatic doesn't mean what you think it means. Semiautomatic means nothing in the context you think it does. You want the phrase "double action".

Even then, it doesn't mean quite what you think it does, because the alternative - single action - Just means two clicks, one bang. It means much better control at the range (the second "click" takes a much lighter trigger), but in a defense scenario, it means just one more thing to keep track of (and thus, less control of the weapon, ironically enough).

For better or for worse, we don't really have a whole lot of breech-loading single-shot pistols around these days, or even manually-cocked revolvers, which seems like what many of you would like as the only legal option.
posted by pla at 5:32 PM on December 18, 2012

Trying hard over here to understand the NEED for that kind of gun in the home. Falling short.

Honestly I don't either. A couple weeks ago I was considering buying an AR-15, I would actually hunt with it if I ever went hunting again, but it was mostly just for recreational shooting at the range.

I decided against it because I don't want to store it. I don't have a safe for rifles and don't intend on getting one.
posted by neversummer at 5:37 PM on December 18, 2012

pla, you're certainly right and I'll admit it: I'm totally ignorant of these things. But I think, if this thread is evidence, I'm trying to understand because in the end certainly nothing will ever change if we can't all agree to at least try to get where the other is coming from.

In the interest of my own better personal understanding, do some say that they'd rather have double action because it provides better control in a home invasion scenario than single action or is it really just that they want their firepower to match what they think the invader's firepower will be?
posted by youandiandaflame at 5:44 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

> I think that's why we're seeing so many of these spree killers being young, middle class white males. They tend to be able to get through the system without things on their records unlike their poorer minority counterparts.

I think it is the bigger issue of the fact that middle class white men feel entitled to a level of privilege that they don't understand as having, but deserving as the natural state of things. When they don't go their way, they retaliate against the system for failing to ensure them in that state. This article from the summer about the Aurora shooter goes into good detail about it.
posted by mrzarquon at 5:47 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

Trying hard over here to understand the NEED for that kind of gun in the home. Falling short.

There isn't a real need for a semi-automatic pistol over a double action revolver for people concerned about home defense. As has been stated, they're not really that different in practice, but a revolver is actually a safer choice when it comes to accidental discharges - heavier trigger pull, more resistant to discharge if dropped, and they're often heavier weapons in general which steadies the aim. They're also simpler machines less prone to screwing up.

Guns aren't for everyone. I realize this. A lot of the people I see that are really into guns and self protection are really the last people that should be owning them. The only reason they can is because someone they fell through the cracks of the judicial and mental health systems and ended up with a clean record.

Well, there's no real "cracks" to fall through with mental health unless you've done something that could get you committed against your will but for some reason you weren't. But your point is similar to why I, as someone who grew up in hunting culture with (thankfully) good, safe teachers, can't see the need for lax gun laws: you have to be exceptional at gun safety to do it right. Meticulous. And most people do not fit that description, and that's what leads to accidents and opens the door to murders, suicides and a FLOOD of stolen weapons on the streets. Seems reasonable to limit the kind of weapons that are accidentally going off or getting stolen or used in the commission of crimes or given to people who fall through background check cracks, and the bottom line is that there are plenty of ways to do it that keep the hunters, farmers, ranchers, hobbyists and YES, even the personal defense types from having to give it all up.
posted by jason_steakums at 5:48 PM on December 18, 2012 [8 favorites]

A lot of the people I see that are really into guns and self protection are really the last people that should be owning them.

Therefore...?
posted by holgate at 5:48 PM on December 18, 2012 [7 favorites]

Someone may have posted this already, but I can't read the whole thread.

It's an ABC News report - a blind simulation of a sudden chaotic situation with guns.
posted by Miko at 5:49 PM on December 18, 2012 [6 favorites]

Fifteen things to know about Australia’s incredibly effective gun clampdown.
posted by ericb at 5:51 PM on December 18, 2012 [6 favorites]

I've been reading MeFi for a while now, and discussions like this are why. With tensions high following a tragedy, MeFites still manage, for the most part, an incredibly civil discourse on an explosively divisive topic. Bravo!

But there is an angle I haven't yet seen explored, so I've finally come out of lurking to participate. It is this:

The right enumerated by the second amendment guarantees that children will sometimes be killed, by accident or murder.

Even an ardent libertarian such as myself must admit that.

Those who compare it to the rights secured by the first amendment ignore the fact that freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly don't often result in dead kids.

However, the rights guaranteed by the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments absolutely guarantee more murders of children.

Food for thought.
posted by MoTLD at 5:59 PM on December 18, 2012

Unintended Consequences: Pro-Handgun Experts Prove That Handguns Are a Dangerous Choice for Self-Defense
posted by Miko at 6:03 PM on December 18, 2012 [8 favorites]

you have to be exceptional at gun safety to do it right.

Bravo on that. I can't agree more. I hope this is a major point in our national discussion as well. I know we need changes to other parts, but a would of good can come from this.

I have to carry for work sometimes and I have an Ohio license. I was at a gun show a few weeks ago a noticed that all of the private sellers were restricting sales to only other licensed carry holders. They figure that since Ohio's had the ccl's for 6 years or so now, that anyone that should be buying guns have already completed the proper courses and application process.

Don't underestimate the people who are comfortable working around weapons to police their own industry. Nobody that lawfully owns guns wants to see shooting sprees in grade schools. The fish and wild life people, the hunters, the rural law enforcement deal with this stuff everyday. I think they want the same things as most americans.
posted by neversummer at 6:03 PM on December 18, 2012

The home owner is typically at a huge disadvantage in the initial home invasion situation due to the element of surprise.

The homeowner is massively advantaged against potential home invasion. They have all the time in the world to get a sturdy door with a good lock, to put bars in the windows, to buy a dog, and an alarm system. We are talking in the vast majority of real world cases about people who want to steal something and get away without being seen, not Clockwork Orange gangs of thugs. Those things stop most of them already.

Once they are in the house you can scare them by turning on the lights and saying you are calling the police and to get out. Most of the rest are gone.

By the time we get to the actual need to confront them with a weapon there has been such a massive cascade of unlikelihood that we are in an edge case. It's like the bear spray. We are in the 2% where the bear spray doesn't work. Even now, we can confront the burglar with a non-lethal weapon like pepper spray or a taser.

We could use a gun instead, but when we are in such an edge case why are we risking the gun accidents and suicides that come along with them every day?

Now, of course poor folks can't always afford alternatives and I don't think we should ban guns for home defense for anyone, but it strikes me as a choice more likely to backfire than ever be used.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:03 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

I think they want the same things as most americans.

Every veteran, hunter, first responder and law enforcement person that I know personally supports tightened restrictions.
posted by Miko at 6:04 PM on December 18, 2012 [6 favorites]

youandiandaflame : In the interest of my own better personal understanding, do some say that they'd rather have double action because it provides better control in a home invasion scenario than single action or is it really just that they want their firepower to match what they think the invader's firepower will be?

I don't want to contradict neversummer here, because it sounds like we each have our own equally-valid perspective on this. But in my experience, you would realistically only use a single-action for performance at the range (or outright competition). Not so much a matter of rounds per minute, as the simple inconvenience of needing to pull the trigger twice (which in a non-relaxed range environment means it throws your aim to shit trying to do it twice as fast as possible).

I've also never heard of anyone using an assault rifle (or any type of rifle, for that matter) for home defense, except as an absolute last resort. Don't take my admonition about hearing loss lightly, you will obliterate your eardrums if you fire a (non-22) rifle indoors.

For defensive purposes, people most often refer to "stopping power", which basically means the ability to either kill immediately or at least cause hydrostatic shock on even a weak body-shot. Personally, I don't care for that mindset, I consider it far too much what some of you have called "Rambo". I'd much rather fire a smaller caliber accurately - .22 doesn't quite cut it, but something like a .380 (massively out of favor as "way too weak") IMO optimizes your ability to cause damage and quickly get back on target. And if it takes three rounds, well, I'd rather they go into the assailant than my cats downstairs.

And from what I've heard about what happens when you do actually stop a home invader, the 911 call usually runs something along the lines of "Um, I shot an intruder... Oh my god, so... much... blood! Help!"
posted by pla at 6:08 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

CNN: Adam Lanza's boyhood barber - "I wish I would've killed him then"

Killer's dentist: I wish I drilled through his skull
Killer's grocer: The poisoning possibilities were endless
Killer's webboard administrator: I wake up every night wishing I'd implemented the hellban
posted by porn in the woods at 6:11 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Okay folks, repeat after me: semiautomatic doesn't mean what you think it means. Semiautomatic means nothing in the context you think it does. You want the phrase "double action".

This is an overstatement and is the sort of terminology nitpicking that is a derail more than anything else.

Semi-auto simply means every time you pull the trigger you fire a new shot without any other action required. That's exactly what's being discussed.

It is true that there are double-action revolvers that are similar to semi-autos in that a pull of the trigger advances the cylinder, so you don't have to do anything other than pull the trigger, but those DA revolvers almost always hold fewer rounds than a magazine on a semi-auto pistol.

But - I agree generally with pla (I think) that it does not make sense to talk about banning or limiting particular weapons based on whether they are semi-auto, DA, or some other mechanism. Instead, we should be agnostic about the loading mechanism and focus on capacity -- i.e., limit magazines ruthlessly.
posted by Mid at 6:11 PM on December 18, 2012 [5 favorites]

For defensive purposes, people most often refer to "stopping power", which basically means the ability to either kill immediately or at least cause hydrostatic shock on even a weak body-shot. Personally, I don't care for that mindset, I consider it far too much what some of you have called "Rambo". I'd much rather fire a smaller caliber accurately - .22 doesn't quite cut it, but something like a .380 (massively out of favor as "way too weak") IMO optimizes your ability to cause damage and quickly get back on target. And if it takes three rounds, well, I'd rather they go into the assailant than my cats downstairs.

One of my great-uncles was a farmer. He swore by a .410 shotgun loaded with rock salt for non lethal home defense.

It won't kill them, probably, but they'll wish it had.

The Wikipedia entry on shotguns has a paragraph on it, so he wasn't totally off his rocker.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 6:18 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

Thanks for the explanation, pla.

Mid: This is an overstatement and is the sort of terminology nitpicking that is a derail more than anything else.

While I agree with this it's obviously a sticking point with those who like guns. Look, if I want to sway anyone I know, the people in my area who grew up with a gun literally out in the open by the front door and nothing more than a threat of "Dad will kick your ass for touching that" considered as safety, I do want to at least sound informed to them when I'm trying to soften their hearts and get them to give just a little bit when it comes to some sort of gun control. I think a huge part of winning this debate with the public at large will center on them feeling like we speak their language, too so they don't immediately shut down and remove themselves from that debate because we're obviously part of that commie-lovin' Muslim socialist sect that just plain hates gun, evidenced by the fact that we clearly don't know our shit. In that regard, I appreciate pla's nit-picking, in this instance.
posted by youandiandaflame at 6:19 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Every veteran, hunter, first responder and law enforcement person that I know personally supports tightened restrictions.

A shoutout here for the first responders & what they had to go through: First responders knew 'it was something bad'
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:19 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

It's nitpicking, but it's technically correct ("The best kind of correct!") that semi-automatic pistols ARE almost always double action pistols. Getting that wrong doesn't invalidate someone's point, but knowing how to be specific is always a plus in a discussion.
posted by jason_steakums at 6:22 PM on December 18, 2012

A Utah sixth-grader caught with a gun at school told administrators he brought the weapon to defend himself in case of an attack similar to last week's mass shooting at a Connecticut school, officials said Tuesday.

The 11-year-old was being held in juvenile detention on suspicion of possessing a dangerous weapon and aggravated assault after other students at the suburban Salt Lake City elementary school told police he threatened them with the handgun.

Teachers and administrators at West Kearns Elementary School confronted the boy in class Monday after students reported the weapon, said Granite School District spokesman Ben Horsley. The boy had an unloaded gun and ammunition in his backpack, Horsley said.

The boy waved the gun at others during a morning recess, school officials said. Other students, however, didn't report the threat until classes were nearly finished for the day. There was no immediate explanation for the delay, authorities said.

Authorities have not released the child's name. The .22-caliber handgun had been left at the boy's home by a relative, Horsley said.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:23 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Oh, and all those numbers showing how gun control isn't effective in the US?

You do know that the CDC can't research it and the ATF can't release it's numbers, because the NRA has lobbied to prevent it. So the numbers you do see? Possibly not the most well informed.
posted by mrzarquon at 6:28 PM on December 18, 2012 [10 favorites]

Miko, that's a very good read, thanks for the link!
posted by jason_steakums at 6:28 PM on December 18, 2012

porn in the woods, that is the most disturbing thing I've read yet as a response to this incident. "I wish I'd killed him?!?" WTF? I'm scared he's going to murder the next weird kid that comes in for a haircut.
posted by agregoli at 6:28 PM on December 18, 2012

Wow, homonculus, the source articles about the NRA-fueled blockage of gun-related research by the CDC & NIH are appalling. Some choice items:

In 1996, after various studies funded by the agency found that guns can be dangerous, the gun lobby mobilized to punish the [Centers for Disease Control]. First, Republicans tried to eliminate entirely the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the bureau responsible for the research. When that failed, Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas, successfully pushed through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget (the amount it had spent on gun research in the previous year) and outlawed research on gun control with a provision that reads: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” [salon]

The Centers [CDC] also ask researchers it finances to give it a heads-up anytime they are publishing studies that have anything to do with firearms. The agency, in turn, relays this information to the N.R.A. as a courtesy, said Thomas Skinner, a spokesman for the Centers. [nyt]

The prohibition is striking, firearms researchers say, because there are already regulations that bar the use of C.D.C. money for lobbying for or against legislation. No other field of inquiry is singled out in this way. [nyt]

Last year, Rep. Denny Rehberg, a Republican from Montana, added a rider to the current government-funding bill, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, based on the Dickey language, which targets the NIH. It states that no funds going to the NIH “may be used, in whole or part, to advocate or promote gun control.” In a press release from March, Rehberg touted the amendment and condemned President Obama’s “insidious … efforts to subvert the Second Amendment,” a reference to a signing statement Obama made pushing back (gently) on the provision. [salon]

Beginning in 2003, an amendment introduced by Rep. Todd Tiahrt, a Republican from Kansas, prevents the ATF from releasing all kinds of gun data. It’s been added as a rider to every spending bill since. [salon]

(Note that the CDC and NIH are already barred from advocating policy positions; their focus is legally confined to research only. The effect here is not to prevent a public scientific body from engaging in partisan politics -- that was never an issue -- but rather to create a chilling environment in which the CDC and NIH think twice about funding any gun-related studies, regardless of what the outcomes are. And this, btw, is EXACTLY the tack that tobacco companies took when the statistics weren't bearing out their claims that smoking was harmless.)
posted by Westringia F. at 6:31 PM on December 18, 2012 [35 favorites]

I agree it makes sense to be specific in gun discussions, but there is specific and then there is pedantic. People, including gun people, know what a "semi-auto" is. There isn't any confusion about the term. Saying that you shouldn't use the word "semi-auto" but should instead use the word "double-action" is, at best, a pedantic point. I would say it is also a wrong point because "double action" covers revolvers as well as semi-autos, so it isn't really a useful term to use when you are trying to distinguish between different types of guns. Someone who says we should ban semi-auto guns is not misusing any words or getting any technical points wrong.
posted by Mid at 6:34 PM on December 18, 2012

I'm scared he's going to murder the next weird kid that comes in for a haircut.

I've been thinking about all the weird kids the last few days. I wonder how they're fairing because of this.
posted by neversummer at 6:35 PM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

mrzarquon: "You do know that the CDC can't research it and the ATF can't release it's numbers, because the NRA has lobbied to prevent it."

It's the NRA's world, we just live in it. (If we're lucky.)
posted by tonycpsu at 6:35 PM on December 18, 2012

I'm scared he's going to murder the next weird kid that comes in for a haircut.

That barber story reads like poorly-considered fishing. Get a local with a connection talking, let him ramble, and build a piece out of the juicy bits and to hell with whether that's what the barber had in mind when he was jawing with you and processing his feelings about a fucked up situation.

To put it another way, it would not be overly difficult for a reporter talking shop about moderation to get me on paper declaring my intent to strangle the occasional mefite. That's not a good way to evaluate whether I'm actually gonna strangle anyone. Maybe cut the barber some slack.
posted by cortex at 6:36 PM on December 18, 2012 [11 favorites]

Yeah, yeesh, that barber story. Could've just as easily been any other kid with mental health issues who didn't grow up to do something horrific that that barber would have sat there silently judging like they're a freak. There's step one on the mental health side of this whole thing right there: don't ostracize someone for being silent and withdrawn. Shit, I sit there silent and unmoving for a haircut and the worst I've got is social anxiety.
posted by jason_steakums at 6:38 PM on December 18, 2012

Oklahoma Republican Rep. Mark McCullough to introduce bill in state legislature to arm teachers and train them like law enforcement.
posted by Dr. Zira at 6:41 PM on December 18, 2012

youandiandaflame : In that regard, I appreciate pla's nit-picking, in this instance.

I apologize if that sounds like the firearm equivalent of a grammar-nazi, but those things (action vs semi/revolver, clip vs magazine) really do count as the absolute basics of the terminology (Though the latter, admittedly more in a sort of "secret handshake" way - Offhand, I can't think of any legal-without-a-special-permit that would take a clip rather than a magazine).

You can get away with a lot of the others, but those two, if nothing else, will instantly flag you as not really knowing what you talk about.
posted by pla at 6:42 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

And actually, yeah, Cortex, that's a very good point and the barber's words shouldn't automatically be taken at face value.
posted by jason_steakums at 6:42 PM on December 18, 2012

pla, one thing people who know and use guns should remember is that "clip" and "automatic" are used in less-accurate, colloquial ways even among people who know guns inside and out. The correct terminology is absolutely essential when drafting bills, but it's merely a nice bonus in these conversations.
posted by jason_steakums at 6:46 PM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

CNN: Adam Lanza's boyhood barber - "I wish I would've killed him then"

hmmf....got in about :30, saw Nancy Grace and knew where that was heading. The only question I had after that about that link was how she would work the Casey Anthony angle in. But I didn't wait around to find out.

sheesh

A good primer on what will be a long string of so-called experts, close friends and others who claim to have some oh-so special vision into the mind of Adam Lanza.

Gavin de Becker: Child Safety | Media Fear Tactics
posted by lampshade at 6:54 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Maybe cut the barber some slack.

Lather and Nothing Else
posted by Pudhoho at 6:58 PM on December 18, 2012

That barber story reminded me of the barber that used to cut my son's hair when he was in high school.

To make a long story short that particular barber went on a stabbing spree in his group home and finished it up at the Burger King right down the road from it (and on a weirder note I knew one of the people he'd stabbed. If memory served all survived.)

It's a weird feeling to pick up a newspaper and see someone like that that you'd patronized in THAT kind of story. I don't blame the barber today's story for his hyperbole, but still.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 6:59 PM on December 18, 2012

And set Nancy Grace out on an ice floe.
posted by Pudhoho at 6:59 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

FOX News: Fear of being committed may have caused Connecticut gunman to snap.
posted by ericb at 7:01 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Also, as I keep seeing folks like Bill Fucking O'Reilly say that he supports registration for people who own AR type guns. Not to mention that NRA is apparently losing support from the people who they have sponsored, considering this last election cycle they lost almost all the races they backed. So while legislators may lose their funding from the NRA, they aren't this massive lobbying effort to be feared.

Which means that maybe, just maybe, reasonable conversations can be had about this, about protecting lives, not corporate interests (NRA's last bill they pushed through Congress indemnified weapons manufacturers from any deaths resulting from the use of their weapons. IE, Freedom Group can't be sued for wrongful death now).
posted by mrzarquon at 7:18 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

In addition to the benefits discussed above, there is also a school of thought holding that semi-automatic action absorbs some of the force that is created when the gun fires, meaning it can be a bit easier to shoot. This is a somewhat controversial point and you can get into really technical discussions about how recoil is calculated versus how it's distributed, but for conversation's sake it's enough to be aware that a lot of people believe semi-automatic handguns yield less recoil and are therefore easier to shoot.

If you go to a shooting range and ask for a basic introductory lesson, the instructor will probably have you fire something like a Ruger Mark III 22 simply because it's easier to shoot than most other handguns. It's a small caliber, which means both lower recoil and less noise for somebody who is new to experiencing both, and those are the big reasons why, but I'd also say that more instructors tend to believe a pistol is easier for a new shooter than a revolver. (Irrespective of whether I agree.)

On an unrelated point for people interested in outside reading, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that the Second Amendment, as interpreted by Heller, protects an individual's right to bear arms outside the home. It's a noteworthy opinion, and it includes some discussion of empirical studies for folks who are interested in that sort of thing.
posted by cribcage at 7:25 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

This story about commitment may well be true, but I'm going to withold credulity a little yet because (a) it's Fox, (b) it's based on only one source and one other unnamed source who allegedly confirms it, and (c) it contradicts other things I've read and heard that say there was no connection between the school and the mother.

Again, could be true, but going to wait for other news sources to independently confirm, and for the investigators to go on record.

SOmetimes you wonder what the neighbors would say if they had to explain you...
posted by Miko at 7:26 PM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

And another thing about the restriction of federal funds for gun research: it doesn't only create enormous barriers to conducting sound studies of the public health burden of guns or about the efficacy of gun control (which are presumably what the NRA is concerned about, despite claims that guns are an equalizer that make people safer). The funding restriction also severely limits any investigation of non-regulatory interventions that could reduce gun violence amongst groups with high gun ownership rates, including harm reduction interventions targetted at those who obtained their weapons illegally (ie, the ones who gun-rights advocates consider unreachable by gun control measures).

If the goal of gun-rights advocates is to reduce gun violence while still keeping firearms maximally free, lobbying for a research chill is shooting themselves in the foot.
posted by Westringia F. at 7:35 PM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

holgate's link is to an illuminating article by Mark Ames about the NRA. Thanks, holgate; it's well worth reading.
posted by Anitanola at 7:37 PM on December 18, 2012

Link is borked, cribcage.
posted by Miko at 7:37 PM on December 18, 2012

Westringia F.: "If the desire of gun-rights advocates is to reduce gun violence while still keeping firearms maximally free.."

Let's try this logic with a different industry/lobby:

"If the desire of tobacco lobbyists is to reduce deaths from lung cancer while still selling a lot of cigarettes.."

Just as selling more cigarettes means people get more addicted to cigarettes, selling more guns means people feel the need for more guns to keep themselves safe from other people with guns.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:43 PM on December 18, 2012

It's still working for me...? But the case is Moore v. Madigan and it's case #12-1269, decided on December 11 with an opinion by Judge Posner. This link should take you to the Seventh Circuit's website, where you can click to view the past month's uploaded opinions and then just scroll down to December 11.
posted by cribcage at 7:45 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

The names of politicians who have enabled all this should be called to account, their names loudly and publily tied to the names of slaughtered children.

There needs to be a gun buy-back program. There are experts who can craft a campaign that will have phenomenal success — they work on Madison Avenue. Secret advantage: the cash-for-guns program will help kickstart the consumer economy. That reward money goes to buying more shit.

There need to be laws prohibiting possession of weapons of mass destruction. Magazines larger than required for the legitimate job at hand must be illegal. Civilians don't get to own military equipment. Only governments and terrorists get to play the game of slaughter, sick fucks they are.

There needs to be some sort of public education campaign because OMGWTFBBQ it is stunning how misinformed y'all are about what constitutes responsible ownership. I think the sporting aspects could use more promotion, too.

Of course, this has all been written before, and it will be written again. Things would actually have to chane, if change were going to happen.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:46 PM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

I know I just posted this "Unintended Consequences" link myself but I've been reading it through and it is a serious eye-opener. Anyone with the "defense" mindset should most definitely sit down with it.

Public health researchers have in the past made a compelling case that this is true simply by looking at the results of handgun violence, demonstrating by this comparison the preponderance of detrimental effects of civilian handgun ownership over the theoretical benefits they are purported to deliver. For example, for every time in 1998 that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 51 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone. Add in suicides and the ratio stretches to 134 to one.213 This passes any point of rational justification for condoning the availability of this product on the open market.

This is not to deny that handguns are never effectively used for self-defense. Of course, incidents do occur in which people use handguns in self-defense against an unknown attacker but, compared against the total universe of gun crime and violence, they are extremely few in number. Out of the 7,875 handgun homicides reported in 1998, only 95 (1.2 percent) were justifiable handgun killings of an assailant previously unknown to the person defending themselves.214

Then what about those cases where a handgun is wielded for defense and no one is killed? First, it must be noted how extensively handguns are used as tools of violent crimes such as assaults and robberies. In 1993, there were about 1.3 million such crimes committed with a firearmï¿½and 86 percent of the time the weapon was a handgun.215 Conversely, the federal government reports that Americans use guns of all types to defend themselves approximately 65,000 times in an average yearï¿½a minute percentage compared to the total figure of violent crime.216 Considering what the FBI has been reporting year in and year outï¿½that most gun deaths do not take place in the course of felony crime, but result from arguments between people who know each other217ï¿½it is clear that a handgun purchased for self-protection poses the gravest danger to the very persons it is supposed to protect.218

posted by Miko at 7:53 PM on December 18, 2012 [9 favorites]

Civilians don't get to own military equipment.

That's not true now, and it hasn't been a problem.

You can own, and use, a fully automatic weapon. Purchasing one requires sending fingerprints and other information to the ATF, going through an FBI criminal background check, and paying a tax - and depending on the state, gaining the approval of a sheriff or other state regulator. Even at that, only certain military weapons are allowed, but still, you can own one.

And how many of those are used in crime ? With that level of commitment, its not going to be used to knock over some liquor store in the hood. Enthusiasts who are serious about it aren't going to screw around with their weapons.

Point I'm making is don't concentrate on full out bans. Concentrate on limiting the damage the non-serious can do.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:59 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Mid: I agree it makes sense to be specific in gun discussions, but there is specific and then there is pedantic.

pla: those two, if nothing else, will instantly flag you as not really knowing what you talk about.

I think it's also worth pointing out that engagement ought to cut both ways here, and that the "knowing particular specifications of guns" vs. "not knowing those particular specifications" is only one frame to define claims to authority, not the frame.

I am more than happy to engage on the technical stuff, but I'd like to see a willingness to engage on the (admittedly more abstract) "state of existence of not having to give more than a nanoshit about guns". Because I'm not entirely sure that people who are brought up in environments in which firearms are part of the social landscape, or people for whom firearms offer an answer to a variety of (valid) questions, always grasp that, or respect that.
posted by holgate at 8:01 PM on December 18, 2012 [7 favorites]

I guess that's an okay point, cortex. But he is imagining murdering a child, and I don't particularly like hearing more of that imagery in this context. Shame on the reporter, more than him, but still. Ick.
posted by agregoli at 8:04 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

A gun buyback program in Camden, New Jersey picked up a record number of firearms over the past two days. 1,137. And, wow, "Last year, 57 guns were turned in during the city-sponsored program."
posted by lullaby at 8:06 PM on December 18, 2012 [15 favorites]

Yep, precisely, tonycpsu -- the research chill definitely reveals the NRA's underlying motive, as well as a lack of confidence that their positions will be supported by data. But part of the reason I said "gun-rights advocates" rather than lobbyists is that I think that the NRA is not acting in the interest of many of their non-corporate members, who presumably would like to find compromise solutions that would prevent tragedies without adopting unacceptably (to them) tight controls.

[I AM in favor of strong legislated gun control, btw. But I've also seen how economic interventions have worked to bring down smoking rates, and it burns the hell out of me that both sides can't come together to explore solutions that could save lives b/c gun lobbyists have hijacked not just the debate, but the research. EG, it would be in everyone's interest to have data supporting the efficacy of gun buy-back programs in reducing morbidity & mortality, but the NRA gets in the way....]
posted by Westringia F. at 8:28 PM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

Buyback was one of the elements of Australia's program.
posted by Miko at 8:34 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

I love you Jack. And there are the tears, finally, that I haven't so far shed due to horror or numbness or some kind of generalized despair. That letter is heartbreaking.
posted by jokeefe at 8:46 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

Does anyone have a good, calm, dry and detailed article to help persuade an intelligent and reasonable liberal to give up membership in the NRA?

I agree with a lot of what has been posted about them here, but the links I've clicked on have been a bit more scorched earth and angry than I think would fit the right tone I'm going for.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:52 PM on December 18, 2012

Does anyone have a good, calm, dry and detailed article to help persuade an intelligent and reasonable liberal to give up membership in the NRA?

This.

If that don't convince them of the mendacity of the NRA, nothing will.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 9:11 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

One argument sometimes leveled against the NRA is that it is too knee-jerk. When an organization views legislation and public discourage about legislation as being courtroom-style adversarial, sometimes that organization can wind up behaving as if its responsibility is, invariably and in every instance, to zealously advocate the pro/con position and let the chips fall.

That's not necessarily an objectively wrong or evil way of viewing the political landscape, but if an individual doesn't share that view then he/she may not want to be a member of an organization that does.
posted by cribcage at 9:32 PM on December 18, 2012

Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was “redundant” and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centers’ budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.

“It’s really simple with me,” Mr. Dickey, 71 and now retired, said in a telephone interview. “We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have.”

It's such a successful argument. Fucked of course. What is the simplest way to debunk it?

Nb. The withdrawl of funding was in the same year Australia enacted its laws. The reason we had been able to get them passed within weeks of the massacre was because of extensive research conducted in 1988.
posted by Kerasia at 9:35 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

What is the simplest way to debunk it?

Have them think it through.

Seriously, Socratic approach is great. Go through the steps. So what would cause you to take up arms against the government? Where would you start? What do you think their response would be? How many people do you think you could raise who would be willing to follow your comment? How does that compare to the US standing army? What would be your battle plan? What other technologies besides guns do you have at your disposal? How is your intelligence? Why would the military just not incinerate you? Why not just commit suicide, since the outcome of your opposition is pretty much predetermined?

I mean, it sounds badass to say you need arms to protect your liberty in case of dictatorial control. But the truth is...no citizen army has a ghost of a chance against the US defense complex.

The examples we do have of people who decided they were going to take on the state have not given any indication that...it works.

This is not a government that you topple with armed insurrection.

On further thought, I'm not sure I'd bother debunking it - at least not for people that are deeply committed to it. Because that's not a realistic position, it's an ideological extreme. There might be a few reasonable people that need to be walked through it, but as soon as you do this with a reasonable person, they realize there's no way. So don't knock yourself out.
posted by Miko at 9:44 PM on December 18, 2012 [9 favorites]

It's such a successful argument. Fucked of course. What is the simplest way to debunk it?

You can't truly debunk it, because it's asking you to prove a negative: that some government, sometime in the future, will not "take over" some unspecified "freedoms".

You could partially debunk it by providing historical facts to support the position that the governments to date have not, in fact, "taken over freedoms" - at least not in any significant way that would require armed resistance. You might even be able to provide evidence of increasing freedoms in many areas over time.

"Freedoms" come and go, though. For a while there was no freedom to drink alcohol, then there was again. Initially there was no freedom to read Henry Miller, Lady Chatterly's Lover, or Howl, then there was. Currently there's little freedom for gay & lesbian people to marry, although governments in places are trying to create that freedom. There are also plenty of non-freedoms that most people generally accept from day to day, like the lack of freedom to drive as fast as you want.

If it's possible to even respond to a "gubmint may take our freedoms" talking point, maybe try asking them to specify exactly which freedoms they think the government is planning to remove? And is violent armed resistance really the appropriate & best solution to that scenario? And do you think it has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding?
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:52 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

The thing is, few people will say this publicly, but for many of them they're not stockpiling in order to topple the government. They're stockpiling so that if the government topples for any reason, they will be able to blast away whoever they want to blast away at that time. And it happened just like that in New Orleans after Katrina (for example).
posted by cairdeas at 9:54 PM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

Personally I'm a fan of "Oh yeah?! You and what army?!" as the simplest way to debunk the sheer fantasy of it, but I think Drinky Die was looking for a more mature approach :(

On a serious note, to add onto Miko & UbuRoivas's suggestions -- does the individual who seriously considers their 2nd Ammendment rights to be a protection against tyrrany also support restricting the size of the US military so that it's readily overthrowable? If not, why not? And is the only answer then for the citizenry to engage in an arms race against its own military?
posted by Westringia F. at 9:55 PM on December 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

Offhand, I can't think of any legal-without-a-special-permit that would take a clip rather than a magazine

Ping!

Its nice that you have "the absolute basics of the terminology," but how can you forget "the greatest battle implement ever devised"?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:55 PM on December 18, 2012

It's such a successful argument. Fucked of course. What is the simplest way to debunk it?

I would like to say "tiger repellant", but there are more tigers in private hands in the US than there are living in the wild.

Have them think it through.

See, I dunno here. I think this thread has teased out a couple of broad models of thought. One is a combination of pragmatism and experience. The other is "Gun-ism", a quasi-religious belief system marked by such things as baptising infants with NRA life membership, or being born again in believing that firearms are totems against Bad Stuff, or that your AR-15 needs a cooler scope than the other guy to express your devotion.

I really don't know if the US has more pragmatists than Gun-ists, but I do get the very clear sense that Gun-ism is as receptive to the Socratic approach as belief in the Rapture.
posted by holgate at 9:57 PM on December 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

I do get the very clear sense that Gun-ism is as receptive to the Socratic approach as belief in the Rapture.

Hence the last part of my comment. If you go through this exercise once, you can immediately tell whether you're dealing with a reasonable person or a fantasist. I am very strongly of the opinion that we actually do not need to worry about convincing fantastists and extreme ideologues. There are plenty nuff people in the middle to change things without them. Yes, there are more pragmatists than gun-ists. We're flabbily irrational and we have a short national memory, but we've got an open window here and now, and the data is on the side of change.

This guy seems like maybe a big asshole, but I do like the way he's laid this out:

When They Come for your Guns, You Will Turn Them Over:
"When they come for my gun, they will have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands,” is a common refrain I often hear from the Neo-Cons when there is a threat, credible or otherwise, that the US government is going to take their firearms.

And, when I hear this crazy talk, I agree with them openly. “You are right. They will pry your gun from your cold dead hands,” which I often follow with the question, “And where will that leave you except face down in a pool of your own blood [in] the middle of the street, just another dead fool resisting the State?”

This is not a question they are comfortable with, if only because the intent of their saber-rattling was to imply they would fight to keep their weapons, and win.

Nice fantasy. It’s not happening.

It goes on.

The comments are a great demonstration of the kinds of people who admittedly will not be swayed by this discussion. Again - let's set them aside. Let them mutter in corners. We don't need a 5% fringe to make change happen.
posted by Miko at 10:08 PM on December 18, 2012 [12 favorites]

We don't need a 5% fringe to make change happen.

No. But you do need the get to the powers that use this 5% of fanatics. Those manipulators have far too much influence.

I think the research angle is vital; a keystone of any potential real change in gun control laws.
posted by Kerasia at 10:19 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

It's the people in the middle that matter. One of the interesting things to note from the Nate Silver piece linked above is that the trend in gun ownership among independent voters is tracking pretty well the trend among Democrats, both declining a lot since 1973, with the Republicans showing at most a slight decline. Politicians cater to the moderate vote, and If the moderates are actually on board with changing gun policy in this country, that's quite a hopeful sign.
posted by Numenius at 10:25 PM on December 18, 2012

Lawyers, Guns, and Money's Erik Loomis has been getting death threats for a very mild piece he wrote in the wake of this shooting. He said he wanted to see Wayne LaPierre's "head on a stick."

You stay classy, gun-nuts.
posted by bardic at 11:07 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

KKTV 11: ...a popular online weapon outfitter, cheaperthandirt.com, has temporarily suspended all guns sales until further notice.
-

Meanwhile, some people in Texas have a different idea.

One gun shop is offering free gun licenses to teachers. The owner believes if teachers are armed, they might save more lives during another attack.

In Colorado, more than 4,200 people applied for background checks just this past weekend in order to get a gun permit.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:08 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

You can leave condolences in the guest books for the murdered children here. Apologies if this has already been posted.
posted by Wordwoman at 11:30 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

(and for the school staff too)
posted by Wordwoman at 11:56 PM on December 18, 2012

1. Guns are no more dangerous than any other tool. A knife or homemade bomb is just as accessible and deadly, therefore banning or regulating guns would not reduce deaths.
2. I need the right to own any and all kinds of guns because nothing else will keep me safe in exactly the way a gun will.

How are people capable of arguing both these things at once? Switching off one side of the brain at a time?

I guess one could make the argument that bombs are more effective at killing indiscriminately (see Bath school disaster). Whereas to engage in self defense against a specific target a gun is more efficient.

See also, military use of flamethrowers, bombs, rockets, missiles, and chemical weapons, which have some obvious drawbacks for deployment in your home in self defense. Note that I don't hold with the whole guns for self defense world view; I like pepper spray.

But really, as long as the current SCOTUS opinion on the 2nd amendment holds up, what is a reasonable application for using a firearm is somewhat irrelevant. It's a right even when it doesn't make sense to use it for a particular application, just like loudly berating yourself in public is probably not your best application for free speech rights.

I support redefining and or repealing the 2nd amendment to restrict armaments somewhat, but I think in our advocacy for restraint we need to avoid language that polarizes the issue and try to get people with an individualist worldview to spearhead the change, or it's probably not going to happen and/or stick past judicial review.

How many rounds do people think they honestly need to scare off a burglar?

The worldview of the home defense crowd isn't that they need to scare off a burglar, but that they need to kill a burglar. For an actual gunfight where they are going to be adrenaline charged and miss 95% of the time I'd guess they'll need at least twenty rounds, probably thirty.

Even trained police pretty much just use all the ammo they have in the gun if they have to fire at all.

I don't want to get into the whole armed resistance against tyranny thing except to say that the US Military are not a single block of unthinking myrmidons. Presumably there would be some degree of dissent in their ranks if the Constitution were suspended or a tyrant took power. Which brings me to the point that I want to make which is that I want to know what the military thinks the second amendment means before we try to override it with legislation; because I am that paranoid.
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:18 AM on December 19, 2012

As a side note, if you are a home defense weirdo and you are reading this thread, maybe buy some safety ammo (frangible/sintered) so you don't shoot your neighbors.
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:21 AM on December 19, 2012 [3 favorites]

Semi-automatic handguns that are single action are fairly common - most people I know who use and prefer the M1911 or a derivative carry their weapon in what is known as "Condition One" meaning chambered with a live round, cocked and ready to fire but with the safety engaged. On drawing the weapon, the safety is disengaged and the weapon is set to fire single action (e.g. one pull of the trigger).

Now from a brief look at my history of comments I would hope it would be easy for folks to discern that I do know what I am talking about with regards to firearms - I would love to engage with neversummer* and pla* to see what they think is reasonable, what they think of some of the suggestions made within this thread and what, if any, issues they have with those suggestions. All I have seen so far from gun folks on the internet is "you don't get firearms so you can't even talk with us". Well, I do. Let's hash it all out, no?

*not meaning to pick on you two but you do seem to be amongst the pro-firearms crowd here.
posted by longbaugh at 1:48 AM on December 19, 2012

But in my experience, you would realistically only use a single-action for performance at the range (or outright competition). Not so much a matter of rounds per minute, as the simple inconvenience of needing to pull the trigger twice (which in a non-relaxed range environment means it throws your aim to shit trying to do it twice as fast as possible).

I know people who carry 1911s on a daily basis. The 1911 is a single-action firearm. Is the existence of the 1911 outside of your experience? The existence of the M1 Garand appears to be outside your experience, so I wouldn't be surprised.

"Single action" does not mean one needs "to pull the trigger twice." "Single action" means that pulling the trigger causes the hammer to fall, striking the firing pin. Generally, single action semi-automatics recock the hammer as part of the cycle of operations. This is opposed to "double action," in which pulling the trigger both causes the hammer to cock, and then fall forward. This is also opposed to single action revolvers, which require that the operator manually cock the hammer before each shot.

pla, you are using your knowledge of terminology to obfuscate and present yourself as more of an expert than you actually are. This may work on people who are not conversant with firearms, but that is not everone in this thread.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:09 AM on December 19, 2012 [9 favorites]

Oh no. I just finished writing my brother an email.

I was drifting off to sleep thinking of Christmas cards and realized that the card I'd sent one of my nephews was a charming-before-last-week "Christmas Story" themed Christmas card. I mailed it last Thursday.

It features Ralphie on the front with his BB-damaged glasses looking distressed. The inside is a number of BB holes on a target with the message "I hope your Christmas is right on target."

My nephew enjoyed "Christmas Story" last year for the first time, but I don't know that he's going to remember it. He's going to open the card (less than two weeks after he had to be in lock down at a nearby school because of the shooting) and there's going to be a little kid who looks like he's been shot.

Hopefully, my brother will catch it before he opens it. I feel awful.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:52 AM on December 19, 2012

The playbook for fighting gun control is both well practised and, fundamentally, the same as any other hot button issue with the same level of vested interests and misinformation. This ensures that not only is the good fight fought at policy level, but also that in newspaper letter columns and social media people duke it out. An argument that goes nowhere is a good way to keep the status quo.

This thread is a good example of that, because once you invite the broader caucus to comment, you get to characterise more extreme, or ill judged, or trollish comments as the mainstream. The NRA is a formidable public policy machine, bearing in mind that it, against a backdrop of falling gun ownership (in terms of homes owning guns) we now find ourselves in a position where apparently serious public representatives are suggesting arming teachers. This is how far the baseline for a reasonable conversation about guns and gun control has shifted.

One does not need to be Nostradamus to understand the playbook. I am not characterising the position of gun advocates here; I am saying how the arguments will play out.

1) Dispute the data; bury the data; introduce your own data. Data enforces existing positions, by and large. Dispute the data, and you end up discussing the data, not the issue.

2) If you can't dispute the data, dismiss it. I know what I know. You might be right in macro, but my experience trumps your data.

3) Derail the argument (1). You don't want to regulate guns sensibly. You want to do x, where x is drastic, punitive and emotive. This is particularly effective because nobody likes change, and drastic change is scary. You then get to discuss your opponent as an extremist all the while discussing the argument in terms you have framed.

4) Derail the argument (2). Focus on the edge cases. Edge cases are emotive. Newtown is an edge case. The issue here is not mental health provision. It isn't about a specific user group who has specific needs to access specific guns. It isn't about the relatively small number of cases where homeowners have shoot burglars. It isn't about the 2nd Amendment. It is about the availability and access to guns, and how to balance reasonable access against public health interests.

5) Derail the argument (3). Introduce unworkable solutions into the conversation. Arm teachers. Regulate to absurdity. Focus on technical solutions that split hairs and require development and expertise. Burn the energy and/or make your opponents argue amongst themselves.

5) Play to emotion. The emotion here is about not being he victim. Of a lone gunman. Or a home invader. Or anyone else. Being a victim is unAmerican. This is about liberty, or rights, or the Constitution. But it's not about the tens of thousands of moms, dads and kids who die preventable deaths each year through accident, negligence, malice, impulse and murder because small, cheap, insecure, semi-automatic, accessible - or any combinations of those factors - weapons are so common in American society.

6) Concede. Concede something small. Focus on that. Keep focusing on that. Give ground, as a last resort, but do so to take the high ground.

The challenge for advocates of a public health-based conversation about gun regulation is to avoid those pitfalls, and not channel the emotion about this horrible event down a dead end. It is, in itself, a discipline. It requires strong organisations or groups to focus that limited energy. I suspect the Brady Center may not be that organisation, perhaps unfairly judging by its dry and hard to navigate website. It also requires people to be patient. This is a hearts and minds exercise, about turning back 40 years of propaganda that has got people to the point where keeping almost military-spec assault weapons in their homes, or walking down the street with a gun strapped to their hip, or rationalising that killing someone is a fair response to them trying to steal your TV, is not taboo.

The challenge comes down to picking some reasonable goals and carrying the gun owning population with them. Gun safes and security. Taxation. Removing certain weapons from ownership and circulation. Needs-based licensing. Better checks.

It also comes down to picking no more than 3 key messages, and pitch it as the voice of Responsible Gun Owners for America. Safe guns live in gun safes. Would you let a stranger smoke next to your kid? Would you let a stranger with a gun stand next to your kid? The person most likely to be killed by your gun is you or your family.
posted by MuffinMan at 2:53 AM on December 19, 2012 [50 favorites]

A man needs a gun like a fish needs a bicycle.

Every gun owner is a potential mass child killer.

"Life" in this "society" being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of "society" being at all relevant to people, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking people only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate guns.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:15 AM on December 19, 2012

Every gun owner is a potential mass child killer.

You'll go real far with that.
posted by neversummer at 3:21 AM on December 19, 2012

They aren't all potential killers. They aren't all standing up to evil and injustice either. They are just people, with a powerful tool. We know them to the same extent we know anyone else.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:28 AM on December 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

I went to bed last night feeling confident the US would bring itself in line with the rest of the civilised world when it comes to managing gun ownership as a tried-and-true remedy to reduce mass gun violence on (for example) a classroom of children and their teachers. I wrote a bit more than:

It's looking promising.^[1][2][3] Obama is a two-term president with nothing to lose, and in desperate need of a legacy. What better? I don't think he'll let this tragedy lose momentum. If Obama doesn't keep these 20 little kids and half a dozen educators alive by moving on gun ownership reform (in their tragedy's name) then he's not the can-do man he packaged himself as.

I didn't hit POST and went off to sleep thinking Obama no longer considers himself a can-do leader anyway -- he was defeated in 2010, and doesn't appear to have bounced back.

I could be projecting but, despite re-election, defeat is written all over Obama's face these days. In all reality, without a majority in the house and no bipartisanship on gun ownership reforms, what hope does he have of gaining National Agreement over gun ownership laws when it is the individual states who do the legislating?

After Obama's been through his home grown think-tank, then consulted a few world leaders about what's-what in gun ownership reform, (I don't think he has any commitment to a particular solution), then it appears to me Obama will be left coming to grips with four uniquely American strongholds, before he can even make a start on reforming gun ownership:
* gun culture;
* a gnarled 2nd amendment with already ratified purpose-creep that needs restoration and containment;
* a politically powerful, internationally dominant, gun manufacturing industry; and
* a population that squeals 'fascist' or 'socialist' in precious panic at the drop of a hat.

Returning to the thread today I get to read oblivious addiction enthusiastically discussing use like there'll be a people's choice in all this, a Christmas wish list: "Make mine a Bushmaster, please, with grenade thrower attachment, because ... well ... it looks bad ass, and its fun to shoot and I have a right, right?"

Yeah, right. *facepalm*

View from abroad: Sorrow, but little hope for U.S. gun control
posted by de at 3:39 AM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

The slogans above ought to be familiar as variations on famous feminist ones, right? As 'radical' as they may have been, they were undeniably part of changing gender relations - still an ongoing thing, but who said things could or would change overnight?

Ideally, gun ownership should end up akin to how smoking is regarded today. Once an undisputed 'right' (however damaging & obnoxious) that nobody felt they had the power to stand up against, it's still legal for those who want to do it, but heavily taxed & regulated, and generally regarded as a private vice to be kept at arms' length from the rest of the general public. Smokers these days hover between being reviled & being pitied, and are constantly reminded how much they cost the public purse.

If the general public feeling can be swayed so much on an extremely addictive substance like tobacco, guns should be easy as piss to stigmatise. Here's an example of how to go about it.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:48 AM on December 19, 2012 [4 favorites]

Michigan's Republican Governor Vetoes Concealed Gun Bill, Cites Sandy Hook Shooting
Republican Michigan Governor Rick Synder vetoed a concealed gun bill Tuesday afternoon. The bill would have allowed pistol owners with additional training and permits to carry their weapons in places of worship, schools, day care centers, stadiums, and churches.
posted by madamjujujive at 4:08 AM on December 19, 2012 [4 favorites]

Just like with automobile owners, states need to require gun owners to insure their firearms against death, injury, or damages resulting from a weapons discharge. Owning an uninsured firearm would be a crime, and insurance rates would depend upon the make and model of the gun, and the results of a background check which would factor in mental health and criminal histories. This would make it effectively illegal for the riskiest people to own a gun while protecting the rights of responsible gun owners. Sign the Petition here: http://wh.gov/n2Or
posted by kdilla at 5:30 AM on December 19, 2012 [3 favorites]

Sorry here is the link to the White House petition.
posted by kdilla at 5:40 AM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

I want to know what the military thinks the second amendment means before we try to override it with legislation; because I am that paranoid.

Well, it still doesn't matter. Think it through.

pla, you are using your knowledge of terminology to obfuscate and present yourself as more of an expert than you actually are. This may work on people who are not conversant with firearms, but that is not everone in this thread.

Another critique of this type of discussion: for all of us as citizens, the minutiae is important insofar as it informs policy. Different technologies are optimized for different effects and have different potentials; in addition, like other products, they also have profiles and marketing messages associated with them. We can all understand that, and if a person of goodwill outlines the differences so that our distinctions can be made more wisely, then great.

However, when it's being deployed as a shibboleth - "I don't have to respond to the substance of your arguments because you don't know about gun mechanics" -- it's just another symptom of gun fetishization, and the hope that knowledge about guns, ownership of guns, etc., can put you out of the fray and above debate. Sorry, though, it doesn't. People have an excellent ability to understand clear, cogent arguments, and to listen to those in an expert role who are coming from a solution-oriented place of goodwill. We can sit around and wank about the technical specifications of these machines for hours; but unless that discussion is leading us in the direction of figuring out what we are going to do to increase public safety, it's just a lot of gearhead garage talk. That kind of talk is a negative part of gun culture; its intentional posturing and attempt to demonstrate mastery and superior knowledge in order to close off discussion is part of the psychological complex that we have to deal with when we talk about gun policy.

As with all areas of complex knowledge, if you can't speak in clear terms about your topic with those less informed in an effort to increase their understanding, you don't really understand it. If you won't speak in clear terms, you aren't having a good-will interchange.

It also comes down to picking no more than 3 key messages, and pitch it as the voice of Responsible Gun Owners for America. Safe guns live in gun safes. Would you let a stranger smoke next to your kid? Would you let a stranger with a gun stand next to your kid? The person most likely to be killed by your gun is you or your family.

Another remarkable comment, MuffinMan...I agree entirely. Thanks.

If everyone ready to get some work done would consider all this and create a personal action plan for the "hearts and minds" challenge, we would undoubtedly get somewhere. I've written to my own reps already, and I plan to also write all the other reps from my state's other districts. There's a legislative angle, yes. But the public health angle does indeed depend on shifting the conversation from the perception that it's a battle of extremes, and reasonable people have to speak up - making clear that they are reasonable and welcoming other reasonable people.

Our culture is not going to be able to rocket to the dramatic response that Australia demonstrated - for one thing, we lack a dogged champion, and have instead tentative leaders being morally pressed to overcome their reluctance. But I agree that the smoking (seat belt, drunk driving, etc.) analogy provides inspiration here. We can make good progress on a public health issue. And we should start.
posted by Miko at 6:04 AM on December 19, 2012 [19 favorites]

UbuRovias: Every gun owner is a potential mass child killer.

See, this is exactly the type of statement that, at least where I live (an area that's pretty representative of America and is fully rural) will shut down the debate before it even gets started. You might be right but frankly, insisting on being right, genuinely believing you are, and fighting that point tooth and nail, will not solve this problem. I'm not saying I disagree with you at all, just that the delivery will not work.

Miko: That kind of talk is a negative part of gun culture; its intentional posturing and attempt to demonstrate mastery and superior knowledge in order to close off discussion is part of the psychological complex that we have to deal with when we talk about gun policy.

Again, you might be right but in the interest of solving this in a meaningful way, I'm totally willing to stoop to that level to get the debate started. If someone who is absolutely against gun control insists that I use proper verbiage, I'll research and learn so I can do that. At the very least, it'll knock that stupid bit off the list so when we start discussing this because an argument about how I don't know the difference between this or that is not the argument I want to have.
posted by youandiandaflame at 6:15 AM on December 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

an argument about how I don't know the difference between this or that is not the argument I want to have.

Fair enough. I agree that for those of us on the progress side, we can see this for what it is and do our best to move beyond it. The important part, though, is not being intimidated or cowed by all the handwaving - learn what you have to - and just pressing onward.
posted by Miko at 6:31 AM on December 19, 2012

MuffinMan: It also comes down to picking no more than 3 key messages, and pitch it as the voice of Responsible Gun Owners for America. Safe guns live in gun safes. Would you let a stranger smoke next to your kid? Would you let a stranger with a gun stand next to your kid? The person most likely to be killed by your gun is you or your family.

Great insight indeed, MuffinMan.

So, what are the 3 key messages we can all agree are best to go with?
posted by youandiandaflame at 6:35 AM on December 19, 2012

Every gun owner is a potential mass child killer.

Please.

There are better ways to discuss this issue.
posted by lampshade at 6:41 AM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

I think the gun control issue is so intractable (in the big moderate middle, not in the fringe) because at the heart of it is the precautionary principle. The American ethos is deeply woven through with threads of individualism, boldness, and conquest. Those threads, like rebar in concrete, are widely held, with some justification, to be the essence what is great about America.

But there's a dark side too. Excessive individualism signifies broken community structures (and breaks them further). Boldness is a nice word for gambling (hello, Wall Street). Conquest is empire, and all reasonable educated people are pretty well aware of the enormous benefits and costs of empire.

We have a distinctly checkered past with the precautionary principle, especially when a lot of private money hangs in the balance. See also: climate change, nuclear power, and genetic engineering.

That said, we do have examples of successful precautionary policymaking. See the clean air act, CFC reduction, and the change in attitudes and laws about drunk driving and smoking. What made the difference for those issues? Perhaps the powerful investments just weren't big enough, or atrophied, as public sentiment shifted at an opportune time, and the balance of power was tipped. An inflection point was reached, and those issues were decided.
posted by maniabug at 6:57 AM on December 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

I'll wrap that up by saying it behooves people who want more of the precautionary principle in our world to fight smart, wait for those moments of leverage, and organize. But we also have to discard some of the idealistic mythology we harbor about the nature of "movements". A successful movement still needs to get lucky, and most of the heavy lifting is not done at the highly visible moment when the big change occurs. Carry on.
posted by maniabug at 7:09 AM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

> After Obama's been through his home grown think-tank, then consulted a few world leaders about what's-what in gun ownership reform, (I don't think he has any commitment to a particular solution), then it appears to me Obama will be left coming to grips with four uniquely American strongholds, before he can even make a start on reforming gun ownership:
* gun culture;
* a gnarled 2nd amendment with already ratified purpose-creep that needs restoration and containment;
* a politically powerful, internationally dominant, gun manufacturing industry; and
* a population that squeals 'fascist' or 'socialist' in precious panic at the drop of a hat.

My reading of the political situation is different from yours.

Gun culture: We have two gun cultures, not one — rural hunters and (mostly suburban) self-defense people. These two cultures are pretty different from each other. Politically the self-defense people are overwhelmingly Republican. Democrats who live in rural areas about as likely to hunt as Republicans, they're not a specifically Republican constituency. The attitudes of the two groups toward regulation of firearms are quite different.

2nd amendment with already ratified purpose-creep: The Supreme Court has interpreted the second amendment as implying a right to own firearms for personal self-defense. However, they have not interpreted it as prohibiting the government from from regulating the types of arms people can own or requiring permits. (Yeah, some fanatics seem to see the 'right to bear arms' as an absolute right that trumps all other rights. The Court has not agreed with them.)

A population that squeals 'fascist' or 'socialist' in precious panic at the drop of a hat: We're talking about a subset of Republicans, not the general population. This subset probably overlaps quite a bit with the suburban self-defense subset.

A politically powerful, internationally dominant, gun manufacturing industry: I'm not sure about "international dominant", but, yep.

The think the Democrats will introduce reasonable fire-arms regulations that most gun-owners (not the fanatics) will support. The Republicans will fight it. They might defeat it, but the Republicans will become increasingly isolated on this issue, and this will push the political discourse in the right direction. If this keeps up, eventually we'll get there. We might see some small steps next year.
posted by nangar at 7:11 AM on December 19, 2012 [4 favorites]

So, what are the 3 key messages we can all agree are best to go with?

I would love to see some more discussions of this.

Specific policy initiatives?
posted by Miko at 7:43 AM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

The comments are a great demonstration of the kinds of people who admittedly will not be swayed by this discussion. Again - let's set them aside. Let them mutter in corners. We don't need a 5% fringe to make change happen.

Thing is, it's not a 5% fringe, it's like a 30% fringe. That being said - the things being talked about in this Dkos diary seem achievable and a reasonable start - to me anyway.

In fact, I'd support much tighter regulation of semi-automatic hand guns and rifles in general - but I'm one of those hunters that doesn't think semi-autos really have a place in the field.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 8:37 AM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

Specific policy initiatives?

Strict liability for gun owners. If the gun is licensed to you, then you are responsible for all acts committed with it.
posted by HotToddy at 8:41 AM on December 19, 2012 [4 favorites]

President Obama is set to make a statement on gun control this morning at about 11:45am eastern time, live stream here.
posted by flug at 8:58 AM on December 19, 2012

The Fiscal Cliff 50 Billion Dollar Semi-automatic Gun Buy Back Stimulus Package sounds better than gun control
posted by Rumple at 8:58 AM on December 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

Obama is set to deliver a statement to the press about gun control soon.
posted by DynamiteToast at 8:58 AM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

Sen. Diane Feinstein plans to reintroduce an assault weapons ban bill; my new Senator Elizabeth Warren just sent me an email stating she will be supporting it. I wrote back to thank her, and also I'll probably do some letters to the editor, etc., on that issue.

Which wouldn't have affected the weapons used in the Newton killings? As far as I know there are no reports that his rifle had a flash supressor, bayonet mount, collapsible stock or any of the other features besides a pistol grip that would have made it a banned weapon. Indeed, every suggestion has been that it was a legal rifle for his mother to own, which would not have been the case if it fell under the CT version of the assault weapons ban.
posted by Jahaza at 9:17 AM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

Just as selling more cigarettes means people get more addicted to cigarettes, selling more guns means people feel the need for more guns to keep themselves safe from other people with guns.
posted by tonycpsu

What a great analogy, perhaps the potato chip and razorblade should be next.

I really don't know if the US has more pragmatists than Gun-ists, but I do get the very clear sense that Gun-ism is as receptive to the Socratic approach as belief in the Rapture.posted by holgate

wow, and I thought your were SMAT!
really holgate here is a nice list of pragmatism.

and if you knew fuck all about socrates you would see your comment boaders on the inane.
posted by clavdivs at 9:26 AM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

Sorry, clavdivs, we're not having that conversation any more.
posted by holgate at 9:35 AM on December 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

Jahaza - note, though, that the old federal law had a list of specifically banned weapons in addition to those other banned general characteristics. Could easily add this Bushmaster .223.

Also, the old federal law had prohibitions against extended magazines, but I don't know those rules in detail.

This will never happen, but the best would be congressional authority for an agency (FBI or BATF) to issue bans for specific types of guns and gun equipment found to be unacceptably unsafe or some such language. The DEA has that kind of authority with respect to banning drugs, because it takes too long to get a new law passed for every new kind of drug someone cooks up.
posted by Mid at 9:39 AM on December 19, 2012

I should think the only issue that needs to be addressed at this moment is capacity. The gnarliest, meanest, shootingest gun isn't going to slaughter 30 people in four minutes if it only holds six bullets at a time.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:42 AM on December 19, 2012 [3 favorites]

five fresh fish: I should think the only issue that needs to be addressed at this moment is capacity. The gnarliest, meanest, shootingest gun isn't going to slaughter 30 people in four minutes if it only holds six bullets at a time.

While that's certainly a start I think it's a good idea that because we as a nation are already talking about it, we consider other things, too. Yeah, let's do what we can to stop mass shootings aided by something that holds more than 6 rounds but let's also start talking about and working towards a solution for all the other gun violence that isn't a mass school shooting.

"At this moment", as you say, is the best moment we've probably ever witnessed to talk about it ALL.

Mid: This will never happen, but the best would be congressional authority for an agency (FBI or BATF) to issue bans for specific types of guns and gun equipment found to be unacceptably unsafe or some such language.

I wonder what the public push back would be against this. Will it be painted as just another way for the government to intrude in our lives, blah blah blah, or would something like this gain traction with the public?
posted by youandiandaflame at 9:50 AM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

To the best of my knowledge, the two states that choose to limit handgun capacity most strictly have both settled on ten rounds as being the limit. I'm not aware of any state that has imposed a limit lower than ten.
posted by cribcage at 9:51 AM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

But as others have pointed out, lots of places have hunting rules in place that limit you to ~3-5 rounds/shells and require a "plug" or similar mechanism to reduce capacity. Sure its a long-gun rule and not a handgun rule, but I don't see a reason you couldn't do the same across all guns.
posted by Mid at 10:07 AM on December 19, 2012

Litchfield County Times: Newtown School Shooting Tragedy: What We Know and What We Don't.
posted by ericb at 10:17 AM on December 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

That ten round capacity limit is trampling my Constitutional right to defend my home from dozens of simultaneous robbers, rapists, and murderers.
posted by Flunkie at 10:42 AM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

Which wouldn't have affected the weapons used in the Newton killings? As far as I know there are no reports that his rifle had a flash supressor, bayonet mount, collapsible stock or any of the other features besides a pistol grip that would have made it a banned weapon.

Half of those are fairly arbitrary requirements. Which just goes to show you how much the definition of "assault weapons" was designed by the gun lobby to avoid covering all but a handful of firearms.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:44 AM on December 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

I heard from a Newtown friend this morning. He said that everyone there appreciates the outpouring of support from around the world, but said that residents are understandably exhausted and emotionally frayed. He said that the town is crowded and chaotic, making it difficult to travel to work, school, the supermarket, etc. He said that in the Congregational Church alone they have set aside a room to house "no less than 20,000 teddy bears!" "What are you going to do with them?" Answer: "We just don't know. We have other more pressing things to worry about. It has become a distraction."

BTW -- the post office has set up a separate P.O. Box to streamline the incoming flow of letters and packages:

Send letters, cards and other items to:

Newtown Sympathy Letters
P.O. Box 3700
Newtown, CT 06740

"Sandy Scheibel Schill posted this on our [Newtown Bee] wall:"

A message to the world from the residents of Sandy Hook. Thank you to all of you for your thoughts and prayers. They have helped us during this horrible, unspeakable tragedy.

We do have one request though, please stay home. We can not begin the healing process with our small town over run by the media and out of town well wishers. We can't get to work, school or the grocery store. We can't get to the funerals to bury our babies or to our neighbors to comfort them. Our children are afraid to go anywhere in town lest they be approached by the media asking for, yet again, another interview about how we feel.

Thank you for all the memorials set up at each street corner, but what about after you leave? Who is left to clean up the spent flowers and rain/mud soaked teddy bears...We are. We already have enough to do taking care of each other but can not start until we are given our town back.

If you want to help us please send cards and snowflakes, donate to the school and families, reach out to your loved ones and let them know they are special. Make this world a better place with your actions and words. We know that you are feeling our pain and appreciate all you have done but please stay home and give us back ours. Thank you.

posted by ericb at 10:50 AM on December 19, 2012 [15 favorites]

Peter Lanza, Adam Lanza's Father, Was Cut Off From Son Before Sandy Hook Shooting: Report.
posted by ericb at 10:51 AM on December 19, 2012

Half of those are fairly arbitrary requirements. Which just goes to show you how much the definition of "assault weapons" was designed by the gun lobby to avoid covering all but a handful of firearms.

And yet the law was passed anyways, because Congress decided that doing something pointless and arbitrary was better than doing nothing. But it's not, because it's a waste of time and a distraction from real reform (whether that's gun control or something else).
posted by Jahaza at 10:54 AM on December 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

2013 races could reveal Newtown’s lessons.
posted by ericb at 10:55 AM on December 19, 2012

Sen. Jay Rockefeller: Study video-game violence

In the wake of the Newtown shootings, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller introduced a bill Tuesday night that would have the National Academy of Sciences examine any link between violent games and media and violent acts by children, industry sources say.

posted by ericb at 10:57 AM on December 19, 2012

What a great analogy, perhaps the potato chip and razorblade should be next.

The US currently bans raw milk, specific varieties of French cheese, buckyball magnets, baby cribs with drop away sides and other products which have been determined to be dangers to public safety and health. The manufacturers and sellers of razor blades and potato chips are both subject to regulation and review by the Consumer Products Safety Commission. The makers of these products may also be subject to litigation in court for the harm caused by their products and any false claims in their advertising. Furthermore the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may provide grants to researchers to study the impact of these products without regard to the policy recommendations resulting from the study.

Gun makers are exempt from all of these rules of ordinary commerce. Congress has granted gun makers total immunity from civil litigation. The position of head of the ATF has been vacant for 6 years because the nominees have been blocked in the Senate. The CPSC and CDC are prohibited from investigating the safety of their products. In summary the question isn't will the potato chip and razor blade be next, but why arn't guns regulated by the same rules as these products.
posted by humanfont at 11:02 AM on December 19, 2012 [57 favorites]

And yet the law was passed anyways, because Congress decided that doing something pointless and arbitrary was better than doing nothing. But it's not, because it's a waste of time and a distraction from real reform (whether that's gun control or something else).

Of which a reauthorization with less pointless and arbitrary definition is a good start.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:08 AM on December 19, 2012

While I think the blame the video games thing is really stupid, I wouldn't mind if the ridiculous acceptance of violence in all media were examined a bit. It's always struck me as odd that you can show someone's head being chopped off, but the minute you put a dong on the screen everybody freaks out.

But if it lets people keep their child-murdering semi-auto weapons then I'm all for it!
posted by Big_B at 11:09 AM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

You know what? Westboro shows up in Newtown, and I will BE THERE. There's no shortage of folks who will show up to stymie the efforts of those sick, opportunistic assholes.

From our Australian friends: Flirting With Westboro Baptist Church: WBC Man Squirms When 'Reporter' Gets 'Friendly' (VIDEO).
posted by ericb at 11:13 AM on December 19, 2012

Newtown Bee special edition (PDF).

As my mother said, "read it when you're feeling strong."
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:22 AM on December 19, 2012 [7 favorites]

The position of head of the ATF has been vacant for 6 years because the nominees have been blocked in the Senate.

More info on this: ATF, charged with regulating guns, lacks resources and leadership

President Obama’s nominee to be ATF’s permanent director is Andrew Traver, who oversees the bureau’s Chicago office. But his nomination has been stalled in the Senate for two years because Traver raised the ire of the gun lobby with comments it has characterized as anti-firearm. The NRA, which immediately opposed his nomination, has said Traver is linked to gun-control advocates and anti-gun activities in Chicago.

No permanent ATF director has been on the job in the six years since Congress required that the position be confirmed by the Senate. That action allowed the gun lobby to have a say on Capitol Hill about the agency’s leadership, according to ATF officials.

Even Michael J. Sullivan, a former U.S. attorney in Boston nominated by President George W. Bush, could not get confirmed. He was blocked by three senators who accused him of being hostile to gun dealers. One of the senators was a member of the NRA’s board of directors.

Past and current Justice Department officials say the gun lobby has further hampered the work of ATF by moving to block the government’s attempts to put gun-ownership records into an easily accessible computer database. When guns are used in crimes, such as the massacre in Newtown, Conn., ATF employees must go through an antiquated, laborious process, mostly done by hand, to trace the firearms to the stores where they were bought.

And before anyone starts in with the “But Democrats had Congress for four years!” complaints, the problem is that at least three Republican Senators used hold rules, which require 60 votes to overturn, something the Democrats only had in the Senate for 7 months (July 2009-January 2010), a time when their legislative schedule was already held up by other GOP filibusters.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:23 AM on December 19, 2012 [17 favorites]

Also, note that every time federal gun control issues crop up, the gun lobby always pushes hard to "protect" ATF's turf against encroachment by the FBI, because everybody knows the FBI is much more competent and less subject to shenanigans like blocking the appointment of a director.
posted by Mid at 11:36 AM on December 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

One Quick Answer to Sandy Hook? Repeal the 2005 Arms Act. (If you agree, please urge your representatives to do so.)
posted by Wordwoman at 11:47 AM on December 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

"Thank you for all the memorials set up at each street corner, but what about after you leave? Who is left to clean up the spent flowers and rain/mud soaked teddy bears..."

Aw, man.
posted by merelyglib at 11:55 AM on December 19, 2012

I would absolutely hate to be working for a florist up there right now.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 12:50 PM on December 19, 2012

five fresh fish: I should think the only issue that needs to be addressed at this moment is capacity. The gnarliest, meanest, shootingest gun isn't going to slaughter 30 people in four minutes if it only holds six bullets at a time.

Speed loaders.
posted by Ardiril at 12:54 PM on December 19, 2012

There should probably be a "not safe for eyes" warning on Ardiril's link.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:01 PM on December 19, 2012 [4 favorites]

Speed loaders.

Faster than that? Another magazine. But it's still reloading, it's pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-click, click, click repeat as oposed to pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow.

See the difference?
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 1:04 PM on December 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

"See the difference?"

Yes, about 5 seconds worth, somewhat insignifant if the shooter is using breath control anyway.
posted by Ardiril at 1:13 PM on December 19, 2012

How many seconds does it take to change a magazine for a highly skilled shooter? How many rounds could he have fired in those seconds? (Not rhetorical)
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:20 PM on December 19, 2012

somewhat insignifant

This is where I point out that Jared Loughner struggled to reload, dropping the cartridge, and that's when he was tackled and disarmed.

And it's not five seconds of difference. It's as many as 24 people of difference.
posted by ambrosia at 1:20 PM on December 19, 2012 [20 favorites]

5 seconds - an eternity in disaster time.

It's funny that we keep seeing a fundamentally contradictory argument : guns are so powerful that no constraints on their power will help you defeat them, and so everyone should carry guns because they are so powerful that they let you defeat other people with guns.

Just so much BS.
posted by Miko at 1:23 PM on December 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

There should probably be a "not safe for eyes" warning on Ardiril's link.

Wow, I've been in printing & design since 1984 and I did not know that there was a red that bright.
posted by Devils Rancher at 1:24 PM on December 19, 2012 [4 favorites]

How many seconds does it take to change a magazine for a highly skilled shooter? How many rounds could he have fired in those seconds? (Not rhetorical)

Probably 4 or 5 seconds if he was dropping the ejected mags, which is probably the case.

In terms of the overall time frame and the estimated number of shots fired, I don't think he was anywhere close to firing near the speed capacity of the weapon. I think he was taking time to set up his shots.
posted by neversummer at 1:27 PM on December 19, 2012

"5 seconds - an eternity in disaster time."

Particularly when the minimum reasonable response time for cops to show up is 8 to 10 minutes.
posted by Ardiril at 1:28 PM on December 19, 2012

Yes, about 5 seconds worth, somewhat insignifant if the shooter is using breath control anyway.

If the shooter had put in that much practice and dedication, bets are off anyway.

How many seconds does it take to change a magazine for a highly skilled shooter? How many rounds could he have fired in those seconds? (Not rhetorical)

People who compete can change magazines in less than a second. But that's with hours and hours of practice. You can find videos on Youtube, and it's impressive how fast they can be.

But the shooters we are concerned about don't put in this kind of effort - in Aurora and Oregon they were unable to clear a jam quickly, which any skilled/practice shooter can do. I think it's because you have to be particularly twisted and disciplined to work and plan something like this over a long term. Anders Breivik is a notable example - and his guns were legally acquired, too, despite stringent controls.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 1:28 PM on December 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

It's all or nothing!

Anyway, what good are the cops against a weapon so powerful in the hands of a suicidal person, right? Someone like that, nobody can take down, right?
posted by Miko at 1:30 PM on December 19, 2012

There should probably be a "not safe for eyes" warning on Ardiril's link.
Command-A
Ah, that's better.

Reloading seems kind of a wild card, even among the many critical factors in a fight. The VPC report linked way upthread quotes some interesting points made by a pro gun instructor about the physiological changes that take place during a violent confrontation. Particularly relevant here is the profound degradation of fine motor skill.
posted by maniabug at 1:31 PM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

National Review Author Blames Shooting on Sandy Hook Elementary School Being Too Girly
posted by zombieflanders at 1:32 PM on December 19, 2012 [3 favorites]

Anyway, what good are the cops against a weapon so powerful in the hands of a suicidal person, right? Someone like that, nobody can take down, right?

No, had the building been secure the first responders would of shot him dead immediately.
posted by neversummer at 1:33 PM on December 19, 2012

"Reloading seems kind of a wild card" - Doesn't matter anyway, they simply carry extra guns.
posted by Ardiril at 1:34 PM on December 19, 2012

This is where I point out that Jared Loughner struggled to reload, dropping the cartridge, and that's when he was tackled and disarmed.

In this sort of event, I think any time you can force them to reload or change guns, it's a good thing. Reloading is when you can be tackled, it's a moment for people to escape, it's just a few seconds less of bullets being in the air.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:35 PM on December 19, 2012 [8 favorites]

his guns were legally acquired, too, despite stringent controls.

Makes you wonder why they were legal at all. Ah, we were part of his supply chain,to:

Breivik wrote in his manifesto that while he could have purchased the high-capacity magazines in Sweden, they would have been significantly more expensive than ordering them from a U.S. supplier. He wrote that he spent $550 for the 10 clips.

posted by Miko at 1:36 PM on December 19, 2012

No, had the building been secure the first responders would of shot him dead immediately.

Shot who dead? Are you talking about someone specific?
posted by Miko at 1:37 PM on December 19, 2012

"any time you can force them to reload or change guns, it's a good thing."

Emphasis mine.
posted by Ardiril at 1:41 PM on December 19, 2012

Emphasis mine.

What is your point? It's not clear.
posted by Miko at 1:41 PM on December 19, 2012

Six or so people already shot, but that pause to refresh is "a good thing".
posted by Ardiril at 1:43 PM on December 19, 2012

Miko: "Makes you wonder why they were legal at all."

Breivik ran a farm as a front, enabling him to buy both fertilizer and a rifle for pest control. He didn't turn a profit from the farm (being too busy plotting to actually do any agriculture), which should have raised flags at the intelligence service monitoring fertilizer procurement.
posted by brokkr at 1:45 PM on December 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

Six or so people already shot, but that pause to refresh is "a good thing"

it's "good" (better than the alternative) if it creates the opportunity to prevents another six people from being shot.
posted by Miko at 1:45 PM on December 19, 2012

Are you saying it isn't a good thing? Seriously, assuming that we're in a situation where six people have been shot are you saying that a delay between number six a number seven during which time people have a chance to run or charge the shooter or just take cover isn't good? My point was about what we can do (in terms of limiting magazine size, etc.) to make these events less deadly. That is a good thing, unambiguously.

It's true that we should also try to prevent them entirely, but harm mitigation should absolutely be part of the response.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:48 PM on December 19, 2012

If Gun Control Doesn't Work, Why Does Congress Need Metal Detectors?

"It seems only right that members of Congress should be as safe as the average child they represent. If you truly believe gun proliferation, not gun control, is the best way to combat gun violence, remove the metal detectors from the Capitol and don't bring them back until you've changed your mind."

posted by ericb at 1:49 PM on December 19, 2012 [22 favorites]

My college friend's cousin was Daniel Barden. He was 7. He wanted to be a firefighter.
posted by mrzarquon at 1:49 PM on December 19, 2012 [5 favorites]

He wanted to be a firefighter.

Damn. Those photos. Here crying again.
posted by ericb at 1:53 PM on December 19, 2012

Yeah, me too.
posted by Miko at 1:55 PM on December 19, 2012

RIP Daniel Barden - Sandy Hook Massacre Victim (Facebook page).
posted by ericb at 1:55 PM on December 19, 2012

Yeah. That one of the boy.... With the missing front teeth.

I just...
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 1:56 PM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

I have been valiantly trying to keep my four and a half year old blissfully ignorant of what happened last week, but here I am sniffling back tears again. Dammit.
posted by ambrosia at 1:58 PM on December 19, 2012

That's about the last straw. My iPod screen is a picture of my 3 year old daughter standing up resolutely with my fire helmet on her head. I can't take this.
posted by maniabug at 2:03 PM on December 19, 2012

I recommend watching this Anderson Cooper interview of Grace McDonnell's parents. Such strong parents, remembering their adored daughter.

Also ...

Remembering Jessica Rekos and James Mattiol.

Remembering Olivia Engel.

Remembering Lauren Rousseau.

Remembering Ana M. Marquez-Greene.
posted by ericb at 2:03 PM on December 19, 2012 [5 favorites]

If Gun Control Does~~n't~~ Work, Why Does Congress Need Metal Detectors?

It's illegal for a civilian to carry a handgun in Washington, DC. It's illegal both on and off the Capitol grounds.
posted by Jahaza at 2:04 PM on December 19, 2012

(Which is to say that it's a woefully inadequete argument, not that a) people should be allowed to carry guns in Congress or b) that gun control actually is ineffective).
posted by Jahaza at 2:05 PM on December 19, 2012

Poor little guy :(

lil ubu is right next to me eating cookies & drinking milk, then we're off to the swimming pool. With no mass shootings since the mandatory gun buyback, thank fuck there's infinitesimally close to zero chance of this happening at the pool, or his childcare centre, or anywhere else he's likely to be over the next couple of decades. Hm, he wants cherries now. ok, cherries it is.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:05 PM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

"harm mitigation" - An obfuscation for "acceptable collateral damage".
posted by Ardiril at 2:07 PM on December 19, 2012

BTW -- I have been really impressed with CNN in that they are not contacting the families directly. It turns out that many who want to share information about their loved one have been reaching out to Anderson Cooper and others wanting to memorialize their children publicly. The way that CNN has broadcast these remembrances is quite graceful.

Last night Anderson shared some of Grace McDonnell's drawings on air. The parents gave an original drawing (a picture of an owl) to President Obama who said he will frame it and hang it in the White House. They gave Anderson Cooper a photocopy of it last night ... and he, too, will hang it in his office.
posted by ericb at 2:08 PM on December 19, 2012 [13 favorites]

.
posted by Cosine at 2:12 PM on December 19, 2012

ericb, the town had police standing outside of family's doors so the press couldn't bother them.
posted by merelyglib at 2:12 PM on December 19, 2012

"harm mitigation" - An obfuscation for "acceptable collateral damage".

Honestly, what's your point ? Are you for total prohibition of all guns? Because that is the only stance which would make your argument follow sensibly.

On review of thread, maybe you are. Carry on then. A desire for total prohibition, though, won't stop me from playing the game of inches. All public health victories in the US have been won so.
posted by Miko at 2:12 PM on December 19, 2012 [4 favorites]

ericb, the town had police standing outside of family's doors so the press couldn't bother them.

I know that. Actually, each family has a State Trooper at their home.

CNN has made it very clear that any of the interviews they have had are as a result of the families contacting them -- and under conditions acceptable to each individual family.
posted by ericb at 2:15 PM on December 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

"harm mitigation" - An obfuscation for "acceptable collateral damage".

No, it's people saying that doing something to reduce the number of likely deaths is a good idea even if it'd be obviously preferable to wave a magic wand and prevent all likely deaths. You seem to be treating this like people are saying that it's awesome that people continue to be killed as long as it's a smaller number; nobody thinks that's awesome, they just think it's incrementally better, because fewer people dying is good.
posted by cortex at 2:19 PM on December 19, 2012 [10 favorites]

"harm mitigation" - An obfuscation for "acceptable collateral damage".

I get that you're for a total gun ban or some other solution that you think is a perfect solution full stop, but if you were given the power to place a limit on magazine sizes tomorrow, would you do it? If you say no you're saying that future deaths that could be prevented by that change are acceptable collateral damage for ideological purity to whatever perfect solution you think you've got.

The "game of inches," as Miko puts it, is a game that in the real world we have to play, but it's also a game that can absolutely save lives. Every life saved is a good thing, even if we could and should save more.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 2:22 PM on December 19, 2012 [6 favorites]

"harm mitigation" - An obfuscation for "acceptable collateral damage".

The Perfect is the enemy of the Good.
posted by ambrosia at 2:26 PM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

Ardiril, gun control "advocates" like you are indistinguishable in practice from hard-core gun rights fanatics and not worth talking to.
posted by nangar at 2:28 PM on December 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

National Review Author Blames Shooting on Sandy Hook Elementary School Being Too Girly

Wow, calling that guy an asshole is doing a disservice to all the shit-filled colons and sphincters in the world.
posted by Devils Rancher at 2:35 PM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

My point is that legislation concerning magazine size wastes political resources for little overall good. The gun control crowd believe they score a point, and the pro-gun crowd claim they made a compromise.

You *may* save a few dozen lives from mass shootings over the course of a few years, but that number is insignificant compared to the 30,000+ intentional gun deaths that occur one or two bullets at a time.

You save a few trees at the expense of the rest of the forest.

nangar, no discussion on Metafilter will make any difference in this matter whatsoever. This place has always been one huge circle jerk.

Instead, I wrote a simple letter to each of my state and national senators expressing my position with minimal depth of detail. A vote is a vote; it requires no explanation. How many of you wrote your elected officials? How many of you donated money to the Brady Center?
posted by Ardiril at 2:43 PM on December 19, 2012

The National Review author "guy" is Charlotte Allen. But otherwise I am in complete agreement with Devils Rancher.
posted by haiku warrior at 2:49 PM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

Also, I need a bit of time to organize my thoughts on this matter because before last week I held a libertarian view on gun rights, and my position now is a direct 180 degree turnabout. Two strokes over the last ten years didn't help my analytical skills either.

So, forgive me for my disability in that I cannot fire away my non-sequiturs as fast as the rest of you.
posted by Ardiril at 2:50 PM on December 19, 2012

How many of you wrote your elected officials?

I did. And I know I'm not the only MeFite in this thread who did. And I will be keeping it up.

How many of you donated money to the Brady Center?

I haven't yet because I'm not sure they're going to be most effective. I'm not really sure if donating is the action I'll take. I know exactly how important it is, but I have a very small amount of money available for charitable giving; Sandy relief and a couple other things cleaned it out, and even on my best day I am not a significant donor for anyone.

What I'm best at in political activism is writing/speaking, media, and organizing, so I have been doing that and plan to continue. This isn't a new issue for many of us, and every vote I've made and candidate I've supported has taken this into account. I get that you're frustrated, but the fact that until a couple days ago you didn't consider this issue important enough to be concerned about doesn't mean that others have been equally inactive.
posted by Miko at 2:56 PM on December 19, 2012 [9 favorites]

Even non-"mass" killings often involve high-capacity magazines and dozens of bullets; I don't see why making guns less deadly by reducing magazine sizes wouldn't reduce death tolls from both massacres and smaller-scale killings.

Killings with semi-automatic weapons are not rare in the United States. In Oregon, a man fired 60 rounds from an AR-15, killing two people and himself and probably would have killed more if his gun hadn't jammed. In California, a man fired 50 shots into a parking lot but did not hit anyone. Also in California, a man killed four people and then was killed in shootout where he fired multiple shots at the police. And those are just a few of the cases in the one week period that also included the Newtown massacre.
posted by mbrubeck at 2:59 PM on December 19, 2012 [3 favorites]

Paul Simon performs 'Sound of Silence' at funeral for Sandy Hook teacher

"Today, Paul Simon, at the request of their family friends, the Sotos, performed 'Sound of Silence' at the funeral for their beloved daughter Vickie Soto. The Sotos and Simons met through Vicki’s mother and Paul’s sister-in-law, both nurses."

posted by ericb at 3:11 PM on December 19, 2012

Westboro Baptist Church Newtown Funeral Protest Thwarted By Good Samaritans.
posted by ericb at 3:12 PM on December 19, 2012

Newtown Killer Was "Like A Ghost" In Days Before Massacre.
posted by ericb at 3:13 PM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

I've been staying out of the gun control debate here because I'm still too emotional to really discuss it rationally, but I do have a few controlled thoughts.

The NRA is basically a marketing entity for the gun industry. They have a (if you'll forgive the word choice) target market and really know how to sell to that market. With this in mind, one non-legislative tactic that should be employed is to market gun control to that same group of people. Things like that ABC news piece that demonstrates how challenging it is to use a gun effectively in a chaotic situation without lengthy and regular police training (and its challenging even then) or the data that shows how much more likely owning a gun is to result in a homicide or suicide rather than preventing a robbery would go a long way towards changing minds.

While laws would help, changing people's minds has got to be a good step. Somebody mentioned the "Truth" campaign that was effective in changing some people's minds about cigarettes. We're never going to change everyone's minds, but changing a few people's minds with truth is still a good thing.

I also think that we can't let great be the enemy of good, as others have said. Some improvement is better than nothing ever changing. Let's make things at least a little better right now and we can work on making them more and more and more better for the rest of our lives.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:21 PM on December 19, 2012 [6 favorites]

Things like that ABC news piece that demonstrates how challenging it is to use a gun effectively in a chaotic situation without lengthy and regular police training (and its challenging even then)

I think many super-pro-gun people would consider that video to be laughable. In fact I kind of think it's laughable. They've got some kind of big klunky full-head helmet on? And wacky gloves that they're not used to? And the shooter knows to zoom in on one particular person immediately after taking out the instructor?

It struck me as intentionally stacked, in several ways, and it seems pretty silly to draw the conclusions that they were drawing in that video based on what happened in that video.

Now, for me personally, I think it's a silly video, but I also think that it's entirely possible that a similar video, minus the dumb intentional stacking, might very well show similar results. In fact I'd be interested in seeing a similar thing minus the dumbness. But I think if you show that video to a gun nut, they may very well (rightfully) laugh it off and (wrongfully) close their minds even further.
posted by Flunkie at 3:45 PM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

I came home from work thinking there'd be talk of Obama's address this afternoon and I'm not seeing it. Did I miss it upthread?

From what I understand, Biden is now the head of a special task force (which is fantastic in my mind, considering he co-authored a bill of this sort before) and the WH has three points they want addressed in terms of gun control, as it were.

1. A ban of some sort on high capacity magazines.
2. A ban of some sort on assault weapons.
3. And closure of the gun show loophole.

I think it's a good start. A really good start.

Joey Michaels: Let's make things at least a little better right now and we can work on making them more and more and more better for the rest of our lives.

That's an excellent approach and for some reason, the way you stated it makes me feel incredibly hopeful about all this. Right on, man. Right fucking on.
posted by youandiandaflame at 3:48 PM on December 19, 2012 [3 favorites]

Flunkie: You know more about this than I do - since my proposed goal is to market to the same people that the NRA markets to, a similar video that would resonate with them (as you suggest) would certainly be better.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:49 PM on December 19, 2012

Flunkie: You know more about this than I do

I don't think that's true. All I'm saying is that particular video struck me as silly, so I think gun nuts would think it was even more silly.
posted by Flunkie at 3:55 PM on December 19, 2012

I didn't think it was that silly. Some of the shooters just sat there frozen so it didn't even matter if they were wearing clunky gloves or whatever. And some thought they had shot someone's head instead of their leg. There is a lot to the video besides that one simulation.

Also, the video really focuses on how important training is, which is what really struck me about it.

I mean, people who care more about machoness than saving lives will laugh at it (and I don't mean that all gun owners care more about machoness, but the ones who do), but they would laugh at anything and are the ones talking about arming teachers.
posted by sweetkid at 3:59 PM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

Man with 2x4 printed with the words "high powered rifle" walks into Virginia elementary school, also named "Sandy Hook," attempting to "prove a point." Is apprehended and arrested with disorderly conduct.
posted by raztaj at 4:07 PM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

The National Review author "guy" is Charlotte Allen.

Sorry, it didn't seem possible that that was written by a woman.
posted by Devils Rancher at 4:10 PM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

So what does Canada do? Get rid of a proposed law that would close a gun show loophole. WTFery?

Also, our gun laws advisory panel comprises gun supporters exclusively, several of whom are NFA funded. Again, WTF Canada?
posted by five fresh fish at 4:20 PM on December 19, 2012

Going Home, written by a Newtown High (and Sandy Hook Elem) alumni as he prepares to return home for the holidays.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:40 PM on December 19, 2012

Man with 2x4 printed with the words "high powered rifle" walks into Virginia elementary school, also named "Sandy Hook," attempting to "prove a point." Is ~~apprehended and arrested with disorderly conduct.~~ disarmed, pulverized with gimcrack by righteously furious school officials.
posted by Pudhoho at 4:42 PM on December 19, 2012

Sandy Hook Memorial at Fairfield Hills Facebook page.

Shared less to advocate their particular memorial plan (though it is a good one) and more for the links shared.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:44 PM on December 19, 2012

The Paul Simon thing is certainly a beautiful thought, and I can't criticize him for it without feeling like a jerk, but I do dread the media spectacle/celebrity aspect that seems very bad for the next batch of copycats out there.
posted by Mid at 4:50 PM on December 19, 2012

(Sorry, made that comment without realizing that the photo in the article is from a 9/11 memorial, not for the funeral; the picture was a big part of my discomfort.)
posted by Mid at 4:52 PM on December 19, 2012

I didn't think it was that silly. Some of the shooters just sat there frozen so it didn't even matter if they were wearing clunky gloves or whatever. And some thought they had shot someone's head instead of their leg.

None of them "just sat there frozen". Even the one that Diane Sawyer (?) said "freezes in place, hands on his desk!" didn't have both hands on his desk as she was saying that. Yes, he sat there, but he was reaching for his gun.

To be clear, I don't doubt that he'd have gotten killed anyway despite the fact that he was reaching for his gun. But Sawyer had a point she wanted to make, and she didn't care that the video being played as she was making that point directly and obviously contradicted it.

None of the other three "just sat there" at all, "frozen" or not. They all got up and moved. For one of them, she says "But then he just freezes!" or something, while he is taking cover and attempting to get his gun. While wearing the big weird gloves that they made him wear.

The one who was confused about whether she shot the guy in the head or the leg (A) was a novice shooter, and I doubt you'll find many gun enthusiasts who would be surprised that a novice isn't all that good at aiming, and (B) shot the guy. Not clear to me whether she did so before he shot her, of course, but the video didn't say one way or the other.

Again, I think it's entirely possible that a video like this might not be dumb. And of course many, most, or possibly even virtually all people are going to do worse in a real situation than gun nuts imagine themselves being able to do.

But come on. "Hey, here's a big honkin' helmet that certainly won't limit your vision or distract you at all, and here, put on these huge gloves that obviously won't limit your manual dexterity at all, and by the way, the shooter is going to be a supertrained cop who knows exactly which one of the twenty people in the room has a concealed weapon, but of course that won't affect how things play out in the least!"

It was just stupid. If those things really don't matter, they shouldn't have done them, and they certainly shouldn't have ignored the fact that they did them while presenting their analysis.
posted by Flunkie at 5:29 PM on December 19, 2012 [3 favorites]

Another recycled slogan: "Your right to bear arms is respected; your decision not to is appreciated."
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:50 PM on December 19, 2012 [6 favorites]

The gloves and helmets were to protect against the rounds which I'm guessing hit a little harder than paint balls. But yeah, it made me roll my eyes a bit even though I'm sympathetic to the point they were attempting to make (and failing here).
posted by BrotherCaine at 5:56 PM on December 19, 2012

Elliot Spitzer's been spearheading an interesting alternative approach to this; he's been calling attention to a specific private equity firm, Cerberus Capital, which invests a lot of its capital in gun companies - including the specific company that made the gun that Adam Lanza used. Spitzer has been encouraging people to call their pension funds and students to call the university and urge them to divest from Cerberus Capital, if they had stock there.

And it looks like Spitzer's efforts are already starting to pay off - Cerberus capital is divesting itself of the gun stock already.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:38 PM on December 19, 2012 [4 favorites]

Not to be overlooked is that the CEO of Cereberus's father lives in Newtown. Since it is a hedge fund, I'm sure a significant portion of their staff live in the Fairfield county area. My brother in laws company, another hedge fund, is based out of Darien. Their Christmas party on Friday was significantly more muted than usual as they had employees with children there.

It's sad that these companies won't take action until these problems happen literally in their back yard. The same goes for the response to the hurricane, when you have the CEOs of insurance companies without power or their main house destroyed then results happen.
posted by mrzarquon at 8:09 PM on December 19, 2012 [4 favorites]

One line from Joey Michaels's link up there:

"I can't get the image of children cowering out of my head."

Me neither.
posted by gaspode at 8:10 PM on December 19, 2012

I think if you show that video to a gun nut, they may very well (rightfully) laugh it off and (wrongfully) close their minds even further.

Well, I had that exact exchange. The person in question said "They set up a video to prove a straw man." Then we had a long exchange which was essentially people asking the question "In what way would a real situation differ from this situation? Be specific." There were no good answers to that - it all depends on "How much training? What kind of training? How many hours? What asymmetry? How recent the practice?," which is a bunch of quibbling that eventually comes down to asserting that, in order to be any good in this situation, you have to have as much training as a professional law enforcement agent (and even they do not want to find themselves in this situation, with all their skills and equipment and training in place). Given that concealed carry licensing in many states mandates nowhere near the level of training and regular practice that professional marksmen get, and some require no training at all, there is not reall a leg to stand on when claiming that the result in the video wouldn't be typical in any random situation.

You can quibble and nitpick, but the points stand - it's not a very easy thing to do, and the simulation visibly demonstrates why.
posted by Miko at 8:39 PM on December 19, 2012 [3 favorites]

How many of you donated money to the Brady Center?

Please note that money donated to the Brady Center and money donated to the Brady Campaign are not quite the same thing. The websites look the same but the donation links lead to different pages.

The Brady Center is the c3, and your contribution is tax deductible. The Brady Campaign is their c4-- they actively lobby for more sane gun legislation--and so your donations are not (in most cases) tax deductible.

To be clear, this is not sketchy or anything-- it's pretty standard for c3/c4's. Personally, I split my contribution between the two, but YMMV.
posted by dersins at 8:41 PM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

"I can't get the image of children cowering out of my head."

Me as well. I am so sorry, so sorry for everyone who died, that the last minutes they had to endure on this earth were what they were. I am so sorry for everyone who lived that they had to experience the dread, fear, yearning, and powerlessness that they did. No one can make up for that or apologize for that.

It is not pleasant to consider. However, I feel a duty to be a person who can consider that than a person who brushes it aside.
posted by Miko at 8:42 PM on December 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

it's pretty standard for c3/c4's

Not only standard, it's required, actually, to make a separation of activities. 501(c)3s are limited in their ability to lobby and can never endorse specific candidates. (c)4s are advocacy arms. Any (c)3 can also have a (c)4, but a (c)3 can't just use all its donated money to lobby candidates. There is definitely nothing sketchy about this; it's important in keeping activities separate ensuring that organizations meet the charitable purposes in their charter.
posted by Miko at 8:47 PM on December 19, 2012

Hmm, link led to a sketchy story about the Flashman guy who promoted the idea the the killer's mother was going to have him committed.

Oh, how I wish we still had reporters.

UNrelated - one of the better pieces I read today: Defending Masculinity with Guns:

Bushmaster, the company that made the rifle that Adam Lanza used to take 26 lives, based its advertising not on the need for self-defense but on the promise of manhood. Until it was pulled late on the afternoon of Monday December 17 (three days after the massacre in Connecticut), Bushmaster ran its “Man Card” campaign. “To become a card-carrying man,” the promotional material read, “visitors to bushmaster.com will have to prove they’re a man by answering a series of manhood questions. Upon successful completion, they will be issued a temporary Man Card.” The accompanying flash campaign included tips for how to “revoke the Man Card” of a male acquaintance who had done something that smacked of the feminine, such as eating tofu or willingly watching ice skating. (Bizarrely, in one image the company briefly declared that “Adam L” had had his Man Card revoked because he “avoids eye-contact with tough-looking 5th graders.”)

The “Man Card” campaign can only work in a culture where white masculinity is seen not only as fragile, but under attack. The modern enemy isn’t King George III and his Redcoats; it’s the emasculating influence of a culture in which women and ethnic minorities have gained access to what were once all white, all-male preserves.

posted by Miko at 8:53 PM on December 19, 2012 [14 favorites]

I think you will find non-white cultures just as ready to festishize weapons as symbols of masculinity.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:00 PM on December 19, 2012

Probably so. But is that what we want to intentionally aspire to? What about that marketing? Are we cool with playing on that to sell particularly threatening weapons? Would we shrug it off that way if it were being marketed to a different target audience - a religious or racial minority instead?

And it's not the whiteness/non-whiteness, but the threat to a formerly utterly dominant class that it may not longer hold sold dominance that creates a bit of a siren song that a weapon can help that mastery return to you.

The piece is a polemic, but again - people sat around a boardroom crafting that ad campaign, and they had plenty of research and testing, without doubt, to tell them that it would be effective with their target market.
posted by Miko at 9:02 PM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's not "quibbling and nitpicking" to point out that the "shooter" was a highly trained cop -- in fact a cop who trains other cops -- who has likely done this simulation dozens of times, and who knew exactly which single solitary person out of twenty had a concealed weapon, and who homed in on that person immediately after shooting the instructor, ignoring all others.

Nor is it "quibbling and nitpicking" to point out that they intentionally made the person wear gear that limited their vision, their spatial awareness, probably their hearing, and their manual dexterity.

Nor is it "quibbling and nitpicking" to point out, in light of that, that at least two of the three definite failures significantly involved a failure of manual dexterity.

Nor is it "quibbling and nitpicking" to point out that in one of the four cases, a total novice successfully shot the attacker. It's possible or perhaps even probable that he shot her first, but even that would not take into account either the absurd limiting gear that she was made to wear or the fact that the attacker was a highly trained cop who trains other cops, who has likely done this simulation dozens of times, and who homed in on the total novice immediately due to knowing in advance that she and only she had a concealed weapon.

I'll shut up about this video now, after repeating one final time: I don't doubt that the conclusions drawn by this video may very well be valid to a large degree, or maybe even essentially totally. But this video doesn't show that. I'd be interested in seeing one that does.
posted by Flunkie at 9:05 PM on December 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

who homed in on that person immediately after shooting the instructor, ignoring all others.

I have a feeling that, if you were the attacker, you'd "home in" on the only other person tryign to shoot back at you, too.

they intentionally made the person wear gear that limited their vision, their spatial awareness, probably their hearing, and their manual dexterity.

Because in real life, at work, at school, in the mall, in a restaurant, at a gym, you're always wearing comfortable clothing and have perfect visibility and movement? You're never unbuckling your baby from his car seat? You're never taking off your winter coat? You're never looking at the menu? You're never listening to a podcast? You're never writing an exam answer with your body slouched over a blue book? You're a vigilant automaton?

in one of the four cases, a total novice successfully shot the attacker

In the leg. And she'd probably already been shot, and even if not, he wouldn't have gone down from that thigh-flesh shot. And then she would've been shot - in the torso, several times.

And there's no reason to assume the random attacker would't have far far far more training and practice than the would-be defender. The attacker has often been planning, scouting, and practicing for months; I expect them to be honed and ready. Your average dime-store weekend superhero, not so much. I've been appalled, actually, in having conversations with non-professional people who own/carry guns over the last few days, to discover that training and practice is really not a thing for them. They are really not putting in a lot of time - certainly not the kind of time, nor the kind of training, that would enable you to deal with these sorts of situations. They aren't required to by law, and it costs money, and they are pretty sanguine that going to the firing range a few times a year - or even every week - with their buddies is adequate. When every analysis by law enforcement that I've seen emphasizes that that shallow regimen is nowhere near adequate.

We could mount a bunch more simulations; that's not going to change the fact that a pretty damn generous percentage of people who feel like they would be just awesome in this situation are full of shit, and are far from ready to deal with it. They would be adding to the number of bullets in the air and taking out a few more bystanders in the process. Listen - there's a reason why we have a whole bagful of stories about armed rampage shooters taking out groups of people, and very few, and very lame and outlier-type, stories about armed vigilantes saving the day in a shootout with a suicide-bent rampage killer.

I don't really need more simulations; the VPC book cites enough testimony and study to convince me. What I really would like to see is the research the NRA has been opposing, a comprehensive survey of gun incidents that lets us see the real, overall picture of risk vs. gain of allowing regular, poorly trained citizen gun handling.
posted by Miko at 9:16 PM on December 19, 2012 [11 favorites]

I don't doubt that the conclusions drawn by this video may very well be valid to a large degree, or maybe even essentially totally. But this video doesn't show that. I'd be interested in seeing one that does.

I'm with Miko on this. Think about it this way, which is slightly different from the premise of that video: how do the past couple of days' "rush the shooter" arguments exist alongside a concept of firearms for "home defense" in which the choice is often based (see previous AskMes on the topic) on avoiding being rushed? It's either a logical absurdity, or premised upon a belief that the defender is always going to be quicker, faster, better trained, has [deity] on their side, or some other intangible advantage. And that functions more like a religious belief than one grounded in fact.

If that belief is sufficiently locked in then no amount of simulations will dissipate the strawman argument.
posted by holgate at 10:42 PM on December 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

And it's not the whiteness/non-whiteness, but the threat to a formerly utterly dominant class that it may not longer hold sold dominance that creates a bit of a siren song that a weapon can help that mastery return to you.

I dunno, Miko. I'm with you on just about everything here, and think the points in that article about the Bushmaster campaign reliance on "fragile masculinity" are sharp, but I am not convinced we have enough evidence at this point to claim that white male privilege explains this episode in a meaningful way, particularly if the killer was shamed and abused by his peers all his life. I can imagine plenty of scenarios where "I'M NOT GETTING WHAT MY DOMINANT CLASS UPBRINGING LED ME TO BELIEVE WAS MY DUE" winds up being not very important to why this guy did what he did. Just seems too quick and easy at this point.

The framing is intriguing, I'll say that; it makes sense to me as a possibility. Let's wait and see if the evidence backs it up.
posted by mediareport at 11:02 PM on December 19, 2012

I think it's about the element of surprise. Like in a home defense situation once the attacker loses the element of surprise, the victim can turn the tables pretty quickly if they are able to fight back, are prepared and maybe even have some cover.

Surprise shootings kind of work on the same dynamic.
posted by neversummer at 11:06 PM on December 19, 2012

That ABC video was not produced to illustrate what would happen; it was produced to illustrate what could happen. It's as valid an illustration of that as a CCW advocate bullishly asserting that armed kindergarten teachers are the answer -- because you can only back that position if you presume that none of the bad scenarios will happen. Frankly, I tend to think it would go more like this.

And then instead of George Zimmermann we can have a nice national conversation about the kindergarten teacher who accidentally shot the kindergartners. Won't that be pleasant.
posted by dhartung at 11:41 PM on December 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

Home Defence should not mean stalking someone through your house. It means securing children and family members and then taking a stand at, for example, the top of the stairs or the bedroom. In this instance a smaller magazine capacity is not relevant as the invader will essentially be funnelled to the defender. The defender should announce that police are on their way and that they are armed and then basically sit and wait for a) the invader to either walk into their field of fire or b) the invader to run away. The idea of hunting someone through your own house is stupid.

The ABC video actually does a good job of simulating the loss of fine motor control and tunnel vision experienced when under pressure. The sort of shooter who denies this is the sort of shooter that imagines themselves to be considerably better than they actually are. I'd happily disabuse them of the notion but they are so wrapped up in their Walter Mitty world that most will deny that 20-30 hours practice (or worse - watching DVDs!) is insufficient to overcome these physical obstacles.

I've been watching a lot of pro-firearms blogs and so forth over last few days - as it stands right now most online stores have completely sold out of hi capacity magazines and .223/5.56mm ammo. It's unbelievable how quick that has happened. Magpul 30 round magazines were selling for double the price on many sites and have still sold out.

Current thing on the pro-gun side is that there is definitely a change coming. They genuinely seem concerned that the tides are turning. Smith & Wesson have suffered a 9.99% stock drop, Sturm, Ruger & Company suffered a 7.73% stock drop. Some shooter blogs are spouting the most ridiculous shit you ever heard. Because China's official news organ commented that US gun laws were nuts the gun blogs are saying that this plays into a plan by China to "soften up" the US for invasion. It's ludicrous Red Dawn bullshit.

Some have other ideas, such as blaming Obama for not mentioning mental health care during his first term and this holding him personally responsible. Can anyone think of the last time a Republican president mentioned mental health care ever? It's absolutely another world and the filters that these people are viewing it through are just so askew. As someone who has been reading and taking part in it for several years (without agreeing with any of it I might add) it's depressing to see the heels digging in and a refusal to acknowledge reality. I'd share more of the opinions I've read but they are just too depressing.
posted by longbaugh at 1:27 AM on December 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

> Because China's official news organ commented that US gun laws were nuts the gun blogs are saying that this plays into a plan by China to "soften up" the US for invasion.

That's just silly.
Has Xi Jinping's daughter graduated from Harvard, yet?
posted by de at 2:15 AM on December 20, 2012

Because China's official news organ commented that US gun laws were nuts the gun blogs are saying that this plays into a plan by China to "soften up" the US for invasion.

Haha! There's no need to invade a country you already own.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:29 AM on December 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

a plan by China to "soften up" the US for invasion.

Hah! You think your kung fu is stronger than my kung fu?

well... you're right
posted by flapjax at midnite at 3:19 AM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Home Defence should not mean stalking someone through your house

Stalking intruders is the antithesis of home defense.

In all situations, whether at home or in public, confrontation is the least desirable action - exercised only when absolutely necessary, after all other avenues are exhausted. Flight to safely is of course the best defense. Get out of harms way. Call the cops and let them round up the bad guys.

The sad fact is most of the folks walking around armed don't know their ass from a hole in the ground with regard to basic gun handling, let alone how to behave under fire. It's not something acquired automatically when issued a CCW, and no matter how much was spent on the name-brand pistol (the one the SEALS use!). Sure, you can legally carry a concealed pistol, but are you truly qualified to do so? Or will you wind up like this sad sack? It requires an open mind, the desire to learn and hours of practice in order to simply not be a goddamned hazard to public safety when armed. Acquire those skills or leave the guns at home.

Am I "pro-gun"? You bet. I'm also, first and foremost, pro gun safety. Those who truly cherish the right to bear arms don't treat it, or their firearms, casually. Now is the time for responsible gun owners to wrest control of the NRA from the gun lobby and return the organization to its original purpose. The right to freedom from fear is equal to the right to bear arms.
posted by Pudhoho at 3:43 AM on December 20, 2012 [8 favorites]

The right to freedom from fear is equal to the right to bear arms.

I would characterize "freedom from fear" as living in a country with strict enough gun control so that I am virtually 100% sure that neither I nor my friends or loved ones will ever be shot. I live in such a country (Japan), and am therefore fortunate enough to enjoy this genuine freedom from fear. If the citizenry here had the "right to bear arms" that we see in the US, this is not a freedom that I could enjoy.

Am I "anti-gun"? You bet.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:27 AM on December 20, 2012 [6 favorites]

BuzzFeed: In the wake of the Newtown, Conn. shooting, a Mormon Church-owned company announced Tuesday night it was suspending all gun listings on its popular classifieds site.

In addition to removing gun listings, KSL.com — the online hub for Salt Lake City's NBC affiliate, which is operated by church-owned Deseret Digital Media — took down the "Firearms and Hunting" section from its website. A company statement that replaces the site's gun section says they were "profoundly saddened" by the Newtown shooting.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:42 AM on December 20, 2012

Yes, about 5 seconds worth, somewhat insignifant if the shooter is using breath control anyway.

5 seconds and 24 rounds. Considering that most gun fights last around 10 seconds, 5 is quite significant, even if you use "breath control".
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 4:42 AM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

I read: The (fundamental) right to freedom from fear is equal to the (American) right to bear arms.

Spiders, snakes and dropbears aside, the right to freedom from fear is something I expect living in Australia, too. The right to bear arms is entirely parochial, and not some neglected universal right that I feel compelled to lobby for globally.

Unfortunately some Americans experience debilitating fear when unarmed. Post Armed Stress Disorder is probably without treatment.
posted by de at 5:09 AM on December 20, 2012

The right to bear arms is entirely parochial, and not some neglected universal right that I feel compelled to lobby for globally.

No one in this thread has suggested you do any such thing.
posted by Pudhoho at 5:31 AM on December 20, 2012

I'm well aware of that.
posted by de at 5:33 AM on December 20, 2012

Because in real life, at work, at school, in the mall, in a restaurant, at a gym, you're always wearing comfortable clothing and have perfect visibility and movement? You're never unbuckling your baby from his car seat? You're never taking off your winter coat? You're never looking at the menu? You're never listening to a podcast? You're never writing an exam answer with your body slouched over a blue book? You're a vigilant automaton?

I've seen several International Practical Shooting Confederation set up by men, none of which appeared to acknowledge those realities. A buddy told me about one set up by a group of women which had things like setting a doll (representing a baby) down on the ground behind cover before drawing and firing, or dropping shopping bags and a purse, and one where you had to take off an apron halfway to get to your holster. He was kind of impressed at the thought that went into it, and he'd already been through police academy.

I guess I feel like concealed carry permits would be okay for people who train over 50 hours per year.
posted by BrotherCaine at 5:42 AM on December 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

I am not convinced we have enough evidence at this point to claim that white male privilege explains this episode in a meaningful way

Listen, I'm now sorry I posted it, as I was certainly not presenting it as a literal thesis as to what caused this incident. I simply thought the discussion of gun marketing was important food for thought as it illuminates the complex of false social ideas we have encrusted around the issue of guns. Hopefully that's all I need to say about it further.

Random pre-coffee idea: because in the conversations about this I've discovered that a lot of people whose judgment and wisdom and character I do not have particularly good confidence in are carriers and/or owners, and have also discovered that they are quite cavalier, in general, about the time they spend training and keeping their skills current, I started thinking about the "well-regulated militia" thing again. One thing a militia does is train. Heck, I live about 50 yards away from a public park that spent the late 1700s-early 1800s as the drill ground for the local militia; they had training days weekly where they went through a variety of exercises, passed qualifying tests, etc. So, it's a tongue-in-cheek idea but still, imagine that we said "great: because the Bill of Rights guarantees your ability to keep and own weapons as part of a well-regulated militia, since you have applied to own a weapon, you are now part of the Seventh Town Militia, under the direction of your Captain, required to muster at 7 AM every Saturday and participate in mandatory training until 6 PM." Training could include firearms care and practice, emergency simulations, range practice, lectures and study. The commanders, appointed from the standing military and accountable to its structure as part of the "well regulated" thing, along with their staff, would know personally and have abundant opportunity to observe every individual's level of skill and self-controls, and could take steps to inculcate responsible habits and ideas. Regular training musters would create opportuities for inspection and updated licensing and registration. A certain degree of participation in training hours annually would be a requirement for current licensing. If as a gun owner you couldn't qualify for the militia standards of regulation, you would not be able to keep your gun at home. All of this, and any violations of the system, would be backed by force of law.

It's a ridiculous idea, but one that at least as a thought experiment demonstrates the kind of thing that people had in mind when they said "well-regulated militia." If I thought that some of the people I know who I wish weren't carrying weapons around were at least required to keep their skills up to this level and be in this carefully monitored and supervised a situation, it would improve their own arguments that they should have unlimited access to this technology. I wonder how they, so admiring of the colonial militiamen, would respond to this concept.
posted by Miko at 5:55 AM on December 20, 2012 [11 favorites]

over 50 hours per year.

That's not a lot. Compare, induction training for the FBI. Also, not just the length, but the content of training is important.
posted by Miko at 5:57 AM on December 20, 2012

Miko: In re: to your suggestion (which is, frankly, perfect), if I understand correctly this is slightly akin to how it is in Switzerland. Males are issued a firearm and then trained for the militia of the government. When one is discharged from that obligation of service, they may keep their weapon but they must turn it in for reconfiguring. If one doesn't do so, they lose their weapon. Beyond that, if you decide to keep your weapon, you must own it with the proper permit and one is not allowed to tote that weapon outdoors or in public (unless they have a special permit, which is typically only allowed for those who work in security).

This helps to insure that nearly everyone with a weapon is properly trained, at least as much as one can be. You're right, it won't ever happen, but it is a great idea.

Also: The Lepore piece in the New Yorker linked upthread was incredibly enlightening for me in terms of this country's history with guns and how the NRA has changed over the years and completely morphed into something dangerous and ludicrous. If you've not read it, it's pretty much essential reading for this debate, imo.
posted by youandiandaflame at 6:07 AM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Wow. While poking around to discover training protocols for current law enforcement, I found this 2010 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, and the first article is about structuring response to school shootings. IT is a fascinating (and horribly distressing) read, but brings up many of the points made here and elsewhere in response to what the school could/should have done. It raises a set of practical problems that exist in school environments that complicate response - for instance:

Armed Citizen Responders
The arrival of armed citizen responders (ACR) at a rural school under siege should
be anticipated. The chances of parental response are elevated and more complex in rural communities. Many families own ﬁrearms, and residents often serve on volunteer emergency squads with around-the-clock notiﬁcation of unfolding events. The odds are great that the ﬁrst responders to arrive at the scene will be concerned parents, amateurs with an emotional investment in the event, little training, and no coordination. Even those trained as ﬁrst responders may not have the skills needed for a coordinated defense of a school, which becomes a special complicating factor for rural activeshooter responses. It also places a premium on broadcasting information about the intruder: identity if known or at least a reliable description.Further complications could arise in areas where older students have some kind of weapon in their vehicles for after-school activities (e.g., during hunting season). Some students may travel with ﬁrearms for protection if they live in an area populated with dangerous wildlife (e.g., bears in Alaska). Because rural students tend to be familiar with ﬁrearms and hunting knives, rural response may involve other students assuming an ACR role in reaction to an attack.Police normally discourage citizen intervention in dynamic scenes for the same reason they recommend lockdown and silence: unidentiﬁed citizens introduce an element of confusion into a highly volatile landscape. Any person carrying a weapon may be the shooter and, thus, a target for other ACR and and for arriving law enforcement ofﬁcers.
posted by Miko at 6:08 AM on December 20, 2012 [15 favorites]

Some businesses (Walmart amongst them) have started to remove AR15s from sale whilst others are doing amazing trade. A lot of online stores have temporarily ceased trading firearms whilst still selling ammo and related products (optics, suppressors, hi-cap magazines etc). Some stores have completely sold out of AR-15s and .223/5.56mm ammunition with some reportedly cleared their shelves before midday. Certainly whatever else is happening, the gun store owners are no doubt happy as some have been reportedly making over $100,000/day with the sales spike.

I mentioned ealier that Sturm, Ruger and & Co stock has dipped ~7% - it then came to my atention that their share prices have increased by ~400% since 2008 when Obama was voted in. Stock assessments for both S&W and Ruger show that the prices are dipping heavily right now as the assumption of a "sporting rifles" ban will impact the companies quite significantly. They still predict rampant sales up to the enactment of any ban however which certainly ties in with what has been seen on the shelves of most gun stores. One commenter even said "Obama should be awarded salesman of the year" by the gun industry.

Training wise, some of the best folks out there (imo trainers like Travis Haley, Larry Vickers et al) offer fantastic traning with a strong emphasis on realism but the average course is just a few days at most and with maybe 8-12 hours a day that $750 course, no matter what content, is going to add up to maybe 30 hours of experience, a lot of which is not actually practice but devoted to range safety etc. I wouldn't trust someone with 30 hours of training in any role to do much more than screw everything up so that FBI report is absolutely no surprise to me at all.

Should a high-capacity magazine ban take place there should be a major effort to buy back extended magazines. As it stands I would not be surprised to find that tens or even hundreds of thousands have been sold over the past few days. With gun show and private sales any ban would be effectively worthless without addressing the sheer number of hi-cap mags out there already in circulation.
posted by longbaugh at 6:28 AM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

The Lepore piece in the New Yorker linked upthread was incredibly enlightening for me in terms of this country's history with guns and how the NRA has changed over the years and completely morphed into something dangerous and ludicrous. If you've not read it, it's pretty much essential reading for this debate, imo.

Yep. From the history lesson starting on page 5 (taken from Adam Winkler's book):

...firearms have been regulated in the United States from the start. Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893, the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.”

Although these laws were occasionally challenged, they were rarely struck down in state courts; the state’s interest in regulating the manufacture, ownership, and storage of firearms was plain enough. Even the West was hardly wild. “Frontier towns handled guns the way a Boston restaurant today handles overcoats in winter,” Winkler writes. “New arrivals were required to turn in their guns to authorities in exchange for something like a metal token.” In Wichita, Kansas, in 1873, a sign read, “Leave Your Revolvers at Police Headquarters, and Get a Check.” The first thing the government of Dodge did when founding the city, in 1873, was pass a resolution that “any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law.” On the road through town, a wooden billboard read, “The Carrying of Firearms Strictly Prohibited.”

Miko: I'm now sorry I posted it

Please don't be; I appreciated the details of the Bushmaster ad campaign and think the role of white privilege in mass shootings is something we should be talking about. Apologies for making it seem otherwise.
posted by mediareport at 6:38 AM on December 20, 2012 [5 favorites]

longbaugh writes "I've been watching a lot of pro-firearms blogs and so forth over last few days - as it stands right now most online stores have completely sold out of hi capacity magazines and .223/5.56mm ammo. It's unbelievable how quick that has happened. Magpul 30 round magazines were selling for double the price on many sites and have still sold out."

I'm not sure why that is unbelievable, at least on the hi cap mag front. It seems likely that if any federal legislation is passed in the wake of this tragedy that it will in whole or part be a clone of the previous assault weapon ban. Which means if you want a hi cap mag you should buy it before the looming ban and also that pre-ban mags will appreciate in value. A pre-ban mag under assault weapon ban II is a better hedge against inflation than most anything I can think of because it is a fairly liquid asset with minimal carrying costs (in moderate quantities) that is appreciating in value even if you make moderate use of it.

Did the Assault weapon ban incorporate any sort of buy back program? Considering what legally constitutes a gun in the US and how you can stamp that part out of a shovel a buy back program has the potential to be a serious boondoogle.
posted by Mitheral at 6:39 AM on December 20, 2012

The Brady Bill was a huge boondoggle. I remember attending gun shows where a vendor would sell guns beside the high-capacity mags that were illeagal to sell together. A purchaser would buy the gun and ammo then "leave" (read: let another customer buy something) then "return" and buy the mag in a "seperate" purchase. Because of the gun show loopholes, there was no waiting. At the time the market was being flooded with Warsaw Pact surplus and an "assault rifle" could be had easily as long as it had a small clip attached during the initial purchase.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 6:53 AM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Speaking of white privilege, a black writer on my Twitter feed remarked "How long would it take to ban these guns if black men were the ones buying them up like crazy right now?"
posted by emjaybee at 6:54 AM on December 20, 2012 [27 favorites]

So, it's a tongue-in-cheek idea but still, imagine that we said "great: because the Bill of Rights guarantees your ability to keep and own weapons as part of a well-regulated militia, since you have applied to own a weapon, you are now part of the Seventh Town Militia, under the direction of your Captain, required to muster at 7 AM every Saturday and participate in mandatory training until 6 PM."

Your idea is not ridiculous at all. Just the opposite, it's completely rational. What's irrational is that the state where I live is obliged to issue a concealed pistol permit to anyone over 21 who has a relatively clean record and $60 within 30 days of application. There's no firearms law/safety training or range qualification requirements whatsoever. It's easier than getting a drivers license.
I strongly support firearms ownership and I am equally insistent that ownership of firearms come with the requirement to: understand and obey the law, scrupulously follow safe handling and storage practices and train on regular basis.
People also must absolutely understand that their pistol permit does not transform them into law enforcement officers, and that inserting themselves into shooting incidents is more often a liability that exponentially increases the danger created by the original perpetrator. If people want to own guns then they must follow through with the responsibilities required by gun ownership.
posted by Pudhoho at 6:56 AM on December 20, 2012 [5 favorites]

So far as I am aware it did not Mitheral and I agree that to operate a buy back would certainly cause a number of problems. I'm always open to suggestions as to what can be done. I am not familiar enough with US law to see if there is some way to get hi-cap mags out of private hands but any efforts to do so will be worth it since as it stands I'd be fairly confident that the magazines used in this most recent shooting were more than likely pre-AWB magazines.
posted by longbaugh at 6:57 AM on December 20, 2012

Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias

The JPost has an article up discussing Israeli gun control regulations.
posted by zarq at 7:29 AM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

In actual situations, bringing a pistol to an assault rifle fight is ineffective.

Also, along with what Miko said about that simulation, the participants did have the advantage of being recently trained and expecting an attack at some point that day. Additionally although it was undoubtedly stressful, they knew they weren't actually killing people or at risk of death. Most important, they were facing someone shooting a pistol, not volume killers. Even if you want to argue that they had unfair disadvantages, I think you have to consider that they had some advantages.
posted by mdn at 7:53 AM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

"How long would it take to ban these guns if black men were the ones buying them up like crazy right now?"

I am curious when the racial profiling of white males begins, since they commit most of the mass shootings in America.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:08 AM on December 20, 2012 [9 favorites]

it does sound like something a Northeast librul would say, but the idea that racism is at work in the gun culture makes sense in a lot of ways
posted by angrycat at 8:27 AM on December 20, 2012

Identify the Gun-Control Quote: Obama, Feinstein, or Reagan?
posted by Drinky Die at 8:28 AM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

> UNrelated - one of the better pieces I read today: Defending Masculinity with Guns:

Miko, you know what ad I saw while reading this article?

This.
posted by mrzarquon at 8:33 AM on December 20, 2012

> but the idea that racism is at work in the gun culture makes sense in a lot of ways

Idea? I think it is pretty much fact that fear of minorities and 'urban gangs' is what the gun lobbyists are stoking in hopes of getting people to buy their guns. There is an undercurrent of racism in this country that really comes to the surface around things like gun control and concealed carry.

If the shooter at Newtown was Black? And suspected of being in a gang? There would have been lynchings.

I would love to see the reactions at a gun show if a group of black men showed up and all started purchasing high capacity magazines and ar15s for hunting at the rate white guys are doing right now.
posted by mrzarquon at 8:43 AM on December 20, 2012 [10 favorites]

Your idea is not ridiculous at all. Just the opposite, it's completely rational. What's irrational is that the state where I live is obliged to issue a concealed pistol permit to anyone over 21 who has a relatively clean record and $60 within 30 days of application. There's no firearms law/safety training or range qualification requirements whatsoever. It's easier than getting a drivers license.
I strongly support firearms ownership and I am equally insistent that ownership of firearms come with the requirement to: understand and obey the law, scrupulously follow safe handling and storage practices and train on regular basis.
People also must absolutely understand that their pistol permit does not transform them into law enforcement officers, and that inserting themselves into shooting incidents is more often a liability that exponentially increases the danger created by the original perpetrator. If people want to own guns then they must follow through with the responsibilities required by gun ownership.

Here's a similar suggestion that should be applied to any logical "Consititutional originalist" arguments:

Seeing as how the Second Amendment confers the right to bear arms to "a well regulated militia," if you absolutely must own a gun, then you are required to join a localized militia under state or federal regulation. This could be the existing National Guard or individual State Defense Forces (both of which are defined as militia under US law), or one created by legislatures. As members of the militia, you are required to register your firearms with them and are subject to federal laws regarding the training, physical and mental competency, and judicial requirements of the applicable militia service. If you fail to meet the requirements of training, or are found to be in violation of the tenets of the militia that would result in a discharge, you are removed from the militia and required to hand over your firearms until such time as you can prove capable of meeting the requirements again.

What this means is: You fail to attend all required courses for basic training and regular annual drills/training with a passing mark, you're out and you hand your firearms over. You fail to meet physical and/or mental competency requirements*, you're out and you hand your firearms over. You cause the injury or death of someone through accidental or intentional misuse, you're out and you hand your firearms over. You commit a serious misdemeanor or felony, you're out and you hand your firearms over. You commit alcohol or legal but controlled substance infractions while in the possession of a weapon, you're out and you hand your firearms over. If you commit a hate crime or are found to be a member of a group regularly advocating violence towards people based on race, religion, nation of origin, perceived gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability, you're out and you hand your firearms over. If you fail to heed the orders of a commanding officer of the militia in the course of being called to or undergoing the duties of the militia, you're out and you hand your firearms over. If you fail to report to any basic duty assignment without a valid medical, judicial, or educational reason (and you can not be fired for militia duty), you're out and you hand your firearms over. If you you are found to have illegally modified your firearms or to have obtained weapons for which you do not have the additional licensure requirements (such as machine guns and Destructive Devices per the NFA), you're out and you hand your firearms over.

Those who are dismissed from militia service for any of the above reasons and have had their firearms confiscated shall be allowed to attempt to rejoin the militia after a set time applicable to their infraction or failure to meet requirements. Anyone dismissed from militia service found purchasing or owning unregistered firearms, or found to have committed any infraction listed above, or operating a firearm not registered to them, is subject to financial and judicial punishment as well as an extension of their period of dismissal. As this is a requirement, any service in the militia is compensated at a rate similar to extant National Guard or SDF rates based on Drill, Annual Training, or Active Duty services at completion. Service benefits, including health care, education, and any retirement (if applicable) are included as long as you serve competently and unless you commit any of the above infractions, at which time they are removed along with your firearms.

* For those with pre-existing physical disabilities, any or all relevant physical requirements will be waived, but no less than annual training and testing on the operation of a firearm will still be required, with provisions for doing so at-home or approved facilities for convenience.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:44 AM on December 20, 2012 [8 favorites]

I keep thinking about all these people who think you should rush a shooter.

Almost 20 years ago now, maybe actually 20 years ago, I had someone shoot up my car that was parked about 10' from the front of the apartment I was living in in Houston, where I grew up. (It turned out later to be a criminal whose girlfriend lived in our complex; he was convicted of capital murder among many other crimes, escaped from Death Row, and was ultimately executed.) I don't think about that much, but I remember what I did: hit the floor and lay there and waited for it to be over.

I'm a native Texan and for all that I think the NRA is full of crazy and a manufacturer lobby that operates to the detriment of shooters and society, I don't have a problem with guns themselves, if used safely and rationally. I'd used a handgun, been taught how to use it, discussed having one for home defense. I'm not sure I would have done any differently if I'd had a handgun.

A lot of these armchair heroes underestimate what it takes to get into a gunfight. (Or maybe overestimate it, or themselves.) It's not like in the movies. Having gunfire go off around you is terrifying. And the thought of all those teachers doing what they did in Newtown while the shootings were going on? That's heroism in my book.
posted by immlass at 8:45 AM on December 20, 2012 [14 favorites]

The problem with the idea to put gun owners in militias is that the militias would be pointless. We have no military use for them so why pay for them?
posted by Drinky Die at 8:53 AM on December 20, 2012

> The problem with the idea to put gun owners in militias is that the militias would be pointless. We have no military use for them so why pay for them?

Who said pay them? It could be a volunteer organization funded by donations and membership fees (or registration fees).

Give them paramedic and first responder training, disaster recovery, search and rescue courses. Also how about community organization and stewardship? If they want to own guns to protect this country, then they have to realize that owning guns is just a fragment of what it takes.

Having a trained group of what would be volunteer firefighters, paramedics and first responders, along with disaster recovery and community organizers would be a great way to help disaster areas bounce back after an emergency. From a state level, paying for a handful of full time employees to handle all of this in exchange for a disaster relief network isn't a bad trade off.
posted by mrzarquon at 8:59 AM on December 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

Don't we already pay for people like that, except they're called the National Guard?
posted by lullaby at 9:02 AM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

The problem with the idea to put gun owners in militias is that the militias would be pointless. We have no military use for them so why pay for them?

Then cut the extant military funding to re-achieve parity.

Don't we already pay for people like that, except they're called the National Guard?

As I pointed out above, the National Guard is considered a militia under Federal law.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:12 AM on December 20, 2012

The thing about militias is we needed them back when we didn't have a standing army, or at least one capable of shouldering the burden of national defense. We do now, and then some, so the militia thing is an anachronism.

The Constitution and its amendments need to be looked at with some understanding of the fact that the country and world have evolved over 230+ years. While I'd be perfectly happy with a "strict constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution wherein all private citizens are allowed to possess and use only the best firearm technology available when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, modern gun owners would laugh at such a statement, and rightly so. At the same time, they would not accept a reading of the framers' intent that limits gun ownership to a well-regulated militia needed to defend the country from foreign invaders.

In other words, strict constructionism for me, but not for thee. It's okay to allow our understanding of amendments to "evolve" over time if it results in the right policy outcomes.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:16 AM on December 20, 2012

I think you will find non-white cultures just as ready to festishize weapons as symbols of masculinity.

Maybe, but American whites are much more likely to own a gun than non-whites.
posted by shothotbot at 9:19 AM on December 20, 2012

While I'd be perfectly happy with a "strict constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution wherein all private citizens are allowed to possess and use only the best firearm technology available when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, modern gun owners would laugh at such a statement, and rightly so. At the same time, they would not accept a reading of the framers' intent that limits gun ownership to a well-regulated militia needed to defend the country from foreign invaders.

In other words, strict constructionism for me, but not for thee. It's okay to allow our understanding of amendments to "evolve" over time if it results in the right policy outcomes.

You mean positing a "strict constructionist" argument that comes into conflict with modern law and wouldn't be feasible or acceptable to those that are asking us to do so for the Second Amendment was inevitable?

I am shocked, shocked, I tell you!
posted by zombieflanders at 9:24 AM on December 20, 2012

Re: paying for a militia approach - I think, more than anything, what we'd be paying for is gun safety. The fact that these people would be trained up as emergency responders is just a bonus. Certainly it's a controversial idea, but the thing I like about it as a thought experiment is that it addresses a fundamental problem I have with current gun laws: we trust soldiers and police officers with weapons because they are trained and accountable. Why do we trust random people off the street when they are neither?

And the thing is, you don't need to make this cover the farmers and ranchers and hunters. It's like the attitudes in the early years of the US covered in that Lepore New Yorker article:

None of this had anything to do with hunting. People who owned and used long arms to hunt continued to own and use them; the Second Amendment was not commonly understood as having any relevance to the shooting of animals. As Garry Wills once wrote, “One does not bear arms against a rabbit.”

With the militia thing, you can take an Australia-like approach to hunters and farmers, and make sure that most of the people running around with weapons for personal protection or hobby purposes are well-trained and at least doing the bare minimum in earning the trust society places in them.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:30 AM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

“One does not bear arms against a rabbit.”

What if it has huge, razor sharp teeth?
posted by Big_B at 9:33 AM on December 20, 2012 [8 favorites]

Pepper Spray, or Bear Off, available at all leading supermarkets should do the trick.
posted by de at 9:38 AM on December 20, 2012

NOTE: I'm only posting the following as an attempt at documenting what's flying around out there. My cousin posted this to her FB with the note "I don't know what to think!" (she leans conservative). It's a lovely mishmash of every rumor we've heard so far, with a dash of OMG UN to boot.

Excerpt:
No, something stinks here. The lack of eye witnesses of the shooter confirming the single shooter account is BLARINGLY absent. The reports of a second shooter in the woods has suddenly disappeared. The reporters are not grilling the one and only witness we know of- this little boy. Please don’t say they suddenly have even a smidge of conscience. The original statements about the shooter being buzzed into the school have simply disappeared. I was ready to let this go and explain it away as simple confusion. I was maddened by the timing and circumstances of the tragedy as concerns the upcoming UN small arms treaty & gun control. It killed me that this wack-job used LEGALLY REGISTERED weapons to do his killing. There is NO OTHER CONCLUSION, if the story is accurate, than the fact that had Adam Lanza NOT had access to those legal guns, he could never have killed those kids. He was too mentally ill to have gotten those weapons himself. He was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome and we now know that he had many, many interventions by school officials in the past. I felt that the killing of little children would be the strongest argument yet that we should clamp down on gun ownership. I just couldn’t believe the TIMING and circumstances of this event- a GIFT to the Progressives to disarm us. Who can argue with this case? I was ready for the inevitable.

I responded rather mildly with a few lines to my cousin, just pointing out some of the obvious falsehoods and asking her not to believe wild Internet rumors. But yeah...it's out there.
posted by emjaybee at 9:38 AM on December 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

From a state level, paying for a handful of full time employees to handle all of this in exchange for a disaster relief network isn't a bad trade off.

I think, more than anything, what we'd be paying for is gun safety.

Yeah, and that's where it comes from. Going back up to MuffinMan's great comment about the economic view of the situation, right now we privatize gun ownership and socialize its costs. With talk of putting an armed police offer in every school fulltime (as though one cop could take out a suicidal attacker with a high-volume gun, but I digress), we're already looking at ideas that indicate that people are willing to make a significant public investment. Why should we pay for gun access that way instead of paying for training the most responsible owners? And I agree, once you've got a group of people with some skills, they can not only help pay their own way, maybe through auxiliaries and other fundraisers and so on, but provide other public services. Because they are organized, after all, they could have a prescribed, specific role in municipal, county or state disaster response, for instance. Having an organized and ready group of people with a good range of safety training is invaluable in the case of, say, a Hurricane Sandy. I know we already have a National Guard, but their remit is a lot broader than what I'm considering here. For instance, we could stipulate that we never deploy militia overseas.
posted by Miko at 9:43 AM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yeah, the National Guard can easily be stretched too thin between state and national commitments. As for how these militias could be used, do it like volunteer firemen: they aren't called to respond to every emergency, but they're there when the emergency is large enough or the fire department can't respond quickly enough.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:50 AM on December 20, 2012

I believe our GOVERNMENT shot those kids and teachers and used Adam Lanza and his family to pull it off.

Holy....just...oy.

"I don't know what to think!"

This phrase seems to recur among the extremely credulous, as if they are genuinely struggling with the idea that the rumor could be real and can find no way to resolve the inner conflict it creates - no other evidence to consider, no one else to consult, no rational framework to apply. No offense to your cousin; people in my family trade in this stuff too from time to time - but a more accurate rendition would be "I don't know how to think."
posted by Miko at 9:51 AM on December 20, 2012 [14 favorites]

Sister of Newtown victim makes gun control plea in letter to Obama

My name is Natalie Barden and I wanted to tell the president that only police officers and the military should get guns. If people want to do it as a sport than they could go to a shooting range and the guns would not be able to leave there.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:32 AM on December 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

the militia thing is an anachronism

The militia thing was arguably exposed as an anachronism in the United States 200 years ago. The War Nerd can be a glib bastard, but his retrospective on the War of 1812 makes the point that citizen-soldiers have a pretty shitty record in the outset. Now, you can argue that modern asymmetric warfare (WOLVERINES!) changes the equation, but that's mainly in the context of regular armed forces operating on a tight leash.

This is basically moot, I think, when you have the modern hyper-individuated model of ownership -- cultivated by the NRA and the firearms industry -- that not only doesn't scale to the level of wider society, but also stands in for a belief in broader social obligations and responsibilities.
posted by holgate at 11:03 AM on December 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

This nightmare was the primary topic of conversation with the therapist I've been seeing about my depression yesterday. I talked to her about the rage I felt at people like Huckabee and the "arm the teachers" and the "well, if more men had been there" people. One of her insights was that, at least in some cases, some people need to believe stuff like this so they will feel safe.

"This can't happen to me... I pray," "This can't happen to me... I have a gun," "This can't happen to me... I have a lot of men around me all the time."

While I still think Huckabee said his prayer thing to bolster his own conservative credentials, I think the bulk of other people I know making that argument do largely seem to fall into that category.

Part of my challenge is that I believe we can no more prevent a mass shooting than we can a hurricane. Crazy, awful stuff is going to happen. However, just as we can take steps to mitigate the damage a hurricane causes (different guidelines regarding construction, hurricane warning centers, being personally prepared), we can take steps to minimize potential damage by a psychotic person. Hurricanes are still going to kill people. Crazy people are still going to kill people. But we can do things to make sure both things kill fewer people.

There's not just one way to accomplish this. Just like you need to do a variety of different things to prepare for a natural disaster, there are a variety of different things we need to do to help mitigate the damage of mass shootings. I sincerely hope that Biden's task force is going to come up with a multi-pronged plan and not as "magic single solution" plan.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:14 AM on December 20, 2012 [15 favorites]

From the judge who sentenced Gabby Gifford's attacker: A conservative case for an assault weapons ban

I also questioned the social utility of high-capacity magazines like the one that fed his Glock. And I lamented the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, which prohibited the manufacture and importation of certain particularly deadly guns, as well as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The ban wasn't all that stringent — if you already owned a banned gun or high-capacity magazine you could keep it, and you could sell it to someone else — but at least it was something.

And it says something that half of the nation's deadliest shootings occurred after the ban expired, including the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. It also says something that it has not even been two years since Loughner's rampage, and already six mass shootings have been deadlier.

I am not a social scientist, and I know that very smart ones are divided on what to do about gun violence. But reasonable, good-faith debates have boundaries, and in the debate about guns, a high-capacity magazine has always seemed to me beyond them.
[...]
Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That's why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state.

I even say it as someone whose feelings about the NRA mirror the left's feelings about Planned Parenthood: It has a useful advocacy function in our deliberative democracy, and much of what it does should not be controversial at all.

posted by zombieflanders at 12:20 PM on December 20, 2012 [9 favorites]

Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias

The JPost has an article up discussing Israeli gun control regulations.

Israel Looks at Tougher Gun Control Laws

While Americans blame video games for mass shootings like Sandy Hook, Israel is quietly doing what we should be doing: tightening requirements for gun ownership.

Israel’s State Comptroller is scrutinizing gun control laws after recent incidents where Israeli security guards shot their wives, as well as Sandy Hook massacre, according to YNet.

Israel’s gun control laws are the opposite of America’s, say Israeli officials. “Only those who have a license can bear arms and not everyone can get a license,” the head of the firearms licensing department told the Jerusalem Post. To qualify for a license, Israelis must at least age 21, pass a physical and psychological examination, undergo a background check and then qualify at a licensed shooting range. Gun owners are retested every three years, they get a one-time supply of 50 bullets when they order their weapon, and as of next year, they must keep their gun in a safe.

For a nation that has been at war for more than 60 years, it is notable that Israeli officials estimate that there are only 170,000 weapons that are privately owned in a population of less than 8 million, or a little less than one weapon per 50 Israelis. There are an estimated 300 million weapons in America, or roughly one for every America’s 315 million people. Gunpolicy.org lists a firearms homicide rate of 0.83 per 100,000 Israelis, versus 3.12 in America.

posted by zombieflanders at 12:25 PM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Well said, Joey Michaels.

Personally, I've been on a bit of a trajectory about the 'feeling safe' idea all week. I am sure - no, I'm certain - you're right that 'feeling safe' motivates a lot of the fantasy about guns as protection, and 'feeling safe' motivates a lot of "they should have /could have" Monday-morning quarterbacking that helps make some distinction between the victims and us.

But there is no distinction. I don't care how great a pistol packer you are - you aren't armed all the time and we've established pretty well that, facing something like what happened in CT, you don't stand a great chance at all.

There is no distinction. Whether you like guns or don't, whether you think you can handle yourself in an emergency or not, and no matter how good you are, you could still be one of the victims. I could still be. I've reckoned with that over the last few days. We can't control every threat, no. We should certainly use a public health approach to reduce this terrible threat. But at a fundamental spiritual/personal level, I've been contemplating that the mature thing to do is just accept that this threat will always exist, without allowing that to twist, pervert, and corrupt my wider values or the rational thinking process that leads me to assert that more guns more lightly regulated is not an evidence-based, practicable solution.

It's a bummer but it's true. Understanding that there's no special magic at work to protect any of us is the thing that prods me to improve safety for everyone, using the best tools we have, and drawing on concrete facts and proven strategies.

Obama's Post-Newtown Push Faces Hurdle: The Gun Lobby:

“Buster Bachhuber, an NRA board member and retired attorney from Wausau, Wis., said in an interview before the group's official statement that he predicts the organization will win any fight over new gun restrictions, as emotions of the moment pass and people begin considering the details of various proposals.

"When things calm down, of course we will be playing defense on this game, because we're not going to be in favor of any additional gun control on the basis that it doesn't work," he said.

"In the short term, maybe when the emotion is still there," lawmakers may be more open to new restrictions, he said. "And that's why we're holding back. In the long term no, I really don't think it is going to make a difference."

He added that suspected Newtown shooter Adam Lanza wouldn't have been stopped by new restrictions.”

So there we have some chips on the table. Let's get started.
posted by Miko at 12:42 PM on December 20, 2012 [5 favorites]

Ok we're all on the internet here so let's talk about cats for a moment. There are good cats and there are bad cats, but not all cats start out bad. Why do we, as a civilized society, trim or completely ban cat's from having claws? Well, I don't want to speak for everyone, but it seems to me that sharper, more effective claws tend to be a contributing factor to damaging everything around them in a domesticated setting (assuming if not properly trained or misbehaving of course!). We trim them back to mitigate that damage to our sofas, carpets, house guests, children, other pets, selves etc. You see, when you think about it...I mean REALLY think about it...the claws themselves are not responsible for the damaged carpet, drapes, walls, nearby people, your favorite $1000 designer sofa, etc....the cats are. They are responsible for their own behavior with claws...and it is up to you, that person who shares habitation/cares/provides for/lives in symbiotic harmony with them (or is waiting for them to die of old age) to want the best for them...or at least everything in near proximity...

I know this line of thought risks derailment, but this is NOT about gun control (I hate analogies, read further down if interested in Gun Control), this is about cat claws, nothing more. Let's not confuse these two weapons of choice for defense, play, and aggression by different species. (I also disagree with banning claws as it removes a cat's most effective form of self defense...it also changes their personality if done somewhat later in life...but anyway it's been bugging me for awhile and I had to get that of my chest...back on topic.)

Gun Control:

So here are my view about this debate drawing from a lot of what's already been stated above:

Freedom from fear is an excellent starting point for entering this debate on either side....as when you're talking about "freedom from fear," fear of losing a basic liberty is also a "type" of fear we need to acknowledge.

Don't misunderstand, while I don't own or like guns personally I have no trouble with the idea of gun ownership as long as they are in responsible hands, and not in any proximity to danger (I know, easier said than done "Annie Oakley"). I just don't buy into many of the more extreme views and platitudes from either side of this ongoing debate....and I don't think the majority of people really want extremes either when I really press them in person. So I really think that both sides of this debate, even those that get painted as missing the point, have the best of intentions in mind, we all want these tragedies to subside...somehow we need to respect each other's voices, work on opportunities, and meet in the middle. Both extremes of the debate absolutely have unintended collateral damage. Sticking to those extremes leave our fears unresolved. We shouldn't get lost in the details or use complexity to kill the conversation, but work through those complexities together...break it all apart in smaller pieces, throw away what doesn't make sense, and come back together with our views thought out wholly. I'm basically suggesting that I think it's good we get to talk about this on both sides to figure out all the complexities collectively. For me, I value this "freedom from fear" idea over anything in our constitution. That *should* be our shared goal, it makes perfect sense no matter what position we take. As long as we're all moving in that direction, I feel that I can face the world the way I would prefer to face it....unarmed.

Unfortunately for many, due to the time this debate takes/has taken, there has to be gradual change in the way we operate as a society and view our weapons...not rallying for bans...but legislation that can help guide these weapons into the right hands instead of the wrong ones. They are deadly. There is absolutely no doubt they can kill. And they must be treated with utmost respect and responsibility regardless of rights. Besides the weapons themselves, there has to be ways to communicate the warning signs of trouble in an effective way so that NOBODY has to be killed (either the would be assailant or victims). There has to be an approach of incremental change...we don't have to live in vastly sweeping extremes where everything is either 0% or 100%. We *do* need to live in a world where the negative consequences of our actions are visibly diminishing. For example, as said in above comments, it needs to be easier to seek out and find mental healthcare than obtaining weapons. It needs to be harder for criminals and would be criminals to get their hands on weapons. All of these things help slow down, if not completely halt potentially bad outcomes. Instead of simply suggesting we fight fire with fire, we can prevent fire at their sources while not infringing on the fire that does no harm. But we also don't want to infringe on those that do not want to be near fire in the first place, they are equal parts of the society we share. For now, sadly, fire with fire will be the approach many will prefer, as it is an immediate form of triage within a largely failing system...but eventually, I hope it lessens in necessity. Being realistic, I'm not suggesting utopia, I played that game on an Intellivision and completely sucked at it....I'm just suggesting less of a perceived dystopia..we can push away as far as we humanly want from that shore if working together and united.

And if we're going to be serious about our rights....we really need to also speak up about our 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th (as far as I can read them checking Wikipedia) that can just as easily be trampled on without adequate protection. I fully understand the fear of overzealous legislation that could come against the 2nd. but it doesn't help to just resist change without offering alternative and well thought out ideas that could help prevent further damage. We can all refine those ideas together to come up with solutions and trim back the claws....that meet our needs for a safer society while focusing on one shared goal: freedom from fear.

tl;dr: We have to be realistic in all our endeavors as a nation. And we have to be patient enough to allow gradual shifts within our self-made cultural paradigms while dismantling what's currently wrong (not just the negative side of gun culture...but the negative side of culture as a whole). Perhaps patient beyond our immediate lifespans...and our children's....but i'm confident solutions can be found if people would just work together.

Addendum to cat rant: As for house cats and their claws, I hope we can be more humane in the future than simply de-clawing. Just because it's currently legal doesn't really mean it's the right thing to do....you should really want t to take care of your cat's claws so they don't get too sharp or simply grow out of control. You need to develop routines and strategies within your domicile that prevent those claws from harming things, pets, and people you care about. That's all I have to say about these two pressing, but clearly unrelated topics. Thanks!
posted by samsara at 12:46 PM on December 20, 2012

Obama really should appoint Judge Larry Alan Burns to his task force.
posted by neversummer at 12:47 PM on December 20, 2012

Declawing = removing the front of the cats fingers.

Gun control = removing the front of gun owners fingers?
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:00 PM on December 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

Strange, I've always had cats but have never even thought about touching their claws!
and no, they haven't scratched me or any visitors to my home, they sharpen their claws on the trees outside
- perhaps having a pitbull trained to attack would be more of a logical comparison ?
posted by hopefulmidlifer at 1:00 PM on December 20, 2012

Gun control = removing the front of gun owners fingers?

That's why I dislike analogies...
posted by samsara at 1:02 PM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

From "Operation Wetback" To Newtown: Tracing The Hick Fascism Of The NRA
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:06 PM on December 20, 2012 [6 favorites]

There's something I've wanted to get off my chest.

Here goes...

You stupid little punk. I hope you're satisfied. You're the brattiest little bastard on the planet. You managed to have the biggest, loudest, whiniest, stamp your feet, red-in-the-face, hold your breathiest tantrum ever. And you're too stupid and too dead to even know what you did.
posted by Trochanter at 1:34 PM on December 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

The Newtown Bee: Suffering From Media Onslaught.
posted by ericb at 2:41 PM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Tomorrow ...

Moment Of Silence At 9:30 Friday Morning

Governor Dannel P. Malloy has signed a proclamation declaring Friday, December 21, 2012, a Day of Mourning in the State of Connecticut.

Signed on December 18, the proclamation also requests that residents statewide participate in a moment of silence at 9:30 am. The governor is also requesting houses of worship and government buildings that have the capability, to ring bells 26 times during that moment in honor of each life that was taken at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

"Let us all come together collectively to mourn the loss of far too many promising lives at Sandy Hook Elementary School," Gov Malloy said. "Though we will never know the full measure of sorrow experienced by these families, we can let them know that we stand with them during this difficult time."

Gov Malloy has also written a letter to every governor in the United States, asking each state to consider joining the State of Connecticut on Friday during this time of reflection and mourning.

"Mourning this tragedy has extended beyond Newtown, beyond the borders of Connecticut, and has spread across the nation and the world," Gov Malloy said. "On behalf of the State of Connecticut, we appreciate the letters and calls of support that have been delivered to our state and to the family members during their hour of need."

Local Vigil Will Have Global Reach

The soccer fields of Fairfield Hills will be bathed in the soft glow of candlelight on Friday night as people gather for a vigil to remember the children and teachers of Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The vigil will begin at 7 pm on Friday, December 21, and organizer Joshua Milas, a 2009 Newtown High School graduate, said people all over the world will light candles in solidarity with the people of Newtown.

posted by ericb at 2:47 PM on December 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

You stupid little punk. I hope you're satisfied. You're the brattiest little bastard on the planet. You managed to have the biggest, loudest, whiniest, stamp your feet, red-in-the-face, hold your breathiest tantrum ever. And you're too stupid and too dead to even know what you did.

On top of that, he rewrote the definition of cowardice: taking on a bunch of women and elementary schoolkids with military grade weapons.

Honestly, how much more of a snivelling chickenshit can you be? Is there any possibility of stooping lower in absolute gutlessness?

What a way to leave your mark on the world. If you're determined to go out in a hail of bullets, might as well do it in a way that doesn't paint you for all time as one of the most pathetic, spineless, cringing pieces of shit that ever lived.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:20 PM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

"After covering the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., NBC News’ Ann Curry wondered what could be done to ease the national suffering over the loss of 26 children and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary. Why not, she tweeted, commit to doing one act of kindness for every child killed there? People responded – and wanted to up that to 26 acts of kindness for every child and adult lost at the school. Now people around the country are committing random acts of kindness – connected through the hashtag #26Acts (#20Acts and others are also trending). Get inspired: You can start your own acts of kindness right now." *

And ... Inspired to spread the word, man's #26Acts Facebook effort goes viral.
posted by ericb at 3:28 PM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

In related news ...

Newtown, Mayan End-Of-World Rumors Prompt Michigan Officials To Close 33 Schools.
posted by ericb at 3:37 PM on December 20, 2012

Newtown Residents Form Advocacy Group, Head to D.C.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:07 PM on December 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

Newtown Residents Form Advocacy Group, Head to D.C.

I was hoping they would do that but wondered if it would be too much to expect of them. I hope they make progress.

I found a Facebook page - it's really very interesting. They've been busy already and are in touch with people from all over the country about the problem of violence. Twitter too.
posted by Miko at 4:18 PM on December 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

How Congress Blocked Research on Gun Violence: The ugly campaign by the NRA to shut down studies at the CDC.
posted by homunculus at 4:53 PM on December 20, 2012 [6 favorites]

Without taking a stance on the activities of the NRA, I do have to wonder if the CDC wasn't maybe overstepping its mandate a little. I mean, is violence a disease? Words like epidemic are frequently applied, but there's an "epidemic" of traffic fatalities, too. Is the CDC involved there? Should they be?
posted by MoTLD at 5:14 PM on December 20, 2012

Words like epidemic are frequently applied, but there's an "epidemic" of traffic fatalities, too. Is the CDC involved there?

Yes they are.
posted by localroger at 5:20 PM on December 20, 2012 [8 favorites]

"I've heard of people being killed playing ping-pong -- ping-pongs are more dangerous than guns," he said. "Flat-screen TVs are injuring more kids today than anything."
posted by pyramid termite at 5:23 PM on December 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

Newtown Residents Form Advocacy Group, Head to D.C.

Good. I hope some sort of firearm legislation comes up in Congress very soon. Then somebody (Obama, preferably) reserves as many of the gallery passes in both chambers for them as possible for every day that it's being voted on, so that anybody voting and/or filibustering against it has the eyes of hundreds of Newtown residents on them while they do it.

Without taking a stance on the activities of the NRA, I do have to wonder if the CDC wasn't maybe overstepping its mandate a little. I mean, is violence a disease? Words like epidemic are frequently applied, but there's an "epidemic" of traffic fatalities, too. Is the CDC involved there? Should they be?

CDC's mandate covers all forms of sickness, injury, and death, and they often partner with NIH on research grants. And yes, they should.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:25 PM on December 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

localroger, thanks for the link. Looking at the CDC's main page, it seems to me that most of what CDC studies is covered by at least one other federal agency already. I will have to do a lot more research before I come to any conclusion on whether this is massive mission creep or important checks-and-balances redundancy.
posted by MoTLD at 5:32 PM on December 20, 2012

Hey, it's cool you joined! Do you have any other pro-gun/pro-NRA comments to add to the discussion?
posted by OmieWise at 5:36 PM on December 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

I think OmieWise's comment was meant for me, but since I haven't made any pro-gun/pro-NRA comments, I can't be sure. Care to clarify?
posted by MoTLD at 5:40 PM on December 20, 2012

I mean, is violence a disease? Words like epidemic are frequently applied, but there's an "epidemic" of traffic fatalities, too. Is the CDC involved there? Should they be?

Hey, I was hanging out on this internet thing and I just threw "CDC charter" into Google, and whaddya know, it's right there! " The...Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, are authorized under Section 301 (42 U.S.C. 241) and Section 311 (42 U.S.C. 243) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, to: (1) conduct, encourage, cooperate with, and assist other appropriate public authorities, scientific institutions, and scientists in the conduct of research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies relating to the causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of physical and mental diseases, and other impairments; (2) assist States and their political subdivisions in the prevention of infectious diseases and other preventable conditions, and in promoting health and well-being; and (3) train State and local personnel in health work."

This thing sure is handy!

Snark aside, I know that massive gun rampages, though they kill a lot of people, aren't the primary cause of gun deaths in the US. But they tend to make all of us into survivors, to greater or lesser degrees given our closeness to the tragedies and sensitivity to events, ad that has to have some sort of measurable mental health cost. Today at work, people began to talk about the way they felt the grief over this, the way they imagined what it would feel like if it were their kid, their sibling, their friend, the concern, the difficulty wrestling with the issue, the arguments with friends and family, the questioning, and so on. I don't know about anyone else in this thread, but I have felt a lot like I did in the weeks after 9/11, which hit pretty close to home for me. Bundle of nerves, by turns angry, sad, determined, distracted...certainly fighting to feel any holiday cheer. Accumulate this across the nation and you must have a pretty big mental health bruise going on.
posted by Miko at 5:44 PM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Miko, thanks for going to the effort to find that, and I'll forgive the snark. I'm reading it pretty carefully, though, and neither violence nor traffic fatalities seems to fit directly into its wording. Granted, "other preventable conditions" and "promoting health and well-being" are pretty broad, but the spirit of the mandate seems to be more applicable to, say, communicable diseases.
posted by MoTLD at 5:51 PM on December 20, 2012

OH CRAP NO HE GOT A PING PONG RUN
posted by JHarris at 5:56 PM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

You're welcome MoTLD but all it took was putting the terms "cdc traffic fatalities" into the mighty GOOG and it was like the 2nd result.
posted by localroger at 6:05 PM on December 20, 2012

Granted, "other preventable conditions" and "promoting health and well-being" are pretty broad, but the spirit of the mandate seems to be more applicable to, say, communicable diseases.

On what basis are you determining for yourself what "the spirit of their mandate" seems to be? The charter is written to cover, in addition to the communicable disease you mention, "physical and mental diseases, and other impairments," work against "preventable conditions," and promote "health and well being."

This may be the first time you have given the CDC any thought, but gun violence that causes astronomical numbers of deaths in otherwise healthy people is a public health matter, no matter how you slice it. Not to mention the mental health issue I mentioned above. Behavioral science is specifically called out across their material online, as is Injury, Violence, and Safety.

Mission and vision.

Please just read about it and become informed before you decide unilaterally what a federal agency's remit is. Maybe start here:

Public health's "patient" is the community. CDC's mandate to protect the community has broadened as scientists have learned about what constitutes health and how they can positively affect health outcomes in the "patient." CDC's health protection goals, formally adopted in 2005, capture the essence and spirit of the agency's charge: healthy people in every stage of life, healthy people in healthy places, people prepared for emerging health threats, and healthy people in a healthy world.

And spend some time on the CDC website. It's easy to learn about things. Not much "effort" involved - just the will, really.
posted by Miko at 6:07 PM on December 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

gun violence that causes astronomical numbers of deaths in otherwise healthy people is a public health matter

Actually far more people survive gun violence than directly die, and they account for a major drain on health care resources. Similar situation with auto accidents. People taking up room in hospitals when they could otherwise be walking around healthy is pretty much smack in the center of CDC's mandate.
posted by localroger at 6:11 PM on December 20, 2012 [10 favorites]

It stands to reason, broadly speaking, that an organization which researches ways to keep people healthy would also look into guns. A gun is a very good way to make a person the opposite of healthy, which is violently dead.
posted by cmyk at 6:12 PM on December 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

simply google "epidemiology of gun violence" and you will immediately find that there is a very large body of research. "geography of gun deaths" is also a useful search term.

The mission of all public health work is to address the causes of morbidity and mortality. That means anything related to sickness and death.

Repealing the funding restrictions imposed by the NRA on research by the CDC and the NIH is an excellent place to start. 1 2 3 It will flush out which members of Congress are or are not tools of the domestic armaments manufacturers and dealers.

It's not just the NRA, but also the Nation Shooting Sports Foundation (which happens to be based in Newtown, CT) and a number of other much more politically extreme organizations like Gun Owners of America and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
posted by warbaby at 6:14 PM on December 20, 2012 [9 favorites]

localroger, you're right about that and it's a good point, though I'm also not wrong that a lot of people find gun violence to be fatal. Car crashes, cancer, workplace accidents, foodborne illnesses...more people survive these than don't too, and they're still public health matters.
posted by Miko at 6:16 PM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Guys, either engage in good faith or flag and move on. Don't do this side-mouthed accusation bullshit.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 6:19 PM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Miko, I think I made it clear I haven't decided unilaterally what the CDC's remit is. I'm still forming an opinion. And the basis for my determination of the spirit of the mandate is that it seems to me, as a lay person, that it was meant to cover disease. I mean, it is the Centers for Disease Control, right? Applying that mandate to clearly non-disease health issues may or may not be overbroad. A generous reading of that mandate would allow the CDC to fund studies on literally anything, as everything affects health somehow. We must draw a line somewhere or it's mission creep.

Anyway, I'll drop it now so I don't derail the discussion. But I will add that you folks might consider gentler ways to welcome a libertarian-minded newbie who is still trying to reconcile an ardent philosophical belief in freedom with the horrible, tragic consequences of that philosophy's application to reality.
posted by MoTLD at 6:27 PM on December 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

Courtesty of Pogo_Fuzzybutt,

N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say
[NYT, 01/25/2011]

Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was “redundant” and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centers’ budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.

...

The Senate later restored the money but designated it for research on traumatic brain injury. Language was also inserted into the centers’ appropriations bill that remains in place today: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

So it appears that the USA has a dearth of quality, unbiased* research. Broad scale research is the only way to find out about real data and community attitudes; the 'what' and the 'how' of successful gun reform.

(Unless you want to call the CDC&P biased because it's, you know, interested in things that injure, sicken and kill.)
posted by Kerasia at 6:30 PM on December 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

I'm still forming an opinion.

The charter of the CDC is the charter of the CDC. It does not require your opinion. It is what it is: a set of statements that outline the activities of the CDC.

Maybe you will form an opinion that they shouldn't be involved in public health, but since that's our public health agency, that's tricky for them. But that's not an opinion about what their existing mandate is. There's really no invitation i the charter for someone who didn't even know what they did until five minutes ago to weigh in with his studied recommendations. It's not a poll.

you folks might consider gentler ways to welcome a libertarian-minded newbie who is still trying to reconcile an ardent philosophical belief in freedom with the horrible, tragic consequences of that philosophy's application to reality.

I'm not sure why that process needs to be gentle for you. Was it gentle for the families? Others, some in this thread, whose views have changed? It's up to all of us to find a way to reconcile these events, and I know for me it hasn't been especially gentle, so that might be a bit much to expect.
posted by Miko at 6:33 PM on December 20, 2012 [11 favorites]

Miko, did not mean to argue the fatality thing, more to say it's not the whole story and it's even more CDC's business than you would think just from fatalities.
posted by localroger at 6:36 PM on December 20, 2012

Firearms deaths are one of the top causes of preventable death in the US. Now, we could stretch that mandate to cover studying any random thing tenuously linked to health but firearms deaths are not enough of a stretch to see it as evidence of that potential slippery slope. They are clearly a major public health concern.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:38 PM on December 20, 2012

Miko, I think your crazy idea is probably a lot closer to what the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was than the way it's commonly interpreted today.

Sometimes, on occasions where the 2nd Amendment comes up, I like to argue that a more reasonable modern interpretation of the text would have no bearing on ownership of firearms as a private citizen, but would preclude discriminatory practices in the military, like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

It goes like this: the text of the 2nd Amendment is clearly aimed at preserving people's right to participate in national defence. Why else would the "well regulated militia" clause be in there? Before there was a standing army, this would mean protecting people's rights to keep and bear arms, since an irregular militia consisting of people who were responsible for providing their own arms was the norm. Today, there is a modern, professional standing army. So now, the equivalent right is to join that army. Therefore, under the 2nd Amendment, queers must be allowed to serve in the armed forces.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 6:47 PM on December 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

I'll bow out for now to let everyone, myself included, calm down. Apparently I struck a nerve.

And I never meant to imply that I personally deserve a gentle welcome, just wanted to highlight how such treatment comes across to those who might be considering joining this community because they think this is a place where people aren't skewered for having unpopular opinions. I still believe it's such a place, and that the emotion of this tragedy is clouding some folks' judgement.

Long after we're all dust, historians will judge us by the words we left behind.
posted by MoTLD at 6:47 PM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Oh, casting doubt on people doing anti-violence research is good enough.

And you wish to subvert this research why? I'm "pro-gun". I'm also pro-science and pro-public-safety. Pro-reason as well. Responsible firearms enthusiasts have nothing to lose and everything to gain from "anti-violence" research. Why? Because we're just as committed as all other reasonable people to the prevention of needless deaths and injuries. It's why we're obsessed with all aspects of firearms safety. This type of research returns enormous benefits to the health of our communities - just as it did with tobacco and highway safety.

I suspect those who fear this research are the people who know in their hearts that they're "doing it wrong" with regard to firearms.
posted by Pudhoho at 6:48 PM on December 20, 2012 [10 favorites]

the emotion of this tragedy is clouding some folks' judgement.

If I'm "some folks," I'd like to disagree. I've had moments of high emotion, but this isn't one of them. And I stand by my judgment in telling you that your opinion has no impact on the actual charter of the CDC - that's not some form of attack on your worldview, it's just a fact.

There's no guarantee that joining here means your opinions won't be examined and challenged. They will. Even those of us who have been here 10 years or so come in for that "treatment" - it's nothing special for a newbie. It doesn't even really have to do with the popularity of your opinions, a lot of the time - more their grounding in evidence, and perhaps your degree of goodwill.

I'm pretty proud of most of the words I've left behind, so thanks for that nice reminder.
posted by Miko at 6:58 PM on December 20, 2012 [10 favorites]

To amend, I am feeling particularly steely about those of the Libertarian persuasion right now. I am sure that such a dramatic illustration of what can be expected to happen at the logical extension of your philosophy is indeed hard to reconcile, and I am not all that surprised that it provokes some silence on some parts, rethinking on others.

But it is people employing the rhetoric drawn from those circles that we have to thank for a very big part of the situation that's been created here and that we're challenged now with fixing, and it's time that we held those views to account.
posted by Miko at 7:18 PM on December 20, 2012 [9 favorites]

The family of 6-year-old Emilie Parker, who was killed in the Connecticut school shooting, has been humbled by "countless kind gestures, words and prayers" since the tragedy, her father said.

Emilie's Father also made this heartfelt public statement

President Obama met with the grieving family to offer his sincerest condolences.
posted by clarknova at 7:23 PM on December 20, 2012

Miko, thanks for amending. Your steeliness in the current context is understandable.

On another occasion I would like to have a discussion about the benefits of liberty, which are many. This, sadly, is the proper time and place for a discussion of its failings.
posted by MoTLD at 7:32 PM on December 20, 2012

MoTLD: something that stuck in my mind once, was the fact that any difficult ethical problem is never about right vs wrong; it's about competing rights, which is what makes them so tricky & with such entrenched positions on either side. The competing rights don't even need to be at loggerheads - difficulties can arise whenever they are not perfectly aligned with each other.

So I'd suggest not thinking of "Liberty" in the abstract, but look at what happens when the freedom to own & operate a weapon comes into conflict with the freedom of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.

Even if you start out from a position that both freedoms are good, it can happen from time to time that weapon-freedom smashes up against the freedom to live, in which case you (we and everybody else) need to ask which of these freedoms is more important?

And because things are rarely all or nothing, to what extent is it acceptable to limit one freedom, in order for the other to flourish?

Focusing solely on some kind of absolute & contextless freedom to own weapons is to ignore the other 9/10ths of the issue, and all the other freedoms involved - eg freedom from fear, as flapjax at midnite was mentioning earlier, or the "positive" freedom of opportunity & advancement, which is severely affected if a kid's breadwinning parent - for example - is killed in a firearm incident. What happens to their freedom then?

Plenty of people on all sides of any debate can have all manner of good things & freedoms in mind; it's just that particular freedoms may have different values for each of them.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:53 PM on December 20, 2012 [18 favorites]

Salon: New York Times bestselling author Joel Rosenberg tied Jon Stewart to the shootings in Newtown, Conn., because Stewart is part of “the cultural war against Jesus and Christmas” that helps “drive [God] out of our society, our of our schools and courts.”
posted by Drinky Die at 8:00 PM on December 20, 2012

Sure. But really, you can start by assuming I've heard/read all the idealistic libertarian arguments. Unless you have a totally original idea not aired before by anyone here or elsewhere in the universe of "liberty," I've been through this discussion enough times to know that it's better to spare my time for other things. The question really is, to what end do we govern? When children need to suffer and die for the devotion of adults to an abstract principle, we have chosen a monstrous end.

But thanks for restraining yourself now.
posted by Miko at 8:03 PM on December 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

the emotion of this tragedy is clouding some folks' judgement.

I have no doubt that the pitch of anguish and fury expressed in this thread is an aggregate of the suffering imposed by each of the all too many shooting incidents witnessed in the last several months.
posted by Pudhoho at 8:05 PM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

And that everyone at this end of the thread is as lucid as ever.
posted by Pudhoho at 8:06 PM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Ugh, Drinky Die. I can't recall if I posted this here - written in opposition to Mike Huckabee's version of same, a blog post entitled "God can't be kept out." Posted it on my Facebook. It's an admittedly Christian perspective, but so right on.
posted by Miko at 8:06 PM on December 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

I have no idea why people think that God "isn't in the schools" any more when so many teachers, principals, guidance counselors, and others are doing His work daily there.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:13 PM on December 20, 2012 [5 favorites]

New York Times bestselling author Joel Rosenberg tied Jon Stewart to the shootings in Newtown, Conn., because Stewart is part of “the cultural war against Jesus and Christmas” that helps “drive [God] out of our society, our of our schools and courts.”

So Adam Lanza must be some kind of martyr for the Christmas-Jesus cause? He only needs two verified miracles now, before he can become a Saint.

Newsflash, Colorado: A woman claims to have been cured of cancer, after Adam Lanza spoke to her in a dream, telling her he'd put in a good word for her, seeing as she has an Advent wreath up on her door and all, not to mention the Nativity scene on her mantelpiece.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:16 PM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

New York Times bestselling author Joel Rosenberg tied Jon Stewart to the shootings in Newtown, Conn...

Christ, what an asshole.
posted by Pudhoho at 8:18 PM on December 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

It goes like this: the text of the 2nd Amendment is clearly aimed at preserving people's right to participate in national defence. Why else would the "well regulated militia" clause be in there?

The well regulated militia clause could be in there because they wanted to explain why they were doing the slightly crazy and fairly unprecedented₁ thing where they gave the people the unabridged right to bear arms. They didn't phrase it "the right of the militias to bear arms shall not be infringed", or "the right of the states to allow their citizens to be armed shall not be infringed". I'm aware that there are varying opinions about the intent, and I suspect that was true at the time of ratification as well as it is now. BTW, there is a difference between strict constructionism, originalism of the original intent school, and originalism of the original meaning school.

Bear in mind that they'd just won a hard fought revolution that they may have lost if France and the Netherlands hadn't supplied armaments, and they probably wanted to either encourage a local armaments industry or get enough private citizens to import arms from Europe so that if France got embroiled in a continental war and England decided to reassert their claim there would be some slight chance of winning again. Is it so ludicrous that they'd sacrifice some degree of internal security to preserve their ideals?

This isn't a moral justification for what they did, but to me it's as clear as day that they intended the right to bear arms as an individual right. I'm not so extreme on that point that I think it means we get nukes and tanks, but I am extreme enough that I think we shouldn't abridge that right without a level of consensus similar to that required to rewrite the 2nd amendment. I tend to agree with Alan Dershowitz's take on how that paves the way for conservatives to attack other rights. For instance the right to abortion arguably has much less constitutional support than the right to bear arms (I'm pro-choice). Do we really want a state where a slim majority can determine our rights to teach evolution? Do we want more episodes like WWII internment or the patriot act?

I think the only moral, practical and legal path forward is one of consensus building. FWIW, I think that a hard focused push on a permanent high-capacity magazine ban, requirements that gun owners be educated and keep their guns secured in a safe might be the best goals to pursue. I think it'd be better to acknowledge loudly the interpretation of the second amendment as an individual right as part of the regulatory process so that there'd be less polarization and knee jerk opposition to the idea of reform. I think reform would go smoothly if we could tap a conservative to craft the legislation (or new amendment) that we could get behind. There's a narrow window of outrage to be harnessed before everybody becomes complacent again.

I don't like assault weapons ban (it seems unfocused, arbitrary, ineffective and classsist) and I really don't like the ban on silencers. Firearms seem to be the only area where it's deemed reasonable to restrict equipment that could help people preserve their hearing safely. I don't know how much effort I'd put into fighting these things politically, because I'm not all that invested in the idea of gun ownership. Mostly I'm invested in the idea of preserving the constitution and the integrity of our laws and political process.

₁ aside from English longbowmen anyway

New York Times bestselling author Joel Rosenberg tied Jon Stewart to the shootings in Newtown, Conn., because Stewart is part of “the cultural war against Jesus and Christmas” that helps “drive [God] out of our society, our of our schools and courts.”

Holy crap is Joel Rosenberg contemptible.
posted by BrotherCaine at 8:31 PM on December 20, 2012 [5 favorites]

The Right Not to Keep or Bear Arms

There's some interesting thought under the Mediating Conflicting Rights section starting page 50.
posted by BrotherCaine at 8:39 PM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

BrotherCaine: "The well regulated militia clause could be in there because...
[...]
Do we really want a state where a slim majority can determine our rights...
[...]
I think the only moral, practical and legal path forward is one of consensus building.
"

The thing is, we basically had a consensus until Heller. I don't claim to know what the founders thought, but I do know that the 1939 Miller case (decided unanimously) connected the right to bear arms to militias at the state level, not to the individual. This interpretation held up for 70ish years before an individual right to bear arms was affirmed by the slimmest of majorities, after 230ish years of no such right ever being affirmed.

I see Heller as the point where the consensus was ignored by an activist court. Prove me wrong.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:10 PM on December 20, 2012 [9 favorites]

Holy crap is Joel Rosenberg contemptible.

I wish that "flag and move on" worked in the big wide world. Or "derp and move on", in this case.

The question really is, to what end do we govern? When children need to suffer and die for the devotion of adults to an abstract principle, we have chosen a monstrous end.

This is basically about walking our way through about 100 years of political philosophy (within the specific American context) from Locke and Hobbes to the US Constitution, at which point the brakes go on and things like positive rights and anything else that isn't derived from the first bourgeois revolution becomes tangentially interesting, but sorta kinda Foreign.

But, to reiterate, this is about the perennial problem of how individual rights work within the inevitable constraints of a polity, and the equation of what might be gained versus what might be lost. What isn't perennial is the existence of interests that simply reject the concept of the political commonwealth while taking advantage of its protections.
posted by holgate at 9:22 PM on December 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

If Wikipedia is to be believed, the Court said (in Heller),

"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."

Also consider, while Miller was unanimous, neither Miller himself nor any defense counsel made it to court, so no defense argument was even presented.
posted by MoTLD at 9:26 PM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Of course, if the Heller decision was judicial activism, what they had to say about Miller carries much less weight. But there you have it, from the horse's mouth and all that.

But Miller was a poorly enough considered case that both sides of the debate regularly trot it out to prove their side. I'm not sure that makes it an example of consensus.
posted by MoTLD at 9:37 PM on December 20, 2012

MoTLD covered it.
posted by BrotherCaine at 9:46 PM on December 20, 2012

Justice Stevens, from his dissent in Heller:

The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.

BrotherCaine's point was that narrow majority decisions are inferior to consensus building, and while I agree in the abstract, the fact that the very same narrow majority took a more limited view of Miller does not provide much of a foundation to build a consensus on.

I also don't agree that the defense not showing for Miller necessarily undermines the opinion. Could the defense have persuaded the justices in oral argument? Possibly, but everything I've read about the court suggests that oral arguments are overrated, and once the court takes the case, they're pretty much going to decide based on their legal views, not anything counsel says.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:27 PM on December 20, 2012

Some comments deleted; do not come in at the end of this long difficult, careful discussion all aggro, calling people out, and declaring "end of argument." No.
posted by taz (staff) at 10:33 PM on December 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

The Miller opinion is irrelevant because it doesn't address the question of whether the second amendment is an individual right or not. It was a narrow ruling on whether short barreled shotguns were used in military applications. A ruling they got wrong based on WWI use of same shotguns, but that's not important.
posted by BrotherCaine at 10:34 PM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Sorry guys, some comments have been deleted because they were responses to a late pouring-gasoline-on-the-fire aggro comment, and if you are not refreshing the page, you aren't seeing that and continue to respond to earlier deleted comments. It's also a bit slow to load on my end so it all wasn't as rapid as I would have liked... Please carry on, sorry for the disturbance.
posted by taz at 10:49 PM on December 20, 2012 [6 favorites]

BrotherCaine's point was that narrow majority decisions are inferior to consensus building, and while I agree in the abstract, the fact that the very same narrow majority took a more limited view of Miller does not provide much of a foundation to build a consensus on.

The polarization of ideology makes consensus building incredibly difficult, but even more essential. Because as it stands now any attempts at a gun ban will be largely ineffective even if implemented. Either they'll get reversed in federal court, or get reversed as soon as the Republicans can regain the legislature. We've seen this cycle play out before, where a ban gets implemented with sunset provisions and/or loopholes, a bunch of people line up to buy guns and magazines, and the weaponry being banned is effectively accessible for the duration of the ban. With at least 100 million guns out there we are going to need a very, very long term or permanent ban to make any kind of realistic dent in gun violence. If your end goal is to appreciably decrease gun violence, I see no way there without building consensus first. At least in this country.

That's just what is sound tactics. I've got my own opinions about the morality of trying to decree the second amendment doesn't say what I think it does, but I recognize that not everyone shares them, and I understand the baggage everyone brings into their reading of it (myself included).
posted by BrotherCaine at 11:20 PM on December 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

From a bit of way up, zombieflanders linked to National Review Author Blames Shooting on Sandy Hook Elementary School Being Too Girly. It's the kind of title that you know it's linking to a liberal blog and they'll probably go out of their way to put the worst possible spin on any conservative writer and blah blah and...

...and holy crap, the National Review article mentioned in the link, written by one Charlotte Allen, is exactly as reprehensible as represented:

There was not a single adult male on the school premises when the shooting occurred. In this school of 450 students, a sizeable number of whom were undoubtedly 11- and 12-year-old boys (it was a K–6 school), all the personnel — the teachers, the principal, the assistant principal, the school psychologist, the “reading specialist” — were female. There didn’t even seem to be a male janitor to heave his bucket at Adam Lanza’s knees. Women and small children are sitting ducks for mass-murderers. The principal, Dawn Hochsprung, seemed to have performed bravely. According to reports, she activated the school’s public-address system and also lunged at Lanza, before he shot her to death. Some of the teachers managed to save all or some of their charges by rushing them into closets or bathrooms. But in general, a feminized setting is a setting in which helpless passivity is the norm. Male aggression can be a good thing, as in protecting the weak — but it has been forced out of the culture of elementary schools and the education schools that train their personnel. Think of what Sandy Hook might have been like if a couple of male teachers who had played high-school football, or even some of the huskier 12-year-old boys, had converged on Lanza.

Because males, no matter what the age, have magical bullet-warding powers. What a terrible writer, person, publication, and readership.
posted by JHarris at 12:09 AM on December 21, 2012 [8 favorites]

Since writing that, I found the original column on National Review's website (note: popover ad). At the end, for an encore, she basically says any 20-year-old male still living at home is a potential mass murderer.
posted by JHarris at 12:48 AM on December 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

So close, but no prize - the obvious conclusion is to draft these 20yo males to work in the schools, and arm them with buckets they can hurl at attackers' legs. That way their masculine power can be channeled for good, not evil.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:03 AM on December 21, 2012

Charlotte Allen has convinced me that the best way to prepare for armed attack is to graft a couple extra penises onto myself.
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:52 AM on December 21, 2012

Yeah, your attacker won't be able to shoot straight for laughing, when he sees two cocks sewn onto your forehead! Just make sure they don't thwock you in the eyes or you'll be at a disadvantage.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:09 AM on December 21, 2012

I still can't get over it:

"There didn’t even seem to be a male janitor to heave his bucket at Adam Lanza’s knees."

No, but there were two women present who heroically threw themselves at the shooter, getting killed for their trouble. Oh, if only they were MANLY JANITOR MEN with BUCKETS to kick AT HIS KNEES, everyone's chances for survival would have been MUCH higher. Everyone knows buckets provide an infallible defense against gunfire, that's why all soldiers are issued one on their first day of bootcamp.

The more I think about the Rightosphere's reaction to this, the angrier I get. How can these people be so lacking in humanity? I actually said something cold to a friend about the situation today, who was saying blah blah I've used up a clip of 200 bullets in a single target practice session. The usual pacifying schemes and lies, time-honored and focus-tested, aren't working this time. I'm becoming livid.
posted by JHarris at 3:42 AM on December 21, 2012 [18 favorites]

No, but there were two women present who heroically threw themselves at the shooter, getting killed for their trouble

I've heard people noting that if teachers had guns, they could have stopped him.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:02 AM on December 21, 2012

I'm sure all these conservative blowhards are going right home and encouraging their own young sons to enter the well-paid and prestigious field of first-grade teaching.
posted by FelliniBlank at 5:42 AM on December 21, 2012 [13 favorites]

There was a male janitor. He ran through the hallways alerting teachers and students of what was happening and that they should flee or hide. Had he rushed the gunman, he would have fallen before he was even within arms (or bucket's) reach just as the women probably did, as there is no heroic tackling when your adversary can shoot 6 bullets per second.
posted by availablelight at 5:42 AM on December 21, 2012 [11 favorites]

The Gay Men's Chorus of Los Angeles and the children of the Creative Planet School for the Arts, in memory of the children and teachers lost.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:09 AM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

So, I am understanding the report at TPM correctly - the store that sold at least one of the weapons to Nancy Lanza had a scoped AR-15 stolen by a schizophrenic man that has been arrested.

Riverview Gun Sales is the same store where police believe a different man stole an assault weapon and was trying to carry out a similar attack.

The store, apparently never knew the gun was stolen and worse - at least 30 other weapons are unaccounted for.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 6:27 AM on December 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

BB, yeah and they are starting the new legeslative push, arm teachers in schools. At least one MN GOPer has started the drum beat here.
Yay, the answer is obvioulsy moar! childhood direct eposure to guns

Woo
posted by edgeways at 6:32 AM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Felliniblank: "I'm sure all these conservative blowhards are going right home and encouraging their own young sons to enter the well-paid and prestigious field of first-grade teaching."

I would like to nominate that for the cross-thread multi-topic comment for the year 2012.
posted by buzzman at 6:50 AM on December 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

I am really, really baffled by the "arm teachers" argument. To be effective in a case like Sandy Hook, the teachers' guns would have to be at least somewhat accessible. If there are at least somewhat accessible guns in a school, that means the kids could get hold of them. What parent wants to send his or her kid to a school where that kid could get hold of a gun?!?!?! Wha???? I don't even have a kid and I know kids can get into anything...have these people never met a child? Maybe it's my perspective as a child of the '80s, with all the after-school-special-type commercials devoted to warnings about kids playing Russian roulette and how easy it is to accidentally shoot your friends.

(This doesn't even address the chance of some teacher or student going rogue and shooting up the school on purpose. Imagine Columbine if the attackers went to a school that came already equipped with guns...)
posted by sallybrown at 7:17 AM on December 21, 2012 [6 favorites]

"Arm the teachers" is coming from two groups: amoral shitbirds who want to deflect a sensible discussion until the story is out of the headlines and things can go back to business as usual, and the sociopathic useful idiots that they can deploy to get a really good layer of froth all over the public discourse in the meantime. Sneer at it and move on.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 7:30 AM on December 21, 2012 [6 favorites]

I am really, really baffled by the "arm teachers" argument. To be effective in a case like Sandy Hook, the teachers' guns would have to be at least somewhat accessible.

I'm having trouble wit the idea that arming teachers is a solution here. It's kids going to school for christs sake, not a prison. Teachers should not have to be armed with anything other than classroom supplies.

If teachers have to be armed, we have much larger issues that need to be addressed.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:39 AM on December 21, 2012

The best retort I heard to the "arm teachers" argument was a sarcastic quip I saw circulated on Facebook:

"You know, Adam Lanza's first victim was his mother. If only she had a gun, she could have stopped him...."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:48 AM on December 21, 2012 [13 favorites]

I'm having trouble wit the idea that arming teachers is a solution here. It's kids going to school for christs sake, not a prison.

Actually the calls to arm the teachers want guns to be more available in schools than they are in prisons. There are guns in prisons, but they're pretty carefully controlled. Having teachers carry weapons would be like having your average correctional officer carry a gun, which doesn't happen because it's obviously crazy.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 7:51 AM on December 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

I am really, really baffled by the "arm teachers" argument.

To understand the argument, it's worth understanding how people get there. The argument is basically an extreme version of Boy Scout logic, "Be prepared." Taking any simple logic to extreme reaches can yield silly and impractical proposals. If you find someone in that position, you can certainly decline to engage the conversation but an alternative might be to figure out what their proposal is trying to accomplish and approach the conversation from that level instead.
posted by cribcage at 7:55 AM on December 21, 2012

I find it impossible to believe that there are people who went to school and did not have a teacher who they intuitively knew would be the type to snap and pop a cap in some obnoxious student.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:57 AM on December 21, 2012 [8 favorites]

This is basically about walking our way through about 100 years of political philosophy (within the specific American context)

...just so it's clear, I have enough history/government education to have been on that walk, which is why I'm impatient with sitting through it for the benefit of another ideologue. It all comes back down to "to what end," which is the only way, really, to settle a discussion about competing rights. We need some reason to privilege some rights over others in that debate, and that reason is necessarily a philosophical one about the ends and aims of government.

I've heard people noting that if teachers had guns, they could have stopped him.

There has been a lot of discussion in this thread about why that's a fantasy. I know it's a long, long thread and new people may be just coming in, but I wish we didn't have to go around the carousel again on that subtopic.

As a former classroom teacher myself, I had enough students who were emotionally disturbed, had a fascination with power and violence, or were in the throes of adolescent anger that there's no way I want firearms in my classroom. Teaching is a very intellectually and physically demanding job. It is impossible to both do that job and maintain the poster and wide-field alertness of a security officer. As someone else here said, we could also look forward to the first news story in which a teacher accidentally shot a kindergartner. It's all just fantasyland. I have a feeling that anyone who still thinks this is a good idea, and who actually volunteered in a school for 5 full days of one normal week, would walk out understanding how unworkable it is.

The NRA is giving a live speech right now - on NPR.
posted by Miko at 7:58 AM on December 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

If I had a gun in class, dollars to donuts there would be some wacky thing happening where I shoot the projector by accident. Or some less wacky thing I won't speculate about.
posted by angrycat at 8:00 AM on December 21, 2012

There has been a lot of discussion in this thread about why that's a fantasy. I know it's a long, long thread and new people may be just coming in, but I wish we didn't have to go around the carousel again on that subtopic.

Flag it and move on.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:02 AM on December 21, 2012

NRA accuses people of "Exploiting" the massacre for political gain.
posted by Miko at 8:03 AM on December 21, 2012

Unfortunately, there's no flag for "thread repeating itself because people don't want to take the time to read and assess the state of shared knowledge about the discussion."

NRA: we protect places we care about with firearms. We protect the PResident with Secret Service because "we care" about him. We protect Congress, airports, malls. But we leave our children utterly defenseless."

So hey, maybe it's a not a repeat/derail. NRA is saying the "Monsters of the world" know and exploit the idea that our kids are defenseless in schools. So...it looks like they're leading to we need more guns and more arms.

Some kind of disturbance in the room - a protestor calls out "stop killing our children" and some other muffled stuff.

Wow, protestor made quite a scene, heard it pretty well, stopped the speech, got taken out. Want to see the video.
posted by Miko at 8:06 AM on December 21, 2012

I find it impossible to believe that there are people who went to school and did not have a teacher who they intuitively knew would be the type to snap and pop a cap in some obnoxious student.

There is lots of talk about doing it. No talk about paying for it.

Fundementally, when someone brings this up, you know you cannot have a conversation with them. You're at cross purposes already; you want a better government and society, and they want an ideologically pure utopia.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 8:08 AM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Great swirling balls of horseshit, all these people calling for arming teachers, and more and more guns to make us all somehow safer, they're all outta their goddamn MINDS. Fucking loony bin. Batshit insane. Buncha wacko wing nut dingdong boneheads. I'm sick of hearing their twisted ideas.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:08 AM on December 21, 2012 [12 favorites]

NRA cites "violent video games" such as an online one called "kindergarten killers." A thousand "music videos portray life as a joke and portray murder as a way of life."

"The next Adam Lanza is already plotting his attack." The solution? More guns, and more guns in schools, and a "national database of the mentally ill," which wouldn't even "begin to address...the criminal class - killers, rapers, robbers" - hurricane, terrorist attack, and "you've got a recipe for a national nightmare of violence and victimization."

"Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the lowest form of pornography?"
posted by Miko at 8:10 AM on December 21, 2012

Did he really just imply that gun owners are victims?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:11 AM on December 21, 2012

The NRA is on a big rant about violent video games. This guy is an asshole.
posted by triggerfinger at 8:11 AM on December 21, 2012

NRA accuses people of "Exploiting" the massacre for political gain.

sugar is sweet
and so will be the day
when we're finally rid of the scourge
known as the NRA
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:12 AM on December 21, 2012 [8 favorites]

Rather than admit their own moral failings, "the media demonize gun owners."

Another protestor shouts: "THe NRA has blood on its hands! Ban assault weapons now!"
posted by Miko at 8:12 AM on December 21, 2012

I'm glad that this keeps getting disrupted by protestors.
posted by triggerfinger at 8:13 AM on December 21, 2012

Huh. Probably pertinent, from a link I posted above:

And as far as cultural influences, I would say that a nation that sanctions capital punishment, use of extreme force by the police in many situations that don't call for it, and the murder of people overseas by drones is a nation that has stated, in a quite official way, that violence is the answer to one's problems. I would say that as far as unintended effects go, those things have done more damage to the American psyche than all the versions of Grand Theft Auto we could play.

posted by gaspode at 8:13 AM on December 21, 2012 [6 favorites]

NRA "The solution isn't a "gun ban or one more law on peaceful people, where 20,000 other laws have failed...we are unable to stop it....it's now time for us to assume responsibility for our schools. The only way to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be personally involved and invested in a plan of absolute protection. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away or from a minute away?"

"...since when did a gun automatically become a bad word?" Secret service, American soldiers..."When you hear your glass breaking at 3 AM and you call 911, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you. Why is the idea of a gun good when it's used to protect the PResident of our country, or our police, but bad when it's used to protect our children in our schools?"
posted by Miko at 8:15 AM on December 21, 2012

this NRA dude sounds unhinged
posted by angrycat at 8:15 AM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

this NRA dude sounds unhinged

That gives me real hope some legislation with teeth and support is pending...he sounds pissed.
posted by sallybrown at 8:17 AM on December 21, 2012

I think that there is a lot of room to press on the information we're all getting more conversant with - that a single armed responder may be ineffective against a suicidal shooter, and that overwhelming force is required in a response, and that they don't have the data to show this is a good idea because they've suppressed research.

Now he's complaining about "foreign aid" and "all the money in the federal budget, can't we afford to put a police officers in every single school?"

Hmmm....that's a better question for the NRA. We need it because of your policies: can YOU afford it? Where do we send the bill?
posted by Miko at 8:19 AM on December 21, 2012 [6 favorites]

They want Congress to act now to put armed guards in place before students return to school in January.

Great. Let's get on the phone again - COngresspeople are going to need to know how we want them to respond to this gauntlet-throwing.
posted by Miko at 8:21 AM on December 21, 2012

Armed police officers in EVERY SINGLE SCHOOL.

EVERY. SINGLE. SCHOOL. Rather than get rid of guns. Insanity.

Down with the nanny state! Unless it means we have to get rid of our guns!
posted by triggerfinger at 8:22 AM on December 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

I'm sorry, it took them HOW long to come up with THIS response?
posted by edgeways at 8:22 AM on December 21, 2012

"National School Shield Emergency Response Program" - NRA offers a program "Developed by the very best experts" and offered to any school that wants it, led by fmr. Congressmen Asa Hutchinson.
posted by Miko at 8:23 AM on December 21, 2012

So, the people most concerned with the spread of government tyranny and control want to put even more - highly armed - agents of the government in more places and with more authority ?
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 8:25 AM on December 21, 2012 [22 favorites]

The group says it will be holding a press conference on December 21.

This is what took them a week to come up with? This? I guess the dilemma was just how hard to double-down.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:26 AM on December 21, 2012 [6 favorites]

Are they really rolling out a policy program proposal? Now? Fuck them.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:26 AM on December 21, 2012

If the government tells you not to smoke or drink flavored corn syrup, it's tyranny.

If the government shoots you for being the wrong color or making a "furtive movement," you deserved it and anybody who says otherwise is a stupid hippie.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:27 AM on December 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, there were 98,817 public schools during the 2009-2010 school year.

Median salary for American police officer: $50,406 - that is just salary, not benefits, equipment, training, pension, fringe. So let's say $80,000 including all costs - still conservative. Also, there might need to be auxiliary officers since people will occasionally get sick, need surgery, have vacations, etc. and might not be able to be in their school each day - just like teachers can't. But I'll exlude the part-time substitute costs for these purposes.

Annual cost to taxpayers: begins at 7,905,360,000.

Talk about a fiscal cliff.
posted by Miko at 8:27 AM on December 21, 2012 [6 favorites]

Published back in 2011, The Atlantic's The Secret History of Guns is worth a reread in these times.

They have kind of been on a tear recently.
posted by edgeways at 8:27 AM on December 21, 2012 [6 favorites]

The NRA's response is a sick joke. They're going to lose membership over this, I think.
posted by empath at 8:28 AM on December 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

Oh wait, I think Asa Hutchinson is talking about using volunteers for this. I'm not sure though, it's being presented somewhat vaguely so far whether they would augment or actually form the security staff.
posted by Miko at 8:30 AM on December 21, 2012

Hey, NRA: have you ever lived by, worked in, or attended a school defended by men with large guns? No? I have. I lived in Italy for a year and our school building was manned by one or two Italian soldiers decked out in camo with [insert technical name for a large gun cradled in the arms] here. All the time. Around the clock. Every day, I'd come by and say ciao to the guards. They weren't very imposing; this was in the last year of mandatory service, so they were all about 18 years old and mainly interesting in texting and ladies. But those guns? Those guns did not engender security. They did not make me feel safer, to know that someone thought military figures were a necessary precaution.

This is a bad plan and they are bad people for suggesting it.
posted by jetlagaddict at 8:36 AM on December 21, 2012 [6 favorites]

Miko, according to NPR's liveblogging, Wayne LaPierre did call for Congress to appropriate funds to place armed officers in schools. And then Asa Hutchinson started talking about a volunteer corps to offer free, NRA-sponsored training to school officials.

empath is right. This is a sick joke of a response.
posted by bakerina at 8:37 AM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yeah, volunteers. "Retired military," retired police and first responders.

Do you know any people in that category? I do. Can't say I'd feel safer.

Does this proposal need to be taken seriously? Or is this a death spasm? If nothing else, it's a pretty easy thing to break down.
posted by Miko at 8:37 AM on December 21, 2012

I sincerely hope that this is the catalyst needed by this country to realize how absolutely batshit insane the NRA is, and how ludicrous it is that this organization of fucked-up lunatics is what drives the policy decisions about the widespread availability of deadly weapons.
posted by Phire at 8:37 AM on December 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

Well, that was just fucking crazy.
posted by malocchio at 8:37 AM on December 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

have you ever lived by, worked in, or attended a school defended by men with large guns?

When I was in Central America, every single business that handled cash was guarded by a guy with a shotgun. It's fucking eerie getting your gas tank filled with a guy with a shotgun standing by your car, or running down to the market to buy some milk and having to walk past an armed guard. It didn't make me feel safe, that's for sure.
posted by empath at 8:39 AM on December 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

I encourage the NRA to continue on this path.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:40 AM on December 21, 2012 [10 favorites]

Does this proposal need to be taken seriously?

It is not being offered in good faith, so, no.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:40 AM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

"Why is the idea of a gun good when it's used to protect the president of our country, or our police, but bad when it's used to protect our children in our schools?"

I think this is where the NRA finally jumped the shark, while shooting into the air and screaming "yeeee-hah!!!!!"
posted by malocchio at 8:42 AM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

I saw one of the other admins where i work livestreaming it at her computer. I think she was nodding in approval.

oh god i have got to find another job help me
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:52 AM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

@maddow The NRA has rickrolled the whole country into watching just another standard Wayne LaPierre stump speech saying we need more guns.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:54 AM on December 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

what the fuck was that? i just can't even.
posted by insectosaurus at 8:56 AM on December 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

He just criticized the US for not having a national database of the mentally ill. I just cannot even fathom the mindset that thinks of that as appropriate.
posted by insectosaurus at 8:59 AM on December 21, 2012

Right, but not a database of gun owners. Scapegoating - a perennial favorite!
posted by Miko at 9:00 AM on December 21, 2012 [6 favorites]

He just criticized the US for not having a national database of the mentally ill. I just cannot even fathom the mindset that thinks of that as appropriate.

And this is the organization against a database of gun ownership because tyranny.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 9:01 AM on December 21, 2012 [18 favorites]

An important reminder from @jackshafer: LaPierre is a loon, but don't be fooled by the liberal echo-chamber of your Twitter feed. NRA members will eat his speech up.
posted by dry white toast at 9:02 AM on December 21, 2012

That just can't be a serious offer, the mental health database. So who would have access to it? If it's everyone, Good God, can you imagine the fun you'd have looking up your boss, minors, neighbors, etc so you'd know who to arm yourself against? Can you imagine what a disincentive that is to get mental health treatment when you need it? Would you ever pass a background check for a job again? And if it's only law enforcement, then what the hell good is it? It would be way too much unfilterable information to be actionable, and so it would only be looked at after the fact.

In short, it's stooopid.

don't be fooled by the liberal echo-chamber of your Twitter feed. NRA members will eat his speech up.

That's why we need to be writing to periodicals, calling into the radio, and talking talking talking. We're fighting for the reasonable center, remember.
posted by Miko at 9:05 AM on December 21, 2012 [8 favorites]

He just criticized the US for not having a national database of the mentally ill. I just cannot even fathom the mindset that thinks of that as appropriate.

Let's start off the database with anyone who retains their NRA membership after this fiasco.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:06 AM on December 21, 2012 [11 favorites]

Cultures are different and it may be stacking the deck somewhat to say that, having been conditioned in/by one culture, a person feels a negative (or positive) emotional response to a different culture's practice during a visit.

The people that lived there didn't like it either. It's not like they had armed guards because they really love guns. They have armed guards because the country was flooded with guns during the civil war, there are gangsters and bandits everywhere, and the police can't or won't help them. El Salvador has a gun ban in place, but if you walk into a shopping mall, there are 'no handgun' signs everywhere, anyway. I can't imagine any sane person wants to live in a society where private citizens owning guns is your only protection from mass murderers and armed robbery.
posted by empath at 9:06 AM on December 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

> ... national database of the mentally ill.

For goodness sake. If only mentally unwell people commit mass murders what's the good of a national database for the mentally ill without an accompanying national data base of assault rifle owners? How on Earth will the overlap be sorted?
posted by de at 9:11 AM on December 21, 2012

NRA News Conference in Response to Newtown, CT Shooting (c-spanvideo.org | 31:44)
posted by lampshade at 9:11 AM on December 21, 2012

Columbine had an armed police officer on site.
posted by dry white toast at 9:13 AM on December 21, 2012 [11 favorites]

Listening to a public radio call-in show, I'm moved by a 22-year-old caller who is saying

"For my generation, death is just everywhere. We can't remember a time when we didn't know we were targets. We've witnessed violence all our lives, and it's normal?"

He's totally defeatist, though. He's "if it's not guns, it'll be bombs or knives..."

I've been wondering whether there is a generation gap with gun support. It goes two ways. Younger people seem to hate it, but think it's inevitable that they're going to be threatened with sudden violent death at these rates no matter what.
posted by Miko at 9:16 AM on December 21, 2012

I sympathize with the kid, but I grew up with the Vietnam war on TV and by the time I hit high school, we thought it was pretty likely we'd all be nuked by the Soviets.
posted by rtha at 9:19 AM on December 21, 2012 [10 favorites]

As an advocate of gun control, let me just say that I am thrilled with the NRA's stance on this issue. It's comforting when you know that your opposition is completely inept.
posted by schmod at 9:21 AM on December 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

NRA chief blames Hollywood, media, music, and more for culture of violence.

You forgot the gays. You forgot the lack of 'prayer in the schools.' Damn, man, get with the program and the full lists of talking point.

Christ, what an asshol!
posted by ericb at 9:21 AM on December 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

"For my generation, death is just everywhere. We can't remember a time when we didn't know we were targets. We've witnessed violence all our lives, and it's normal?"

I came of age as a military brat living in military housing in the 70s and 80s. Talk about being targets - when the nukes came, where do you think ground zero was gonna be?

Of course the solution - then as now - was disarmament.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 9:22 AM on December 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

I think there's something to be said for the frequency of mass shooting and the psychological impact of that, though. I don't know, I just think it would be interesting to peel back for differences in generational perspective on the issue. As we saw during the Presidential election, these things make some difference.
posted by Miko at 9:24 AM on December 21, 2012

Yeah... I was a little later than rtha, so missed Vietnam by a hair, but +1 to the growing up under the constant threat of nuclear annihilation.

It comes down to this for me: yes, very likely there can be a highly armed, relatively peaceful culture... but America is not it. We are too culturally insane to be trusted with lots of guns. our police and military have a hard enough time with similar issues, and they are trained. A nation that held the nuclear Sword of Damocles over the world's head for 50+ years is not one that should be highly armed.
posted by edgeways at 9:26 AM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

As an advocate of gun control, let me just say that I am thrilled with the NRA's stance on this issue. It's comforting when you know that your opposition is completely inept.

What sort of backlash is going to overcome the NRA's massive financial war chest? How many NRA members are going to burn their membership cards after something like this? I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't see them losing any ground at all once the dust settles. Wayne did his job -- he went out there and made people angry at Wayne LaPierre.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:27 AM on December 21, 2012

This was also a dog-whistle message to the politicians with strong pro-NRA records that have been using the words "assault weapons ban" over the last week: "Yes, we will still come at you. Careful what you say."
posted by dry white toast at 9:28 AM on December 21, 2012

Tweeting every gun death in North America regardless of cause and without comment.
posted by schmod at 9:28 AM on December 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

I hope it's now clear to any libertarians that the NRA is not a libertarian organisation; it is a nihilistic, monomaniacal gang of peddlers.

schmod: I was thinking about such a thing, along the lines of Dronestagram, but the lazyweb beat me to it.
posted by holgate at 9:30 AM on December 21, 2012

our police and military have a hard enough time with similar issues, and they are trained.

One of the two shootings I've been witness to was near Ft. Hood. An active-duty solder went to his truck to retrieve his shotgun to that he could settle a dispute back inside the club. He fired buckshot into a crowd of people from about 20 feet away & only wounded one girl, but it was still pretty nightmarish. I think an alert bouncer managed to tackle him because he was plenty drunk & moving slowly.

I bet if you'd asked the guy at 10 that morning why he kept a shotgun in his truck, it wouldn't have been so that he could shoot up a bar whenever he felt like it. Guns and booze are a bad combo & easy access to guns makes heat-of-the-moment shootings waaay too easy.
posted by Devils Rancher at 9:35 AM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Steve Benen's commentary on the NRA speech is here and is brilliant, also includes video of the entire disgusting speech. Two lines I loved: "This was a public-relations fiasco that only John Boehner can properly relate to." and "Honestly, it seemed like LaPierre was going out of his way to alienate even people who might be skeptical about new gun laws and sympathetic to his arguments. Gun-control advocates shouldn't have been annoyed by the NRA's public-relations disaster, they should have been thrilled."

Make no mistake though - he was throwing down the gauntlet - anyone who thinks the NRA will work for any kind of meaningful reform should know they're going to fight tooth and nail against it. I just hope they've revealed to all what vile, contemptible assholes they are.
posted by leslies at 9:36 AM on December 21, 2012

Hell, why not just send kids to school with guns? That's about as sane as any other idea the NRA is floating.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:37 AM on December 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

I can't wait until I can get a gun with my extra large buttery popcorn at the movies.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:38 AM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'd better not say what I'm waiting on impatiently ;)
posted by de at 9:40 AM on December 21, 2012

David Frum: "NRA's new message for the GOP: higher taxes for more guns in schools."
posted by empath at 9:41 AM on December 21, 2012 [6 favorites]

I think there's something to be said for the frequency of mass shooting and the psychological impact of that, though. I don't know, I just think it would be interesting to peel back for differences in generational perspective on the issue.

Actually, this article linked further up above makes a very good case that gun violence has increased over the past 30 or so years - but not necessarily because "we're a more violent society".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:42 AM on December 21, 2012

this NRA dude sounds unhinged

Now there's a shocker.
posted by Flunkie at 9:43 AM on December 21, 2012

Huh. So, reading up more on what exactly "a well regulated militia" means, I come across this:

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So most able-bodied males between 17 and 45 are already members of the unorganized militia, by law. So... regulate them?
posted by jason_steakums at 9:47 AM on December 21, 2012 [5 favorites]

PA shooting. "only" 4 victims, apparently.
posted by Miko at 9:56 AM on December 21, 2012

About once every 1/2 hour someone kills themselves with a gun in the US. People in homes with a gun present may be up to 5 times more likely to kill themselves.

Every 45 minutes someone kills someone else with a gun.

So, about 84 times a day a gun is used to kill someone

~588 since the start of this FPP.
posted by edgeways at 9:56 AM on December 21, 2012 [11 favorites]

PA shooting. "only" 4 victims, apparently.

If only our state troopers had been armed.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:59 AM on December 21, 2012 [9 favorites]

So most able-bodied males between 17 and 45 are already members of the unorganized militia, by law. So... regulate them?

Except we have a Supreme Court precedent that invented an individual right to bear arms. Short of a constitutional amendment or Antonin Scalia slipping in the shower, that's not changing.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:02 AM on December 21, 2012 [5 favorites]

You know the following is horrible and I don't really think it or advocate it in any fashion: But perhaps the problem isn't that so many people get shot, but rather the wrong people get shot. That if the so called water-the-tree-of-liberty-with-blood jackasses actually tried to do this rather than beat their chests and wave their shrunken dicks around we would have restrictions on guns in a heartbeat.

As a friend said, it is largely as class issue.
posted by edgeways at 10:07 AM on December 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

Regarding magazine size restrictions - this article from Slate's Saletan has some interesting information on the rate of fire from mass killers.
posted by Mid at 10:24 AM on December 21, 2012

A friend of mine just posted this to Facebook:

National Rifle Association
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030

December 21, 2012

To Whom It May Concern:

Like many Americans, I was inspired by Wayne LaPierre's speech this morning to apply for an NRA membership. I'm not sure I meet the qualifications, however. Not with respect to firearms skills; I can learn those as I go. What I'd like to find out is if I have enough self-pity.

You see, as I was watching news coverage of the horrific shootings in Newtown, and the subsequent footage of mothers and fathers burying their six- and seven-year old children a few days before Christmas, I was, of course, mostly thinking about the mean things people might say about gun owners in the wake of the tragedy. As the eulogies for the kids rolled on, I concentrated mainly on whether my right to go buy an air rifle from Wal-Mart might somehow be inconvenienced in the future as a result of a mass murder such as this one. And as I read the condolences in the guestbooks to these first graders' online obituaries, my mind always returned to the real tragedy: whether one of the nation's most powerful lobbying groups might see their favorability ratings drop sufficiently to force them to actually negotiate with those remaining members of Congress who aren't their prison bitches.

But there were times – and I'm ashamed to admit it – that my thoughts occasionally strayed from my rabid, unwavering obsession with making any and all types of firearms as accessible as Pop-Tarts at any human or social cost, to the unbearable sorrow these parents must be facing, to their justifiable questions about why we have worked so hard to keep rapid-fire killing machines in public circulation, and to whether a re-examination of those policies might be part of a holistic approach to countering our nation's disturbing, decade-plus long spate of mass shootings, to say nothing of the less newsworthy gun violence claims American lives every single day. Not a lot, but some.

So I'm writing to ask you: Exactly how paranoid, narcissistic, and self-pitying does one have to be to become an NRA member? Can you start off, at least, just by being hopelessly deaf to anything but the parroted talking points of lunatic survivalists? Do you need to be just fixated enough on the idea that someday, I personally will probably blow the head off an intruder to my home, or fight back the military junta that will inevitably swallow the U.S. government, to lack empathy for the victims of outrageous bloodbaths perpetrated by maniacs who borrowed from their own mother's arsenal? Or do I need, like your President, to be a functional sociopath so drunk on his own self-importance that he can tell the nation, with a straight face, that gun owners and guns themselves are the ones who really suffered over the past week?

If you can let me know the exact level of self-absorbed whining in the face of unspeakable tragedy that will get me in on the ground floor, I would be happy to join your organization. You'll like having me. I'm a real asshole.

Sincerely,

A Real American
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:36 AM on December 21, 2012 [43 favorites]

I've heard people noting that if teachers had guns, they could have stopped him.

Yeah, the thing about that that frightens me is the many times nationwide in which harried schoolteachers pull it out to maintain order that will go unreported in the national media because no one gets killed.

I think this is where the NRA finally jumped the shark, while shooting into the air and screaming "yeeee-hah!!!!!"

While the shark exploded behind them in slow motion, oh yeah!

Christ, what an asshol!

He's certainly been drinking the assahol. He's an assaholic!
posted by JHarris at 10:40 AM on December 21, 2012

this article from Slate's Saletan has some interesting information on the rate of fire from mass killers.

From the article:
At one point, the Courant reports, six kids tried to flee a classroom he had entered. Lanza mowed them all down, which is hard to do unless your weapon is very fast.

Or apparently if you are a psycho using proper breath control and a speed loader.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 10:51 AM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

room317: If your friend is available for the marrying, I'd like to sign myself up. I call first dibs on that fella, y'all.
posted by youandiandaflame at 10:53 AM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Except we have a Supreme Court precedent that invented an individual right to bear arms. Short of a constitutional amendment or Antonin Scalia slipping in the shower, that's not changing.

But it's not saying that you have to be in the militia to own a weapon; it's saying that you already, by law, are in the unorganized militia of the United States if you're almost any able-bodied male between 17 and 45 who is a citizen or has announced their intention to become a citizen. So for that group, at least, the point of being required to join a militia is moot: they're in it, and per the Second Amendment the militia should be well regulated. So what's to stop a law requiring them to register their weapons and muster for training every now and then, like the militias at the time of the Second Amendment's writing? It would be an entirely different argument than the Supreme Court ruled on in Heller. I'm genuinely curious, not trying to be all "Ha! Legal checkmate!". Has the Supreme Court ruled on something like this?
posted by jason_steakums at 10:55 AM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

youandiandaflame, unfortunately he's happily married with two kids.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:59 AM on December 21, 2012

Ugh, and searching for more about the unregulated militia of the US makes me want to bleach my browser. It is a popular topic among absolute nutbars.
posted by jason_steakums at 11:05 AM on December 21, 2012

jason_steakums: "So for that group, at least, the point of being required to join a militia is moot: they're in it, and per the Second Amendment the militia should be well regulated."

I see where you're going with that, but when the law is in tension with the Constitution, the Constitution wins.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:06 AM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

There was an 15 year veteran of the Sheriff's department at Columbine High School when that shooting occurred. Eric Harris, one of the shooters, fired at the officer from within the school, the deputy returned fire, but neither hit each other.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:08 AM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Jason_steakums, The Supreme Court has consistently supported conscription, so I imagine being required to train in gun safety would be acceptable as long as it was phrased as a general requirement for the populace as a whole (or the subset that could be subjected to military service). However, it would have to be decoupled from gun rights as far as the current court is concerned. If someone tried to deny the right to bear arms to a person who was unable to show up for militia training (disabled, conscientious objector, etc...) I'm sure it would get tricky.
posted by BrotherCaine at 11:13 AM on December 21, 2012

If you're too disabled to train to use a gun, I'm sure somehow the constitution can be interpreted to say that you don't have the right to own it. It seems to allow for denying that right to criminals already, right?

My schoolteacher friend says that if she carried a gun at her school, she wouldn't give it a year before one of the large high school boys in her class took it from her and tried to use it. Sounds great! She did say that she wouldn't mind having a taser to use on them instead ;)
posted by jacalata at 11:17 AM on December 21, 2012

If someone tried to deny the right to bear arms to a person who was unable to show up for militia training (disabled, conscientious objector, etc...) I'm sure it would get tricky.

I shouldn't think so - they can already deny gun rights based off of felony convictions or restraining orders and whatever.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:21 AM on December 21, 2012

tonycpsu: Right, but how is it in tension with the Second Amendment as interpreted under Heller when you aren't requiring people to join a militia to carry a weapon? It's a moot point for the group that's already counted as part of the unregulated militia. Heller certainly says that private citizens can own guns, but it doesn't say anything about gun regulations applying to militia members, which this group technically is. It seems like Heller would only demand that those regulations couldn't touch women, or men outside of that age group.

On preview: BrotherCaine, that's more along the lines of the stuff I'm wondering about. It would be an interesting legal situation to say the least since the unregulated militia is barely (but clearly!) mentioned in law and there seems to be no mention of punishment for declaring that you're not in it - it seems to just assume that you are in it if you're a male in this age group and that's that.

Also, I did find someone else talking about this. Still comes down to questions and conjecture, because this seems to be a very untested and curious bit of law.
posted by jason_steakums at 11:24 AM on December 21, 2012

As for registration requirements, they can trigger fifth amendment considerations as in Haynes (criminal purchase of firearm exempt from registration requirement because of self incrimination), but I think are totally fine as far as second amendment rights go, and were not addressed in Heller.
posted by BrotherCaine at 11:25 AM on December 21, 2012

Hm. And for all of the talk of what elements of culture are encouraging these mass shootings, it seems like a pretty big one is being consistently overlooked: Al Qaeda showed that a big enough act of terrorism can drive even the most powerful and secure country absolutely insane and change the way the world works, and that point was driven home by a wave of trauma and grief that was real and tangible that nobody could get away from. Surely that kind of demonstration and the subsequent elevation of the terrorist to international nightmare figure should be up there with violence in entertainment.
posted by jason_steakums at 11:37 AM on December 21, 2012

We can already get an idea of what happens when there are weapons in schools - weapons used by trained, authorized personnel:

1. A state motor transportation police officer Tased a 10-year-old student during a school career fair in May in Tularosa, causing him to black out, according to a lawsuit filed by the boy's family.

Officer Christopher Webb pointed the stun gun at the boy after the boy made a joke and said, "Let me show you what happens to people who do not listen to the police," according to the lawsuit filed Friday against the state Department of Public Safety.

The officer contends his stun gun went off by accident while he was showing it to a group of students, according to Department of Public Safety documents.

2. In October of 2004, attorneys at Disability Rights Oregon (then known as Oregon Advocacy Center, or OAC) learned that an eleven-year old boy was tasered in his special education classroom by police in riot gear. That report raised dual concerns that led OAC to investigate the incident.

3. JONESBORO — Officials at Jonesboro Middle School say police tasered an 11-year-old student Wednesday as a last resort. The incident immediately prompted an internal police investigation.

Channel 2 was told the incident began after something happened at lunch to spark a verbal argument between two 6th graders. The verbal argument turned physical and a school resource officer with the Jonesboro Police Department says she had to resort to using a taser.

4. When an agitated 7-year-old special education student clambered onto a bookshelf at his San Mateo school, aides called the police. Officer George "Randy" Heald told the boy it wasn't safe on the unsteady furniture and that he had to get down.

The boy refused, and the officer blasted him with pepper spray, touching off a debate over whether the chemical agent should ever be used on children.
posted by rtha at 11:40 AM on December 21, 2012 [6 favorites]

jacalata writes "She did say that she wouldn't mind having a taser to use on them instead ;)"

Buying into the lie that a Taser is a non-lethal weapon.
posted by Mitheral at 11:47 AM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

dry white toast: "Columbine had an armed police officer on site."

@davidfrum: RT @sshavelson: And there may have been some guns available at Ft Hood.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:53 AM on December 21, 2012

Officer Christopher Webb pointed the stun gun at the boy after the boy made a joke and said, "Let me show you what happens to people who do not listen to the police," according to the lawsuit filed Friday against the state Department of Public Safety.

The officer contends his stun gun went off by accident while he was showing it to a group of students, according to Department of Public Safety documents.

You'd think that the police would be in a better position to understand "don't point weapons at people, ever" than most, but this and the time a cop pointed a BB gun at my face in the hallway outside a courtroom (to show how real it looked, natch) suggests that maybe that isn't so.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 11:54 AM on December 21, 2012

I am not a lawyer, so I don't know the full legal history involved in depriving felons of rights (right to firearms, right to vote), but I think from the wikipedia article on felony disenfranchisement, we can infer that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment means that states can strip criminals of their gun rights, as long as there isn't a protected class issue (see Hunter v Underwood).

Which I'm guessing means that given the Heller ruling, if a felon can prove there is a racist motivation in the legislation that was used to convict them, then they could sue to get their gun rights restored.

In any case, there aren't any circumstances I'm aware of that would let the courts or law deprive someone of their rights because of a disability. There are several blind firearm owners for example.

As for the idiocy of guns in school, it seems like there's a news article every year already about kids finding a gun in an unattended purse or bag left there by a teacher. I can only imagine how bad it would be if they were required to carry.
posted by BrotherCaine at 11:55 AM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Guns in the classroom ? I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong...
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:59 AM on December 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

Which I'm guessing means that given the Heller ruling, if a felon can prove there is a racist motivation in the legislation that was used to convict them, then they could sue to get their gun rights restored.

If that's an option, why has nobody bothered to do that for voting rights? Isn't that at least as strongly granted as the right to own a gun?
posted by jacalata at 12:14 PM on December 21, 2012

You'd think that the police would be in a better position to understand "don't point weapons at people, ever" than most, but this and the time a cop pointed a BB gun at my face in the hallway outside a courtroom (to show how real it looked, natch) suggests that maybe that isn't so.

In high school, I noticed our school's assigned cop absentmindedly sticking his finger down the barrel of a rifle during the gun safety demonstration he was running.
posted by Copronymus at 12:17 PM on December 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

Ugh, and searching for more about the unregulated militia of the US makes me want to bleach my browser. It is a popular topic among absolute nutbars.

An aside, but yeah, learning about this takes one into creepy places. Also, just the search terms that Ihave entered into my browser have probably qualified my IP address for some sort of FBI watch list.
posted by Miko at 12:18 PM on December 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

Interesting bit in the Atlantic article linked upthread, regarding Scalia's Heller opinion:

"Nothing in the opinion," Scalia wrote, "should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

So Scalia isn't cool with the government saying you can't own certain guns, but saying that you can't sell certain guns to citizens is just fine? Combine that with a well-funded buyback program and you've got a good start on things.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:20 PM on December 21, 2012

I just looked at an NRA site or two. There are some real gems, like "Retired folks like myself would love to supplement our meager social security income by being part of the program to provide the armed and trained presence in schools that is so needed."

Did the US never get Dad's Army?
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:24 PM on December 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

BrotherCaine: Not sure that the blind gun owner linked is clear evidence that disability can't prevent someone from owning a gun. It specifically states that he did recently complete firearms training, and that the judge was confident that he was capable of safely handling the firearm - it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that there are some disabilities which would prevent the above two conditions from being met.
posted by jacalata at 12:27 PM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Grandpa Simpson, School Sheriff!

In thinking over the NRA's idea, there are two obvious issues to start with: 1. volunteers aren't free. They need recruiting, training, equipping, managing, and evaluation, all on an ongoing basis. So managing this program would necessarily expand the bureaucracy. 2. Only someone coming from a sheltered place of deep privilege could assume that every community is so well structured and resourced that it has an abundant supply of qualified volunteers who would be happy to serve in any school they are assigned to on an indefinite and regular basis. Just think about it for a little while in the context of the variety of America's schools and communities.
posted by Miko at 12:28 PM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

"We can pay for this by stoping foreign aid"

Heh, Israel will just love that idea.
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:28 PM on December 21, 2012

Okay, I'm a complete legal novice so I'm still trying to fathom how the Supreme Court gets this individual rights interpretation out of the Second Amendment in Heller. Leading with the wording "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," doesn't the amendment imply that the function of keeping and bearing arms is to provide for the public benefit? Which conversely means when it is no longer to the public benefit to have so many arms being kept and borne, the state has the right to limit their possession?

I had no idea that the relevant Supreme Court case asserting the individual rights interpretation was so recent. I suppose that means that it's still early in the process of interpreting the interpretation (q.v. see the Right Not To Keep or Bear Arms paper BrotherCaine links to above).
posted by Numenius at 12:29 PM on December 21, 2012

> Except we have a Supreme Court precedent that invented an individual right to bear arms.

You do, and to bear arms against one another in a modern civil society (where else?), no militia (not even a quorum) required. Untouched the 2nd amendment would have -- should have -- lapsed into obsolescence. To its peril, America credits its founding fathers, people who had yet to fashion comfortable underwear for goodness sake, with way too much sophistication in foresight and enduring wisdom. The 2nd amendment has become a modern day wildcard, a place holder in the constitution for the next generation of weapons individuals want to purchase and try out -- on one another; more's the pity. You're stuck with it (for) now.

Speaking about a militia: four million NRA members is in the scheme of things not many to wield such politely colossal power. That NRA news conference wasn't the beginning of a conversation, it was an encroachment on public policy. This mob's ready to roll.

Any NRA members sitting as high court judges? (I know the NRA quibbles about anti-gun judges.) It's feasible America could get worse archaic constitutional creep yet over the Sandy Hook massacre.

Biden/SandyHook/2013 could be to America what Howard/PortArthur/1996 was to Australia but infinitely more complex. Stay livid.
posted by de at 12:32 PM on December 21, 2012 [6 favorites]

An appropriate image making the rounds (sfw)
posted by edgeways at 12:38 PM on December 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

I know that the idea of a national registry for "mentally ill" people is 100% not a possibility.

But if it were to be enacted, I would leave the country, full stop.

I'm just so completely offended right now.
posted by hellojed at 12:40 PM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Nothing like some government list to make people really want to go get the help they deserve and need.

On the plus side (ha) at least people will legitimately have something to be paranoid about.

I mean the fellow on the corner raving about the government spying on him? Not only is that NOT a delusion nowadays, but it will be even more true. Hell, perhaps we should ALL be raving about government spying on us, perhaps that guy is really the sane one.
posted by edgeways at 12:44 PM on December 21, 2012

Miko: food for the NSA line-eater

Only someone coming from a sheltered place of deep privilege could assume that every community is so well structured and resourced that it has an abundant supply of qualified volunteers who would be happy to serve in any school they are assigned to on an indefinite and regular basis. Just think about it for a little while in the context of the variety of America's schools and communities.

Hey, just wait for FOX to cover the enthusiastic volunteers from the New Black Panther Party. Even if there's just one.
posted by dhartung at 12:45 PM on December 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

Some people are fighting the good fight: "If security and armed guards is the answer, how did Dr. Nidal manage to kill 13 people on a military base?"
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:47 PM on December 21, 2012 [12 favorites]

Okay, I'm a complete legal novice so I'm still trying to fathom how the Supreme Court gets this individual rights interpretation out of the Second Amendment in Heller. Leading with the wording "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," doesn't the amendment imply that the function of keeping and bearing arms is to provide for the public benefit?

Heller isn't actually a terrible opinion for a legal novice to read, but the question of how to treat the "well regulated militia" was treated more or less like this. The "well regulated militia"phrase is a "prefatory clause" it doesn't, grammatically, alter the meaning of the second clause which the Court called an operative clause. Instead, it announces a purpose. The court did find the militia clause could serve a clarifying function, but that interpretation of the Second Amendment had to begin with the second clause.

In interpreting the second clause, the Court concluded that the only logical interpretation of that phrase "the right of the people" is that the right was a right held individually by all Americans. This was based on the meaning of that phrase when used in other contexts in the Constitution. In looking at whether or the prefatory clause comported with this reading of the operative clause, the Court looked to a definition of "militia" that included all free abled bodied men, rather than a select group like the National Guard and found that the two were compatible in that the prefatory clause announced a purpose, to keep the government from disarming the militia (all free able bodied men) that was consistent with an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment.

The analysis and the history is controversial, but that's how the Court got there, and for better or worse we're stuck with it for now.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 12:51 PM on December 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

There's a not-insignificant number of people who genuinely think they're better with weapons than the military.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:52 PM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

While the NRA Was on TV Talking About the Need for More Guns Some Guy Was Walking Up and Down a Road in Pennsylvania Shooting People
posted by EvaDestruction at 12:54 PM on December 21, 2012

There's a not-insignificant number of people who genuinely think they're better with weapons than the military.

And to be fair, the ones who have yet to point one at an elementary school student have a leg up on the aforementioned police.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:55 PM on December 21, 2012

> There's a not-insignificant number of people who genuinely think they're better with weapons than the military.

My brother in law likes to talk about how NYPD and other police departments have less range time requirements now and aren't as good shots since they've lowered standards.

Of course, this feeds into the system of not trusting society and not needing cops (if the problem is cops are bad shots, why don't we address that?), and so on. And completes the fantasy of being the one exceptionally equipped individual who can out draw a gunman.

He also said that police officers have higher rates of accidents with guns. Ignoring the fact that a) they have some of the highest exposure to them, b) that those numbers are suspect in and of itself (since we can't have impartial academic research done about it without fear of reprisals by the NRA for showing that individual gun ownership does have a negative impact on society ie cutting into their sales). I mean, he's a smart guy, but he's gone down the IT nerd / gun rabbit/reddit hole justifying his own hobby as not possibly being part of this problem.
posted by mrzarquon at 1:02 PM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

My mother used to punish my brother and I severely (to our minds) whenever we would swear, so it is with a great sense of personal satisfaction that I report her official response the this morning's NRA press conference was "fuck that guy."
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:08 PM on December 21, 2012 [15 favorites]

Annual cost to taxpayers: begins at 7,905,360,000.

So, I think we have a starting negotiating point for a gun buy-back program.
posted by dhartung at 1:10 PM on December 21, 2012 [5 favorites]

So according to the NRA fanboys, this $8Bn p.a. school militia boondoggle can be staffed by retirees, the unemployed, and vets (as if they don't have significant mental health issues). It's a great way to solve unemployment, they say.

I'm just stunned that the same kinds of people who are against Big Government are not only for putting armed government agents into every single school, but they also believe the government should be responsible for creating work for the otherwise unemployable.

It's like the New Deal all over again, instead of doing something constructive like building dams, the newly employed will just be engaged in firefighting, so to speak.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:17 PM on December 21, 2012 [11 favorites]

empath: "They have armed guards because the country was flooded with guns during the civil war ..."

I wonder ... who flooded El Salvador with those guns?

^{"A senior Carter administration official who had access to all the intelligence traffic said the FMLN got most of their weapons on the international black market, mostly from Miami Florida."}
posted by brokkr at 1:33 PM on December 21, 2012

A bit of an aside about that LaPierre thing this morning.

As he was speaking, I had a bit of a flashback to the Romney NAACP speech this past summer. If you recall, it was as if Mitt threw in the towel before the speech and just came out and said every single thing he knew was going to be unpopular. And of course, it was.

Today, with LaPierre, I felt the same thing. It was as if he decided that there was no way he could compromise to any degree, so he went full tilt to the other side. What this means to the whole debate is unclear and the lines - while one may conclude from the speech today are clearly drawn - almost have to shift to another location.

Or not and LaPierre is completely nuts.

Either way, what was proposed will obviously never fly and there has to be another reason for such a stance. I kept getting the feeling that he was making these suggestions to set a place at the negotiating table and not really to negotiate. What the NRA plans to do is anyone's guess.
posted by lampshade at 1:37 PM on December 21, 2012

tonycpsu: "What sort of backlash is going to overcome the NRA's massive financial war chest? How many NRA members are going to burn their membership cards after something like this? I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't see them losing any ground at all once the dust settles. Wayne did his job -- he went out there and made people angry at Wayne LaPierre."

As the most recent election proved, it's not about appeasing "the base." That will only get you so far. For the NRA to be viable, it needs the support of the general population, which predominantly includes people who are mildly sympathetic toward or indifferent to their views. The NRA will have a difficult time sustaining even its most steadfast supporters if the organization gains an overwhelmingly negative image nationally.

This strategy of doubling-down (before they even had any specific gun regulation proposals to respond to) was tone-deaf to the extreme. After taking a week to try to gauge the tone of the discussion, they succumbed to the echo chamber. It wouldn't be the first time (this year) that the right-wing has profoundly failed to interpret the national consensus.

My (rather large) family tends to be fairly right-wing, and a few of us even shoot recreationally (and we've got plenty of friends who hunt). Apart from one crackpot conspiracy theorist, all of them have been completely horrified by proposals for more guns, and most of them are strongly in favor of significant extra regulations. (Also, anybody who's had any sort of experience with firearms and/or police/military training knows that the NRA's arguments are completely detached from reality -- marksmanship is hard, training is important, stray bullets are really bad, assault weapons have no conceivable legitimate purpose, and it's pretty hard to pick out the baddies in a firefight. )

For an organization that's reputed to have a formidable lobbying and PR arm, they're doing an absolutely terrible job of it. PR teams are trained in crisis management, and usually have pre-written response plans for predictable crises (such as this one).

Also remember that, despite a massive lobbying effort, Obamacare has become quite popular, and the public consensus has overwhelmingly shifted away from supporting tax cuts for the wealthy. The Overton Window is shifting back toward the center far more rapidly than I ever would have expected -- if you asked me a week ago, I honestly wouldn't have predicted that a meaningful effort to reform gun control would spawn out of this. However, it looks like that's going to happen now.

That said, while I do think that the tables have turned on the debate, I'm not sure that there are enough votes in place to make a meaningful dent in either direction. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns into a toxic issue that both parties gradually back away from.
posted by schmod at 1:38 PM on December 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

Retired police officer video tapes himself cutting up his NRA membership card this morning.

I so hope this starts a trend.
posted by raztaj at 1:39 PM on December 21, 2012 [13 favorites]

raztaj, I hope it's the start of a trend too, I've been crossing my fingers for exactly this display since LaPierre's speech. I think there are few things that would be more effective in changing the national discourse than a movement among NRA members to call the organization's leaders out for their ridiculous mission creep and zealotry. There are plenty of NRA members out there who have been taking the good of the organization with the increasing bad for a long time but haven't had significant motivation to do anything about it.

Variations on "NRA/Lost its way" have been making inroads a bit lately as soundbites, it's catchy and short enough to hashtag (#NRALostItsWay). Maybe people could use it and spread this guy's act.
posted by jason_steakums at 1:52 PM on December 21, 2012

More guns, and more guns in schools, and a "national database of the mentally ill,"

"He's making a list, and checking it twice; gonna find out who's ..."

List Of Neurological Conditions And Disorders.
posted by ericb at 1:55 PM on December 21, 2012

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

and what kind of magic wand does one use to do this with? - or maybe a magic bible? - a magic copy of the constitution? - a magic rifle?

or perhaps we could send them down to the river with a seesaw with them on one end and a duck on the other

we need details, mr nra man, details ...
posted by pyramid termite at 2:04 PM on December 21, 2012

well, to tell the difference, i mean

i have a cold and i'm incoherent

what's HIS excuse?
posted by pyramid termite at 2:07 PM on December 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

So the NRA wants the government to enlist 100,000 armed agents, and compile a list of undesirables. Freedom!
posted by robcorr at 2:08 PM on December 21, 2012 [19 favorites]

A teacher speaks about trying to return to normal, post-Newtown.
posted by gaspode at 2:13 PM on December 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

So the NRA wants the government to enlist 100,000 armed agents, and compile a list of undesirables. Freedom!

As a Canadian, I feel like a guy who can't bear to look his neighbor in the face anymore.
posted by No Robots at 2:26 PM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Is there any empirical evidence given for this statement whatsoever?

Common sense suggests that even in a best-case scenario there would be someone who is specifically motivated to kill people up against a guard who, whilst armed, isn't so motivated. The lack of motivation and initiative outweighs any advantage the mere possession of a weapon would give them. On the other hand, if there were people available who might be motivated to kill, and prepared to kill without thought at an instant, they might possibly be effective guards, but I'm not sure I'd want them hanging around kids on a day-to-day basis.

Still, so much for common sense. What does the evidence say?
posted by Grangousier at 2:29 PM on December 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

I couldn't believe this shit when I heard it on the radio this morning.
posted by codacorolla at 2:31 PM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Fact-Checking the NRA Press Conference

Few organizations have done more than the NRA to block the registration of anything, as they work vigorously to defeat gun registration databases wherever they find them.

Most recently, they have called for the repeal of Michigan's state-wide pistol registry, a law that State Police credit for solving a recent shooting spree that targeted drives on the busy I-96 corridor. However, they do maintain a National Registry of Places to Shoot.

posted by DynamiteToast at 2:37 PM on December 21, 2012 [7 favorites]

Still, so much for common sense. What does the evidence say?

We might have an idea what the evidence says, except that the research has been suppressed by the NRA.

It must have been so overwhelmingly convincing in the NRA's favour, that they actually did a public service, by stopping money being wasted on research when the obvious conclusion is that guns are an awesome means of self defence with a tangible net reduction in harm for everybody.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:39 PM on December 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

Christie: Armed guards won't make schools safer
posted by madamjujujive at 2:41 PM on December 21, 2012 [7 favorites]

Christ... is Christie going to pull a Crist or what (lotta Cs there)? Swear to god he is making himself positively poisonous to the GOP base.
posted by edgeways at 2:43 PM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Tony Horwitz on The NRA and the 'Positive Good' of Maximum Guns.
posted by Numenius at 2:48 PM on December 21, 2012

My perspective on the NRA press conference: my sixth-grade P.E. teacher was arrested, in the middle of the school day in front of all of the school, for having a hunting rifle in his locked vehicle in the school parking lot. He was arrested by the Virginia State Police (gun friendly Virginia) and lost his job with the county school system for having a loaded gun on school grounds.

This was 22 years ago when guns at school were a problem not a solution.
posted by peeedro at 2:57 PM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Four dead, three police officers injured in Pennsylvania shooting

Breaking: NRA calls for an armed guard to be placed with every police officer
posted by young sister beacon at 2:58 PM on December 21, 2012 [15 favorites]

Christ... is Christie going to pull a Crist or what (lotta Cs there)? Swear to god he is making himself positively poisonous to the GOP base.

Wow. You know, if he keeps going like this, he's going to have a really good shot in 2016. Maybe he is trying to singlehandedly make moderates feel comfortable voting for a Republican again by not being totally insane at all times on every issue.
posted by cairdeas at 3:01 PM on December 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

Swear to god he is making himself positively poisonous to the GOP base.

Well, that base is much less in evidence in Jersey than in, say, even Pennsylvania. There's a long tradition of liberal, northeast Republicans and in the current fractured state of the GOP it's actually less surprising than you might think to see one of them reappear. Given that the presidential race is over, done, kaput, he now has to focus on his own re-election campaign -- he has eleven months to election day.
posted by dhartung at 3:06 PM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Well, there are 2 separate responses to this right?

1. How to stop the bad guy before he becomes the bad guy with the gun.
2. How to stop the bad guy with the gun if 1 fails.

( or maybe even 0. how to stop the guy from becoming a bad guy?)
posted by asra at 3:11 PM on December 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

And he's completely wrong anyway, what kind of idiot is he to not recognise that a bow and arrow, homemade bomb, or tactical nuke, would all work equally well to stop a bad guy with a gun?
posted by jacalata at 3:19 PM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Or maybe a bad guy with a gun without a gun is just a bad guy. If we really must use this simplistically Manichean terminology.
posted by Grangousier at 3:19 PM on December 21, 2012

Did Wayne LaPierre get his talking points from Facebook?
posted by young sister beacon at 3:26 PM on December 21, 2012

Debunking the self-defense myth:

- Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense
- Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal
- Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.
- Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.
- Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.
- Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime
- Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens
posted by young sister beacon at 3:47 PM on December 21, 2012 [12 favorites]

So you think you know the second amendment?
posted by young sister beacon at 3:48 PM on December 21, 2012

And he's completely wrong anyway, what kind of idiot is he to not recognise that a bow and arrow, homemade bomb, or tactical nuke, would all work equally well to stop a bad guy with a gun?

Yep. Some people appear to hold inherently contradictory positions.

1) If you take away guns, people will simply kill each other with other weapons like knives or baseball bats and the total number of dead innocents will be the same.
2) Only arming non-criminals with firearms is the antidote to criminals with guns.

Huh? If other weapons are as effective as guns (which is necessary for replacing guns with other weapons to have no effect on death rate), then arming non-criminals with knives or bats should be just as effective in combating criminals with guns.

It doesn't seem to me that one can logically hold both positions 1 and 2 at the same time. Either guns are more effective than other weapons at killing people or they aren't. If they are, then taking them away would reduce the death rate for events like we've seen at Sandy Hook. If they aren't, then these mall ninja assholes should be stopping these shooters left and right with nothing but a Louisville Slugger and a Swiss Army Knife. And yet they don't do so.
posted by Justinian at 3:53 PM on December 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

Heh. Why not overthrow the government with knives, spoons etc... when you need to do that as well?
posted by Artw at 3:56 PM on December 21, 2012

So you think you know the second amendment?

I wish that article provided some cites. It says that for more than a hundred years the Supreme Court held that the militia clause trumped the "bear arms" clause. But it doesn't give any examples. I've seen pro-gun people say the exact opposite. Without actual cites I don't see why someone believes one position over the other save as concordant with their own ideology.

So can anyone cite 19th century Supreme Court cases which held one clause or the other to be controlling?
posted by Justinian at 3:56 PM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Context: I think it should be pretty clear that I'm looking for a way to square my belief that more gun control is necessary to stop things like Sandy Hook with my belief that interpreting an Amendment to the Constitution non-objectively simply to have it align with one's preferred policy positions is a terribly dangerous thing for the future. It doesn't have the immediate body count of a Sandy Hook but it could affect far more people in the long run. So I'd like to believe that the individual right to bear arms really is a modern invention, but I'm extremely suspicious of it as a blanket assertion coming as it universally does from someone who very, very much wishes to greatly restrict gun ownership.
posted by Justinian at 4:00 PM on December 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

Justinian, I think the NRA position is that gun control laws will mainly affect "good" gun owners, while still allowing criminals to obtain guns. So their logic is: (a) Guns are more effective than other weapons, and (b) criminals will have guns no matter what the law says, so (c) law-abiding citizens must be able to own guns to be on even footing with the gun-toting criminals.

(That's not to say I agree with their logic; I think the evidence shows that effective gun control does reduce the use of guns in crimes.)
posted by mbrubeck at 4:08 PM on December 21, 2012

How to reduce the toll from US gun violence

Ends with the conciliatory "In the US, knee-jerk positions for or against gun control have until now won out over careful consideration of the evidence. In memory of the children who died at Newtown, it is time to put these divisions aside and begin a sensible, meaningful discussion about how to solve a terrible and complex problem." , but basically if you look at it the more you control guns the less shootings you get.

Which should be obvious, but there you go.
posted by Artw at 4:10 PM on December 21, 2012

So you think you know the second amendment?

I wish that article provided some cites. It says that for more than a hundred years the Supreme Court held that the militia clause trumped the "bear arms" clause. But it doesn't give any examples. I've seen pro-gun people say the exact opposite. Without actual cites I don't see why someone believes one position over the other save as concordant with their own ideology.

So can anyone cite 19th century Supreme Court cases which held one clause or the other to be controlling?

The Jill Lapore article is cited in that article and which I think has been linked in this thread (I would STRONGLY encourage everyone to read that article) goes into much more detail on the history of the second amendment and how it has evolved:

[The NRA] also supported the 1934 National Firearms Act—the first major federal gun-control legislation—and the 1938 Federal Firearms Act, which together created a licensing system for dealers and prohibitively taxed the private ownership of automatic weapons (“machine guns”). The constitutionality of the 1934 act was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939, in U.S. v. Miller, in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, argued that the Second Amendment is “restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security.” Furthermore, Jackson said, the language of the amendment makes clear that the right “is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.” The Court agreed, unanimously.

See also: United States v. Miller
posted by young sister beacon at 4:12 PM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Chris Christie: “You don’t want to make this an armed camp for kids,” he said. “I don’t think that’s a positive example for children. We should be able to figure out other ways to enhance safety.”

Oh Chris Christie, when you do or say something that I really, really like it makes my head hurt more when you do something I really, really hate. Still, I am going to keep you in the "Republican I could stand as Commander in Chief" column - but pre-election McCain burned me, so don't expect me to trust you just yet.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:15 PM on December 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

The NRA Solution to Gun Violence: More Guns, Fewer Videogames

The solutions to the mass shootings offered by the NRA press conference, which at times bore more resemblance to the first round of a brainstorming session, included exactly zero measures dealing with the numbers or types of guns available to Americans. Their preferred answers include: more armed guards in schools (a measure that didn’t prevent the tragedy at Columbine), the creation of a national database of the mentally ill, and nebulously addressing the “moral failings of the media” and the games, movies and other media that LaPierre deemed “the filthiest form of pornography.”

These people are insane. They should not be setting policy.
posted by Artw at 4:19 PM on December 21, 2012 [5 favorites]

So can anyone cite 19th century Supreme Court cases which held one clause or the other to be controlling?

Second Amendment decisions are scarce. The one that gun control advocates point to the most is United States v. Miller, but both sides claim that Miller supports their position. Wikipedia has a list of other cases, but Miller and Heller are the two to read. There's just not a lot of case law to say one way or the other what the Second Amendment means in terms of which clause is controlling.

For my part, I don't see how you read the "the right of the people" to mean a collective right in light of how that term is used in every other part of the Constitution, but I personally believe that more gun control is a good thing. If I were king for a day I would rewrite the Second Amendment to guarantee certain forms of gun ownership, but not others, but I'm not king and that's not happening, so I think we should focus on what we can do in light of the current interpretation and see if the judicial climate changes.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 4:20 PM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

So I'd like to believe that the individual right to bear arms really is a modern invention, but I'm extremely suspicious of it as a blanket assertion coming as it universally does from someone who very, very much wishes to greatly restrict gun ownership.

I'm no expert, but I really, honestly believe it is. The Jill Lapore article shows a clear timeline of the NRA reinterpreting the second amendment starting in the 70s:

In the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. began advancing the argument that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to carry a gun, rather than the people’s right to form armed militias to provide for the common defense. Fights over rights are effective at getting out the vote. Describing gun-safety legislation as an attack on a constitutional right gave conservatives a power at the polls that, at the time, the movement lacked. Opposing gun control was also consistent with a larger anti-regulation, libertarian, and anti-government conservative agenda. In 1975, the N.R.A. created a lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, headed by Harlon Bronson Carter, an award-winning marksman and a former chief of the U.S. Border Control. But then the N.R.A.’s leadership decided to back out of politics and move the organization’s headquarters to Colorado Springs, where a new recreational-shooting facility was to be built. Eighty members of the N.R.A.’s staff, including Carter, were ousted. In 1977, the N.R.A.’s annual meeting, usually held in Washington, was moved to Cincinnati, in protest of the city’s recent gun-control laws. Conservatives within the organization, led by Carter, staged what has come to be called the Cincinnati Revolt. The bylaws were rewritten and the old guard was pushed out. Instead of moving to Colorado, the N.R.A. stayed in D.C., where a new motto was displayed: “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.” [Up until this point in time the motto was “Firearms Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shooting for Recreation.”]

...In 1986, the N.R.A.’s interpretation of the Second Amendment achieved new legal authority with the passage of the Firearms Owners Protection Act, which repealed parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act by invoking “the rights of citizens . . . to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.” This interpretation was supported by a growing body of scholarship, much of it funded by the N.R.A. According to the constitutional-law scholar Carl Bogus, at least sixteen of the twenty-seven law-review articles published between 1970 and 1989 that were favorable to the N.R.A.’s interpretation of the Second Amendment were “written by lawyers who had been directly employed by or represented the N.R.A. or other gun-rights organizations.” In an interview, former Chief Justice Warren Burger said that the new interpretation of the Second Amendment was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

posted by young sister beacon at 4:24 PM on December 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

U.S. Shooting Deaths Since Sandy Hook Exceed 100

3 Shot And Killed In Mich... 18-Year-Old Shot Multiple Times, Dies... Man Kills Wife, Teen, Himself... Man Shoots, Kills Own Son... Cops Shoot Teen Dead... Man Gunned Down In Parking Lot... 5 Dead In Spate Of Shootings... 2 Murdered In Philly... 2 Kansas Cops Shot Dead... Shooter Killed... 4 Die In Apparent Murder-Suicide... Ga. Cop Dies From Gunshot... Argument Leads Teen To Shoot Friend... Man Shot To Death... Teen Dies After Being Tied Up, Shot... Man Shot Dead In Street... Drug Deal Leads To Shooting Death... Mother Of 2 Killed In Road Rage Shooting... Man Shoots, Kills Intruder... 1 Killed In Coney Island... Man Dies From Gunshot Wounds... Cops Investigate Gun Death... Shooting Victim's Body Found On Bike Trail... Man Charged With Shooting Own Brother Dead... Man Dies After Being Shot In Chest... Body Of Shooting Victim Found In Pickup... Teen Arrested For Robbery Shooting Death... Man Carrying 2-Year-Old Son Shot Dead... Man Fatally Shot Near Home... Parolee Dies In Shooting... 1 Killed In Buffalo Shooting... Man Shot Dead In Apartment Complex... Street Gun Battle Kills Grandma Bystander... Man, Woman Dead In Apparent Murder-Suicide... Woman Shot Dead By Intruder... 14-Year-Old Arrested Over Fatal Gun Attack... Man Found Shot Dead In Parking Lot... Woman Shot In Face By Ex-Boyfriend... 1 Woman, 3 Men Shot Dead... 2 Die In Attempted Robbery... Army Reservist Shot To Death In Alley... Man Shot To Death In Bodega... 2 Shot Dead In Burned House... Man Shot During Break-In... Man Fatally Shot... 20-Year-Old Gunned Down... Man Shoots Self During Police Pursuit... 1 Killed In Baltimore Shooting... Cops ID Shooting Victim... 60-Year-Old Man Shot Dead... Shot Man's Body Found In Vacant House.... Woman Shot And Killed Outside Her Home... Shooting Victim Was 'Trying To Turn Life Around'... Slain Shooting Victim Found In Street.... Driving Altercation Leads To Shooting, 1 Dies... 3-Year-Old Dies In Accidental Shooting... Man Turns Self In After Allegedly Shooting Wife... Man Shot Dead Outside Home... 3 Slain In Separate New Orleans Shootings... Cops Investigate Shooting Death... Man Shot Dead In Ohio... Teen Shot To Death... Man Dies After Being Shot Multiple Times... Man Charged Over Son's Shooting Death... Cops Find 2 Men Shot Dead... 1 Dies In Shooting... Man Charged Over Gun Killing... 1 Shot Dead In Confrontation... Man Charged With Murder Over Shooting... Motel-Owner Shot And Killed... Husband Shoots Estranged Wife Dead... Suspect Arrested Over Deputy's Shooting Death... Police Probe Fatal Shooting... Cops Kill 2 Suspects In 3 Shooting Deaths... Man Killed Fighting Back Against Robber... Man Killed In Home Invasion.... Nightclub Shooting Kills 1... Child Brain Dead After Drive By Shooting... Man Charged Over Shooting Of Ex-Wife... Body Found In Vacant House... Teen Fatally Shot...

posted by ericb at 5:05 PM on December 21, 2012 [10 favorites]

Wayne LaPierre Speech Was A Total Public Relations Disaster, Say PR Experts.
posted by ericb at 5:06 PM on December 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

I'm no expert, but I really, honestly believe it is. The Jill Lapore article shows a clear timeline of the NRA reinterpreting the second amendment starting in the 70s:

This is reminiscent of how mainstream Christianity in the US was pretty pro-choice before the 1970s. A lot of people on both sides of these two issues seem to have the idea that things were always this way, but they're pretty recent developments in the history of the country. We're not fighting an unending battle that moves in geological time and stretches back to the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans today, even though the rhetoric makes it seem that way as if to imbue each side with the powers of their chosen founding fathers.
posted by jason_steakums at 5:31 PM on December 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

That article is about evangelicals, jason_steakums, not mainstream Christianity. Mainstream Christians are still relatively pro-choice.

That said, back to the gun issue, and I get your point, the NRA used to be about promoting gun safety and shooting sports and did it well. Then something broke and they became the feeders of the paranoid militia set.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 5:46 PM on December 21, 2012

You're right, poor choice of wording on my part. It's not that the evangelicals are mainstream in the sense of making up the bulk of Christians in the US, but that they carry a lot of political clout in one of the major parties and do much to frame the national debate. And their take on abortion was absolutely different before they left the Dixiecrats (which lines up chronologically with this shift), just like the NRA's take on gun control flipped soon after. There was a change in the 70's to the terms of the debate on guns and reproductive rights and suddenly these things were of massive importance to enough people to make them a litmus test on credibility for our politicians, where they simply weren't before. It's the work of the Southern Strategy and the wider strategies that grew out of it, not an old debate on fundamental American and religious truths like it's made out to be. Powerful people who needed a fired-up voting base lost the war on Civil Rights and grew the tiny seeds of these political stances into something they never were before.

I'd like to make it clear that I don't think that this cynical place is where gun owners or even card-carrying NRA members in general are coming from - in fact I know it isn't, because I know plenty of both - it is absolutely where the NRA leadership and the current political fight came from, though, and it's where the money and influence is made and spent, and it was recent and it was absolutely designed, while it's treated like an age-old fight.
posted by jason_steakums at 6:31 PM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

I felt the need to message the man who cut up his NRA membership, and uploaded the video to CNN. This is what he told me:

Back in the late 80s', 88' to be exact, I was a cop in a small town called, Bangor (Michigan). I responded one afternoon to a report of a young girl that was injured. To make a long story short she was 8 years old and had been shot. The girl died while I was at the scene. I couldn't do anything. I've never forgot that terrible scene. I am so tired of all the death I've seen as a result of guns. This terrible incident in Newtown just is the tipping point. I have a book out about those years as a cop. It's called, Dreams In Blue: the real police. I should rewrite that book.

My formal name is, Richard Neal Huffman.
Please share this with those you would.

"Inside Flap" of his book, via Amazon.com

I was born a sharecropper’s son outside of Kennett, Missouri. My parents migrated to lower Michigan when I was two. I became infatuated with law enforcement, my childhood heroes being old west marshals and sheriffs. I grew up defending the weak and timid and then put on the uniform of the U.S. Army to defend my country during Vietnam. My primary MOS, or military occupational speciality, was as a medic. I went on to also serve as a clerk, tank crewman, intelligence specialist and a military policeman. I realized my ultimate dream when I became a certified police officer in the fall of 1980. I served as a patrolman, sergeant, detective, training officer and assistant chief of police. I held a license for six years as a private investigator. I served as a village councilman and then as mayor. This is my story, Dreams in Blue.

posted by raztaj at 6:35 PM on December 21, 2012 [15 favorites]

If the Brady Campaign or one of the other gun control groups were on the ball, they'd be starting some sort of mass NRA card burning movement on social media. Of course they don't have nearly the reach that the NRA does, so it might be an uphill climb. Mr. Huffman could be the symbol of the emerging "Fuck the NRA" movement.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:39 PM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

The article by Reva Siegel from the Harvard Law Review (pdf), linked in the "So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?" New Yorker piece is really worth reading, too. Very good look at Heller.
posted by jason_steakums at 6:48 PM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

What sort of backlash is going to overcome the NRA's massive financial war chest? How many NRA members are going to burn their membership cards after something like this? I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't see them losing any ground at all once the dust settles. Wayne did his job -- he went out there and made people angry at Wayne LaPierre.

I've got a Facebook friend with whom I usually disagree on politics (he is very marginally a Democrat but in the most Blue Dog way, and most everything he says boils down to "hey guys check out what a MODERATE person I am for agreeing with Republicans on something yet again"), and today he announced that he will not be renewing his NRA membership because of LaPierre's speech. So, one down?
posted by naoko at 7:19 PM on December 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

There are definitely chinks in the armor.

Know what we need? A gun control hack. Brady etc. are all good, serious, informed, etc but very standard, old-media stuff. We could use a weekend-long, focused effort to make pro-guntrol media pieces - PSAs, FAQs, YouTube videos, viral media. NRA card burning is a great topic to start on. Seriously, pinpoint intensive short-duration media production activity would leap all this forward.
posted by Miko at 7:23 PM on December 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

Back in the late 80s', 88' to be exact, I was a cop in a small town called, Bangor (Michigan).

note - for a small town, bangor tends to be a little rough - and it's in van buren county, which is seemingly the meth capitol of michigan
posted by pyramid termite at 7:37 PM on December 21, 2012

Mission Accomplished for me on this. I cited the obstruction of research, obstruction of the ATF confirmations, and interference with mental health care provisions in Obamacare. It was the NRA statement today that put it over the top though.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:43 PM on December 21, 2012 [12 favorites]

Jesus. On my local Missouri news tonight, a school in the area is "tentatively" on board with the NRA's suggestion of armed volunteers. They apparently already have 2 guards split between 7 schools but they're looking to add 3 more.

The superintendent says he doesn't live in fear and hopes that no one else lives in fear of "one or two crazy people who pick up a gun".

And the highest of fives to you, Drinky Die.
posted by youandiandaflame at 8:10 PM on December 21, 2012

Silencing the Science on Gun Research - Journal of the American Medical Association

The United States has long relied on public health science to improve the safety, health, and lives of its citizens. Perhaps the same straightforward, problem-solving approach that worked well in other circumstances can help the nation meet the challenge of firearm violence. Otherwise, the heartache that the nation and perhaps the world is feeling over the senseless gun violence in Newtown will likely be repeated, again and again.
posted by Rumple at 8:19 PM on December 21, 2012 [6 favorites]

The reason some people are all excited about the idea of armed guards in schools is that it can make them feel safer, but what they're missing is the evidence doesn't support that anyone would actually be safer.

I feel safer when I put my lucky octopus figurine in my suitcase before a trip, but it doesn't do a damn thing.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:22 PM on December 21, 2012 [5 favorites]

Words have completely failed me. Short phrases like "batshit insane" and "third fucking world environment" and "when did it all go wrong". But no way to string it all together without writing a thesis.

What a mess you've got yourselves into.

There is dire need for a Sensible People political movement or mass emigration. What a mess.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:12 PM on December 21, 2012

There is dire need for a Sensible People political movement

It seems to me that the point of attack should be to emphasise that the NRA is basically just a vehicle for gun manufacturers to increase their sales, and that it only uses its members as pawns in search of greater profits at any (human) cost. This explains perfectly why the response to yet another massacre is a scheme transparently designed to sell more guns, and to normalise gun usage even further.

If gun owners - who for the most part will be relatively normal people with a bona fide (literally, in good faith) interest in either sport or hunting or self defence - can be shown that the NRA is only pretending to serve their interests when in reality its main purpose is to line the pockets of the manufacturers, potentially some kind of "we are the 99%" split can be achieved.

Right now, as far as I can tell from the opposite side of the world, the NRA is the single / main / dominant "shooters" organisation with all the gun owners' goodwill; all the brand power & recognition. There must be a good number of moderate, sane, pro-control, responsible people with guns that could be convinced to sign up to a rival organisation whose aims are more aligned with the original sporting aims of the NRA, long since abandoned. I'd wager that a more moderate organisation would be able to get a lot of support from cops & ex law enforcement people, like our card-cutting friend upthread.

TL;DR: wedge the NRA. Find the most contentious issue that even their members aren't all that comfortable with, and wedge, wedge, wedge away. Split the organisation so it can no longer pretend to act on behalf of all shooters as the de facto only shooters' rights organisation in the country.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:59 PM on December 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

NRA chief blames Hollywood, media, music, and more for culture of violence.

This man refers to "good guys" and "bad guys" in the same speech where he says people are too influenced by Hollywood.
posted by hydrophonic at 10:03 PM on December 21, 2012 [23 favorites]

Wow, this NRA speech is unbelievably tone deaf.

After the NRA was suggested as a good pro-gun control group in Ask Metafilter, they aren't the only ones who are tone deaf. Shame on all of us for tolerating this group and its supporters.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:06 PM on December 21, 2012

Shame on all of us for tolerating this group and its supporters.

See, that's what I was getting at just above. A lot of gun owners are presumably just supporters of gun ownership. This doesn't have to mean they're necessarily natural supporters of the NRA, except that it seems to be the only organisation *purporting* to act in their interests. They just need a reasonable alternative.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:10 PM on December 21, 2012

Jesus zombie tap-dancing Christ, one person suggested that. Stop pretending it was the entire site giving them a parade.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:13 PM on December 21, 2012 [5 favorites]

Here's my question about NRA membership: what are the benefits? Because looking at their benefits page they seem to mostly be enticements to buy insurance coverage and magazines full of gun ads. If your organization isn't offering real, tangible benefits to members, while you go and get your members associated with the crazy, distasteful rhetoric of your leaders, that's not a sustainable business model in the long term.
posted by jason_steakums at 10:43 PM on December 21, 2012

I'd also like to note that the benefits page mentions protecting the rights of gun owners last after two bullet points on the magazines and FIVE on the insurance policies.
posted by jason_steakums at 10:45 PM on December 21, 2012

It looks like this discussion is exclusively on gun control right now, but I just rediscovered this fine investigative series on mental health care resources and law, and public safety.
posted by availablelight at 11:20 PM on December 21, 2012

Did Nancy Lanza Live in Fear? Why Many Mothers of the Mentally Ill Do.
posted by availablelight at 11:44 PM on December 21, 2012

From 'Operation Wetback' to Newtown: Tracing the Hick Fascism of the NRA, Mark Ames, NSFWCORP, 17 December 2012

Three Heads, We Lose: Gun Control Without Equality Means More Massacres, Not Fewer, Mark Ames, NSFWCORP, 21 December 2012
posted by ob1quixote at 12:14 AM on December 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

Actually, Wayne LaPierre's Much-Criticized Speech Was terrifically effective: The NRA are lobbyists who represent a bunch of gun retailers, and this is what lobbyists do -- they help their clients sell their products. And every action that LaPierre took today can and should be viewed through that prism.
posted by growabrain at 2:18 AM on December 22, 2012 [3 favorites]

And every action that LaPierre took today can and should be viewed through that prism.

Effective or not, it can be viewed through that prism, not should. Just because some tone deaf, sociopath lobbyist decides something is a good thing it does not mean I have to accept it or view it through his blurred, triangular piece of glass. Sure it was a good speech for retailers, but this country is not full of gun retailers. He may represent gun retailers in DC, but as a human, he has a bit of responsibility to his fellow inhabitants of the planet the rest of the time.

But this assumes lobbyists listen with their ethics in hand and not their wallets. So yeah, I guess this conference was par for the course in DC.

As Maddow noted, it was just another NRA Rick Roll
posted by lampshade at 3:49 AM on December 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

From Washington Post article linked by availablelight:

Parricides, or the killing of parents, were 13 percent of U.S. family homicides in 2008, up from 9.7 percent in 1980, according to the FBI. About half of parricides involve children killing their mothers. The typical offenders, according to researchers, are adult sons who are ill and unemployed. Nearly half of them are 24 or younger, an age when, scientists say, the cognitive mind is still maturing; Adam Lanza was 20.

Is it off-topic to note how much I hate this paragraph? It reeks of statistical misunderstanding. Sentence by sentence:

"Parricides, or the killing of parents, were 13 percent of U.S. family homicides in 2008, up from 9.7 percent in 1980, according to the FBI."

All family homicides are horrific. How close are family members considered to be "family homicides," does that include cousins, uncles, distant relations, or is it nuclear family? If it's the latter, well, you'd rather expect there to be a good number of those relative to the number of family killings there are in total -- a total value we aren't even given.

About half of parricides involve children killing their mothers.

This sentence makes me laugh out loud. Think about the negative thesis here.

The typical offenders, according to researchers, are adult sons who are ill and unemployed.

Uh-huh. And what is that figure compared to the average profile of all homicides? I'd expect a lot of ill and unemployed people in those figures too.

Nearly half of them are 24 or younger, an age when, scientists say, the cognitive mind is still maturing; Adam Lanza was 20.

That phrase, "when, scientists say, the cognitive mind is still maturing," really bothers me. By the age of 24 the average person's life is a third over -- hurry up and mature already. It just strikes me strongly as backing a BS claim with nebulous support from "scientists." Even if there is somehow justification to the claim, it should probably be presented with more evidence.

Of course this kind of writing is far from uncommon, but it rankles a bit here because this time I can fully see parents looking at their misfit kids -- which I certainly was at that age, still am today for that matter -- with a touch of fear due to this kind of reporting. I imagine news anchors at the 10:45 bump sternly asking "WILL YOUR WEIRD MISFIT SON BE YOUR MURDERER? TUNE IN AT 11 FOR THE FACTS." Ugh.

Please someone tell me I'm overreacting. I rather hope I am.
posted by JHarris at 5:16 AM on December 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

"Nearly half of them are 24 or younger, an age when, scientists say, the cognitive mind is still maturing; Adam Lanza was 20."

That phrase, "when, scientists say, the cognitive mind is still maturing," really bothers me. By the age of 24 the average person's life is a third over -- hurry up and mature already. It just strikes me strongly as backing a BS claim with nebulous support from "scientists." Even if there is somehow justification to the claim, it should probably be presented with more evidence.

Brain Maturity Extends Well Beyond Teen Years

U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services: Maturation of the Pre-Frontal Cortex

MIT Young Adult Development Project
posted by availablelight at 6:45 AM on December 22, 2012 [3 favorites]

Recently seen on facebook: We'd be better off if we put a teacher in every gun store.
posted by Toekneesan at 6:48 AM on December 22, 2012 [5 favorites]

Lawrence O'Donnell made the excellent point that the NRA is given way more weight than its membership warrants. He noted that Washington & the media stood still for the NRA presser yesterday despite there being 4 million members - many of whom disagree with him. Contrast that with the 40 million AARP members and he asks, would CEO Barry Rand get free airtime and have all of DC & the media pay so much attention to their concerns, despite 10x the membership and more to worry about in the budget talks? Or Richard Trumka who represents 12 million AFL-CIO members, no one will go live to him, either.

In his typical style, he takes down LaPierre as "a desperate cornered rat." He also notes that with technology advances, there are no banks that have armed guards anymore -- and even when there were, bank robberies still happened. See the 18.5 minute segment.
posted by madamjujujive at 6:58 AM on December 22, 2012 [6 favorites]

JHarris, I do think you're overreacting a bit. Nomani's claim to authority is personal experience and her point isn't at all about "misfit children," it's about children with diagnosed (or obviously in need of diagnosis) acute mental illness who cannot get treatment from the Best Medical System in the World^TM.

The thing is, I have my doubts that Lanza would have been noticed in time by even a perfectly functioning mental health screening system. Autistic spectrum disorders aren't generally associated with violent behavior and it's doubtful that Lanza's Asperger's would have raised that kind of flag.

You can see the effect of Lanza's Aspergers in the way he approached the problem of shooting up the school. He was methodical and thorough in ways you usually don't see. He started with the softest targets and made very thoroughly sure that each victim was dead before moving on. It wasn't about maximizing production, it was about doing the task he had chosen to do right.

What remains unknown, and may never be known, is what caused him to come to the probably very logical conclusion that shooting up the school pursuant to Viking funeral was an appropriate next step. Aspies have a tendency to make connections the rest of us wouldn't. He destroyed his hard drive, suggesting that he didn't want the trigger logic to be unwound even after he was dead.

Introducing Lanza to the gun culture was probably not the best idea in the world, and I really tend to doubt he would have gone to the trouble to find another way to get them if his mother hadn't had the gun collection. In this case I think the NRA is very precisely wrong; it was the guns that not only enabled but probably triggered the massacre, and neither mental health screening nor an armed guard (like the one at Columbine) would have altered the course of events.
posted by localroger at 7:01 AM on December 22, 2012 [2 favorites]

NY Daily News on LaPierre: "vile NRA nut" and CRAZIEST MAN ON EARTH.
posted by madamjujujive at 7:06 AM on December 22, 2012 [5 favorites]

Right on NY Daily News !
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:18 AM on December 22, 2012

I understand the frustration about reporting lacking a statistical context, and your questions are fine, but don't overreact too much.

This sentence makes me laugh out loud. Think about the negative thesis here.

I get what you're saying, but there's no fundamental reason to assume that killings would be equally divided parent/child and that it's laughable to note it. They could be 75% one way or the other, 100% one way or the other, and all of that could mean something. It's not as though we would normally have to expect a totally even distribution. I'm sure this varies a lot culturally and with other factors, and the number can creep up and down, revealing shifts in family dynamic.

I do agree it's hard to know what "family" means and would like to know the reporters' data souces for these things.

The typical offenders, according to researchers, are adult sons who are ill and unemployed.

the cognitive mind is still maturing

availablelight covered it but yeah, that is the current state of knowledge about human development and not particularly controversial.
posted by Miko at 7:48 AM on December 22, 2012

NY Post's headline: GUN NUT.

When the Post, Daily News and Chris Christie think you're crazy, it's time to hang up.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:55 AM on December 22, 2012 [13 favorites]

JHarris, I do think you're overreacting a bit.

Then I'm glad to hear it, and thanks guys for the reassurance.
posted by JHarris at 8:30 AM on December 22, 2012

Blazecock Pileon writes "After the NRA was suggested as a good pro-gun control group in Ask Metafilter, they aren't the only ones who are tone deaf. Shame on all of us for tolerating this group and its supporters."

That is an uncharitable summary of the comment. The full suggestion was to subvert the NRA by forcing change from the inside.
posted by Mitheral at 9:02 AM on December 22, 2012 [2 favorites]

Hollywood stars use video to demand action on gun violence: Demand A Plan to End Gun Violence.
posted by ericb at 9:23 AM on December 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

Demand a Plan to end gun violence.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:30 AM on December 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

Sorry, ericb - had not refreshed. Have to get up pretty early to beat you to a link.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:42 AM on December 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

When the Post, Daily News and Chris Christie think you're crazy, it's time to hang up.

Whoa. When I see it laid out like that, it seems really unlikely that those three entities would all be reasonable at the same time. NYC is what they all have in common. It makes me think that Bloomberg had some kind of hand in it, that he has been meeting privately with people and making a case for how to respond to this. And if that is what happened, it's interesting that he was able to have that much influence.
posted by cairdeas at 9:44 AM on December 22, 2012

Q: How many NRA members does it take to change a light bulb?
A: More guns.
posted by growabrain at 9:50 AM on December 22, 2012 [9 favorites]

I just had this thought - if a kid has a gaming controller in one hand and a gun in the other, which of the two would I have him put down in order to make me safer?
posted by Devils Rancher at 10:00 AM on December 22, 2012 [4 favorites]

NY Post's headline: GUN NUT.

The conservative New York Post, which called LaPierre a "gun nut" and "NRA loon" on its Saturday cover, may be taking its cues from its owner, Rupert Murdoch. In the wake of the shooting, Murdoch spoke out about the need for stricter gun control.

"Terrible news today," he tweeted. "When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy."*

Jonathan S. Tobin | N.Y. Post: NRA aims at foes, but shoots itself in the foot with LaPierre's statements.
posted by ericb at 10:19 AM on December 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

Newseum: Today's Front Pages with NRA/LaPierre coverage.
posted by ericb at 10:21 AM on December 22, 2012

More: Useful reminder: The first person Adam Lanza murdered owned a bunch of guns.
posted by growabrain at 10:55 AM on December 22, 2012 [4 favorites]

Demand a Plan to end gun violence.

There is a whole slew of personal testimonials on the same channel from Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Survivors of shootings such as Tucson, and surviving family members of many others. They're getting slammed by nasty, negative pro-gun comments, of course.

There is dire need for a Sensible People political movement

Sounds like the Coffee Party, although it largely didn't work out and/or became subsumed by the Occupy movement.
posted by dhartung at 12:17 PM on December 22, 2012

Demand a Plan to end gun violence.

Thanks for this madamjujujive, your posting this finally got me to write a letter to my congresswomen and congressman. I'd been too lazy, but if you go to their site all you have to do is fill out what you want it to say and they mail one to each of your senators, your representative and President Obama. I wish I would've realized it was that easy a week ago.
posted by DynamiteToast at 12:28 PM on December 22, 2012

Thanks for the link, madamjujujive. I've already written to the President, my senators, and my representative, but, well, they just heard from me again through the site. And I also learned from that site about the existence of Mayors against Illegal Guns, and that my mayor is not a member, so I'll be writing to her as well.
posted by HotToddy at 12:56 PM on December 22, 2012

Oh, I meant to share this here, forgot to mention it. I wrote to my various reps a couple days after the massacre, and I was interested to note that in the dropdown menu for what you're writing about (which numbers anywhere from 15 to 30 issues and includes stuff like "lottery," "healthcare," "jobs," "education") gun policy/gun violence appeared on none of them. That's being scared, man. Not even on the list. Another MeFite mentioned that Sen. Kristin Gillibrand of NY did have it listed, but that she was the only one in that district.
posted by Miko at 12:59 PM on December 22, 2012

Two caveats: First, the Demand a Plan talking points are largely geared toward the Presidential campaign; many of the auto-mail forms send a copy to Governor Romney, and do not mention Newtown at all. Second, unfortunately, the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition seems to be open exclusively to mayors, leaving cities such as my own, with a council-manager form of government, without a corresponding voice. I know at least two members of my seven-seat city council would certainly sign on, possibly including this year's council president, but the coalition doesn't appear to be open to these things even as an affiliate/associate membership. This also leaves county boards out of the picture. In practical terms any given representative will have only a fraction of the voice of a single mayor (even if they're in a weak-mayor type of city), but even opening the conversation in these other cities/counties would be a step forward, and a necessary one in my view.
posted by dhartung at 1:06 PM on December 22, 2012 [3 favorites]

There were armed guards at columbine. Fort Bliss was filled to the brim with armed personnel. That didn't stop a massacre. I guarantee that the moment they start arming psychopathic coaches to "protect" the students is the day I start homeschooling until I can escape to a rational, nondystopian country.
posted by dejah420 at 1:11 PM on December 22, 2012 [2 favorites]

Fort Bliss was filled to the brim with armed personnel.

I think you mean the Fort Hood shooting (the two at Fort Bliss seem to be routine gun crime, alas for that word routine). In any case, filled to the brim isn't really correct as on a military base weapons are secured. The response to Hasan was by two civilian base police; most of the military personnel (if not all) were unarmed.

Still, the lesson here is that without "gun control" we don't believe other people on a base would be safe. If more guns equals safety, then all soldiers and sailors should sport sidearms at all times.
posted by dhartung at 1:33 PM on December 22, 2012

Okay, That's an awesome talking point. The military wants it to be easier to carry a gun in a school than in an Army base.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:40 PM on December 22, 2012 [3 favorites]

The military wants it to be easier ...?

I think you mean the NRA.
posted by nangar at 1:58 PM on December 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

Me am professional writer. Me do gud english.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:02 PM on December 22, 2012 [4 favorites]

Miko writes " gun policy/gun violence appeared on none of them. That's being scared, man. Not even on the list."

It's probably just practical. IE: pre Newtown it wasn't in the top 30 of submitted concerns and therefor didn't warrant assigned staff.

Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish writes "The military wants it to be easier to carry a gun in a school than in an Army base."

Aren't civilian owned select fire weapons already subject to the all the controls everyone is calling for here short of complete ban? You need clearance from the ATF; FBI Background check; fingerprinted; OK from the chief LEO in your area; you need to buy an expensive tax disc and all transfer must be done through specially licensed dealers.
posted by Mitheral at 2:19 PM on December 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

Among other outstanding columns posted in the week since the tragedy, Ta-Nehisi Coates posted a guest column by Tony Horwitz on Friday:

In light of the NRA's call for even more guns, in even more places, friend of the room and historian Tony Horwitz (Confederates In The Attic, Midnight Rising) sends along this beautiful missive noting the haunting similarities between the aggressive expansionist tactics of The Slave Power and aggressive, expansionist tactics of "The Gun Power." I am tremendously excited, and privileged to offer this to you guys. Tony's is a beautiful mind. Watch him work.

The NRA and the 'Positive Good' of Maximum Guns, Tony Horwitz, The Atlantic, 21 December 2012

For decades we've appeased and abetted this monster, as Americans once did slavery. Now, like then, we may have finally reached a breaking point. I don't mean to equate owning slaves with owning guns. But I do mean to equate the tactics and rhetoric of the NRA with those of proslavery "Fire-Eaters." The NRA casts itself as a champion of the Constitution. So did slaveholders, citing the safeguards accorded owners of human "property." Few Americans questioned slavery's legality, though they debated the Founders' intent, just as we do with the Second Amendment.

posted by ob1quixote at 2:30 PM on December 22, 2012 [5 favorites]

Lawrence O'Donnell made the excellent point that the NRA is given way more weight than its membership warrants.

The Westboro Baptist Church is given more weight than its membership warrants, given that its membership is about 14 people, all named Phelps. The Catholic League is given way more weight than its membership warrants, given that it is, as Kathy Griffin gloriously noted, one guy with a computer.

The NRA is run by slaughter trolls, but the DC press corps has grown used to considering slaughter trolls and warmongers and abject wingnut welfare cases as part of the institutional landscape.

I think it's interesting that the NYC tabloids (particularly the Murdoch-owned Post) came out so strongly here, because they cater to a kind of blue-collar urban small-c conservatism that is much harder to dismiss with the usual clichés about coastal latte-sippers. If anyone's going to tell LaPierre to shut the fuck up, with impact, it's that group.
posted by holgate at 2:34 PM on December 22, 2012 [2 favorites]

"From 'Operation Wetback' to Newtown: Tracing the Hick Fascism of the NRA", Mark Ames, NSFWCORP, 17 December 2012

And here I had always assumed that John Sayle's Lone Star was at least slightly fictionalized.
posted by dhartung at 2:45 PM on December 22, 2012

One alternative in my hometown: Janesville Police Radio in Schools
posted by dhartung at 3:55 PM on December 22, 2012

And I had to consider whether to laugh or cry at this Onion-esque article: Gun shop owner unsure how to stop senseless shootings. Oh, well, I guess I'll sell more guns!
posted by dhartung at 5:47 PM on December 22, 2012

The Florists of Newtown
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 7:56 PM on December 22, 2012 [2 favorites]

More Onions: Look at how completely realistic this NYT headline looks after I pasted it into the Onion
posted by growabrain at 10:24 PM on December 22, 2012 [5 favorites]

People need to keep talking about this.
posted by h00py at 3:36 AM on December 23, 2012

The conservative New York Post, which called LaPierre a "gun nut" and "NRA loon" on its Saturday cover, may be taking its cues from its owner, Rupert Murdoch. In the wake of the shooting, Murdoch spoke out about the need for stricter gun control.

"Terrible news today," he tweeted. "When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy."

Except that it was semi-automatic weapons that Australia banned after the Port Arthur massacre, not automatic weapons, which were already almost completely illegal (they're illegal in most of the USA as well but Murdoch seems unaware of this). By contrast, across the Tasman semi-automatic weapons are legal in New Zealand (if you have the appropriate gun license) and the homicide rate (which takes into account substitution, unlike the gun homicide rate) is lower than Australia's. I would suggest that New Zealand is a far better match than the USA to Australia's culture, history and demographics, so if Australia's experience can't be generalized to New Zealand, can it be generalised to the USA?
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 3:39 AM on December 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

the homicide rate (which takes into account substitution, unlike the gun homicide rate) is lower than Australia's. I would suggest that New Zealand is a far better match than the USA to Australia's culture, history and demographics, so if Australia's experience can't be generalized to New Zealand, can it be generalised to the USA?

Intentional homicide rates: Australia 1.0 per 100,000. New Zealand 0.9 per 100,000. Australia is exactly one country higher on the scale of all nations. New Zealand is exactly one country lower. That would tend to imply some similarity.

By contrast, across the Tasman semi-automatic weapons are legal in New Zealand (if you have the appropriate gun license)

E Endorsement - Military Style Semi-Automatics (M.S.S.A)

New class of restricted weapon that was created after the Aramoana tragedy. At the time anyone with an M.S.S.A that wanted to keep it in that configuration was given a E endorsement (after going through the vetting and extra security requirements). But presently few are issued.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:04 AM on December 23, 2012 [2 favorites]

UbuRoivas:

Intentional homicide rates: Australia 1.0 per 100,000. New Zealand 0.9 per 100,000. Australia is exactly one country higher on the scale of all nations. New Zealand is exactly one country lower. That would tend to imply some similarity.

That's still a significant difference, in a nation of millions, especially when you consider the difference in gun ownership rates: New Zealand is 22.6 per hundred (up around what Australia's was before the buy-back), Australia is now only 15. We have only one fifth the number of guns per capita of the UK with their strict gun control, but a lower homicide rate.

MSSA is a narrow and often slippery designation, like "assault weapon" in the USA. Most semi-automatic weapons are still easily purchased in New Zealand, see here for a list. You can fairly easily obtain semi-auto hunting rifles with a 10-round magazine in NZ, these are illegal in Australia. The significant difference between Australia and New Zealand is that Australia focuses on regulating (in most cases banning) guns, whereas New Zealand regulates gun owners. In New Zealand obtaining a gun owner's license requires character references, a clean criminal record, no history of domestic violence, no history of mental illness and no history of criminal associations (i.e. the police can deny you a license simply because you are known to be friends with a criminal, even if you have a clean record yourself). Gun ownership is considered a privilege not a right. This kind of thing simply wouldn't fly in the USA, the civil libertarians would be all over it for its "discriminatory" nature, not to mention the gun lobby.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 4:30 AM on December 23, 2012 [5 favorites]

We Need a Federal Agent, Justin Green, The Daily Beast, 22 December 2012

Last night the boss [David Frum] snapped after hearing the argument that we'll be safe if we put armed men in dangerous areas. If that was the case, David seemed to wonder, where wouldn't you need armed protection? Here's a one-stop shop for the results:

posted by ob1quixote at 8:32 AM on December 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

if Australia's experience can't be generalized to New Zealand, can it be generalised to the USA?

But that's just hand-waving, akin to the rhetoric seen during the debate over healthcare reform. "We are special snowflakes of fucked-up -- in fact, some people really like it that way! -- so we must dismiss the possibility of learning from anyone else" is not a coherent response; it is learned helplessness.
posted by holgate at 10:33 AM on December 23, 2012 [6 favorites]

Cost benefit analysis is not the same as learned helplessness. There are a lot of avenues to pursue in reducing gun homicide, and assuming effectiveness of one of the most difficult avenues before you start seems like a bad idea. Which is not to say that assault weapon style bans or semi-auto bans are impossible or unworthy of effort, just don't put all your eggs in that basket.
posted by BrotherCaine at 10:50 AM on December 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

LaPierre LITERALLY Froths At The Mouth During Interview
posted by growabrain at 11:14 AM on December 23, 2012 [4 favorites]

The folks who are parsing the difference between full and semi auto are missing an important point. Semiauto is what you need to ban. Banning full auto buys you nothing practical.

Full auto is for military style situations where you have a supply chain to deliver an infinite supply of ammo and you're trying to overwhelm an enemy who has basically the same situation. Full auto is useful to an extent if you're defending your well stocked bunker from a mass attack -- but only until you run out of ammo, which you do very quickly.

If you're limited to the ammo you can carry into a finite situation, you want semiauto. You want to aim every bullet. But you want to minimize the effort needed to fire each bullet once you've acquired a target; semiauto does this better than any other technology, one squeeze one bullet. You don't have to do anything between squeezes to get the next bullet ready and the firing mechanism reset -- that's the auto part of semiauto.

And you want to minimize pauses and distractions, especially like reloading, because it's while you're reloading that your remaining unarmed victims can rush and overpower you. Large magazines are the tool for this, and in fact this is really the only reason for them to exist. Limited magazine capacity is another reason you don't want full auto.
posted by localroger at 11:38 AM on December 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

US gun rights advocates have signed a White House petition calling for British CNN host Piers Morgan to be deported for allegedly attacking the Second Amendment rights of ordinary Americans.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:47 PM on December 23, 2012

Whom Does the NRA Really Speak For?

the NRA is not, in fact, the most extreme of gun rights groups. Gun Owners for America is the sort of organization whose head is willing to openly speculate about armed revolt against the government. It's also won the devotion of high-profile conservatives like Red State editor Erick Erickson for its uncompromising stances. "I cringe when I see good conservatives with their lifetime member sticker from the NRA on the back of their cars," he wrote in 2010. "I support Gun Owners of America, which is a consistent and uncompromising defender of the Second Amendment, not a weak little girl of an organization protecting itself while throwing everyone else under the bus."

In other words, the NRA has to protect its right flank, where many of the most ardent gun owners, the ones willing to donate $25 or $1 million to keep the government at bay, reside.

posted by Golden Eternity at 1:55 PM on December 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

calling for British CNN host Piers Morgan to be deported for allegedly attacking the Second Amendment rights of ordinary Americans.

Gun nuts learn to count starting with two, I see.

I fully expect a petition to appear on the Number 10 website demanding not to let him back in.
posted by holgate at 2:00 PM on December 23, 2012 [15 favorites]

Gun nuts learn to count starting with two

This totally needs to be made a bumper sticker. Which, living in Louisiana, I would never actually risk putting on my car.
posted by localroger at 2:30 PM on December 23, 2012 [2 favorites]

I think LaPierre pretending to be on my side of the pro-gun argument is as bad as the people saying I'm a potential child killer.

Anyway, some technical stuff.
"How many seconds does it take to change a magazine for a highly skilled shooter?
How many rounds could he have fired in those seconds?"

This is a good question. The issue isn't with the firearm, it's with the shooter. Perhaps the firearm is a component of that, but either way, I'll avoid the debate over whether attempting to limit the paraphernalia related to something limits the usage and cut to what's possible.

An SMLE (Rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield) can put, at best (if you're Sgt. Snoxall), 38 rounds into a 12 inch target at 300 yards in under 1 minute. So just under 40 people in under 1 minute for an outstanding shooter.
Not everyone is going to be Simo Hayha, but with training someone can achieve 30 accurate rounds in one minute with a bolt action, so 40 people in 4 minutes is doable.
There are Mad Minute challenges and high power matches, someone doing those would have no problem clearing that many targets.

Banning semiautomatic firearms isn't going to accomplish much even given it had some practical reality. Apart from the above, you're talking about banning a physical process of machinery. The trigger. Semiautomatic fire comes from how the weapons force is used to eject a spent shell and load a new one.
You could still reasonably have firearms like the Sig Sauer which is technically a double action trigger pull but still as fast as a semiauto handgun.
Beyond that, selfloading handguns can only go as fast as the action can cycle, so most of the shooting records are held by shooters with wheelguns (mostly smith and wesson).
Jerry Miculek put eight shots on one target in 1 second with a S&W 627 revolver.
Six, reload, and six more in under 3 seconds on one target. Or eight on four targets in under 1.06 seconds.
So weapon speed is not so much a concern as training and control in terms of lethality.

The weapon itself aside, there is a perception that using a firearm is necessary and important, that is, it's use carries a meaning beyond its purpose.

One of the crucial things firearms training teaches is that a firearm is a firearm and not something else. With training, someone who can shoot that quickly and that accurately is less likely to do so precisely because they have had not only the discipline that comes with training, but they have had any fantastical ideas that they can do something or achieve something else with the firearm disabused.

So I'd like to see more training. Which would lead to more engagement and communication with people who might feel isolated. But more communication in general is always good to ground people in reality.

Where TF the NRA is going, I have no idea. Shooters in schools. Christ almighty. You'd have tens of thousands of rent-a-cops sitting on their asses for 20 years (1 in 1 million someone dies in a school shooting, close to pre-911 average of dying in a terrorist attack). Even then, a psycho is going to be meticulous enough to map out the entire scheme, but he's going to conveniently forget that guy is there?
Those static defenses don't work out just so well.
That's all beyond the general concept of "crossfire." *sigh*
posted by Smedleyman at 3:12 PM on December 23, 2012 [5 favorites]

not a weak little girl of an organization protecting itself while throwing everyone else under the bus.

I just need to say something about this. This particular quote was from 2010, but I am honestly stunned to continue seeing people on both sides of the debate use this kind of gendered language (calling people little girls, pussies, etc.), given what exactly happened in Newtown.

Here we have a situation where the only man had protected himself with body armor and multiple high powered weapons.

Then, we have a woman, unarmed, who charged this man to try to stop him. Charged him, unarmed!
We have several women who used their own bodies to try to block his bullets from hitting children.
We have a little girl - a real little girl - who waited out the man's assault, covered in the blood of a dozen other children, and then walked out of the school by herself.

What the fuck do these people need to see in order to stop thinking of femininity as synonymous with weakness??? A woman charges an armed and body-armored man who is shooting at her, but femininity is still all about cowardice and simpering passivity?
posted by cairdeas at 3:21 PM on December 23, 2012 [84 favorites]

That's still a significant difference, in a nation of millions, especially when you consider the difference in gun ownership rates

Look at Mexico. 15 per 100 with 9.97 murders per 100,000. It really is a complex social issue. There isn't one thing that is key here.
Y'need to get off wikipedia and onto stuff like the Small Arms Survey.
Whatever side of this you're on.

It gets into things like unregistered/black market civilian ownership, the effects of urbanization on small arms usage, nonlethal gunshot wounds and their effects. etc.
It's really a wealth of non-sound bite information.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:30 PM on December 23, 2012 [5 favorites]

America and Firearms: Split Over Ownership or United Over Safety? (Infographic)
posted by Drinky Die at 3:43 PM on December 23, 2012

We have only one fifth the number of guns per capita of the UK with their strict gun control, but a lower homicide rate.

Sorry, I messed this up. NZ has five times the number of guns per capita of the UK with their strict gun control, but a lower homicide rate.

Here is a comma-separated-value spreadsheet file with guns per capita, homicide rates, gun homicide rates and gun suicide rates by nation, broken down by geographic region (all taken from Wikipedia). You can open it up in Excel or whatever and do scatter-plots and simple unweighted linear regression analysis of the sort linked to on the Global Sociology blog up-thread. The correlation between guns per capita and homicide rate, globally, is negative. When you restrict it to Europe plus North America, Australasia and the rich East Asian nations, which removes places like Honduras, South Africa and El Salvador with off-the-charts homicide rates, it's still (very weakly) negative. Remove Eastern Europe (which has a lot of high murder rates but low gun ownership) and it flattens out a bit more, but stays negative. It's only when you prune the data-set of all the low-gun, high-homicide outliers (but leave in the USA, which is itself an outlier) that you get a positive correlation. I wouldn't say on this basis that there are no good arguments for gun control, but basing them on international comparisons seems pretty tenuous.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 4:44 PM on December 23, 2012 [5 favorites]

Seems to me these regulations would be harmful to people who hunt for sustenance. Honestly I don't see why people who make a bunch of noise and destroy a bunch of paper for their own amusement and no other useful purpose have more freedoms than people who are genuinely trying to feed their families.

Very belatedly: it's easy to imagine an ammunition tax regime that doesn't overburden hunters or recreational shooters: simply make the tax refundable on return of the spent casings. For bonus points, make the choice of whether a purchase qualifies for a tax refund contingent on the presentation of a valid firearms license (and perhaps proof of insurance) at time of purchase and limit the refund to that licensee; this allows those who are nervous about Big Brother tracking their ammo purchases to remain anonymous (at the cost of forgoing the tax refund) while reducing the likelihood that rounds are sold on outside the tax system. It also incents hunters to not leave casings laying around in the woods.

Range shooters would still have it a bit easier under such an arrangement, but I think there's an argument to be made for forcing somebody who wants to go lobbing lead around in an uncontrolled environment to have some significant skin in the game.
posted by multics at 6:13 PM on December 23, 2012 [8 favorites]

But that's just hand-waving, akin to the rhetoric seen during the debate over healthcare reform. "We are special snowflakes of fucked-up -- in fact, some people really like it that way! -- so we must dismiss the possibility of learning from anyone else" is not a coherent response; it is learned helplessness.

You shouldn't dismiss the possibility of learning from someone else, but the question is from who? Which strategy for reducing homicides is most likely to work given America's current situation? America has the most guns per capita of any nation in the world. Realistically, you're not going to be able to become a "low gun, low homicide" nation any time soon. What's probably more achievable is to become a "high gun, low homicide" nation. So what is it about high gun, low homicide nations that allows them to "get away" with having so many guns (relatively speaking)? The answer is that they strictly regulate gun owners and users through licensing. New Zealand is one example but there are others (e.g. France). Of course, you can also try and remove as many guns as possible from society at the same time, they're not mutually exclusive strategies.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 6:22 PM on December 23, 2012 [3 favorites]

Here's what the CDC has to say about the public health approach to violence prevention. Note that they are prevented from addressing the very first step by the research ban enacted by Congress to placate the NRA.

Having a political debate about removing the research ban on the CDC and NIH would involve exactly the same parties in exactly the same alignment as any legislation involving gun control. The difference is that the NRA and its mostly Republican political allies would have to defend the indefensible and argue the inarguable.

Removing the research ban would be less showy than some symbolic but pointless exercise like the assault weapons ban, but in the long term more effective, since this is not an issue that can be settled by compromise.

Resolving it will involve one political party winning and the other losing. The Republican party has pinned its long-term survival on extremist positions like never voting for a tax increase or addressing gun violence. Its political base is slowly shrinking; mainly through attrition and changing demographics.

The real question is whether or not the Democrats have the political savvy and fortitude to address long-term policy instead of showboating while waiting the clock out.
posted by warbaby at 6:54 PM on December 23, 2012 [7 favorites]

"America has the most guns per capita of any nation in the world. Realistically, you're not going to be able to become a "low gun, low homicide" nation any time soon. What's probably more achievable is to become a "high gun, low homicide" nation. So what is it about high gun, low homicide nations that allows them to "get away" with having so many guns (relatively speaking)?"

This is the sort of insight what brought me to MetaFilter.
posted by MoTLD at 6:59 PM on December 23, 2012

So what, besides gun ownership, can be quantified and compared between "high gun, low homicide" nations?
posted by MoTLD at 7:02 PM on December 23, 2012 [2 favorites]

Well, when it comes to considering what the French and New Zealanders have in common: neither country is particularly intimidated by the heavily armed America. Perhaps America could work on that.
posted by de at 7:07 PM on December 23, 2012

> This is the sort of insight what brought me to MetaFilter.

It depends on what you're hearing. That's the sort of insight that has me see addiction arguing for its own survival.
posted by de at 7:09 PM on December 23, 2012 [4 favorites]

"addiction arguing for its own survival"

Interesting way of putting it. So long as you aren't arguing for prohibition as the cure for addiction.
posted by MoTLD at 7:19 PM on December 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

America has the most guns per capita of any nation in the world. Realistically, you're not going to be able to become a "low gun, low homicide" nation any time soon.

I could just as easily say that realistically we're not going to be a "high gun / low homicide" nation, so we may as well work towards being low gun / low homicide even if that takes a decade or so to get there.

Which brings me to two things that annoy me about the anti-gun control argument: 1) Gun control != gun prohibition (for that matter, banning the sale of specific types of guns does not mean banning all guns), and 2) The argument is always framed as either gun control OR, e.g., mental healthcare improvements, when really it's improving mental healthcare AND gun control AND other things.
posted by dirigibleman at 7:40 PM on December 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

I think you did just as easily say that. ;)

However, I think a decade or so is optimistic.

And to deflect but not answer your points: 1 is very true as far as you go, but I think it's safe to say that many if not most of the folks arguing for gun control are actually in favor of prohibition, and many have said as much. And I think your first premise in 2 is belied by the discussion in this thread of your second premise. Though I agree there should be much more such discussion.
posted by MoTLD at 7:56 PM on December 23, 2012

Well, when it comes to considering what the French and New Zealanders have in common: neither country is particularly intimidated by the heavily armed America. Perhaps America could work on that.

Also, rugby.

No, American rugby doesn't count.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:10 PM on December 23, 2012

On prohibition:

One sure fire way for an individual to kick a habit is to stop cold turkey; but nationally no, no prohibition: suitable guns and paraphernalia for genuine reasons allow hunters, sporting shooters, collectors and farmers to own suitable guns; and some guns and paraphernalia simply do not have genuine reasons for civilian ownership approval.

In America's case I think it's an unfortunate complication that a list of genuine reasons will necessarily include: 2nd amendment/militia, and (now) 2nd amendment/self-defence. What type of guns will America(n judges) approve for such reasons, and why? There will be court decisions.

America's (economically) successful gun industry doesn't help at all. No-one likes breaking the back of a successful industry, but when it needs doing, it needs doing.

Gun control != No ownership

Whenever I hear 'guns don't kill', I immediately think neither does not owning a gun kill, so what? But in some cases I'm sure Americans, newly denied their free wheeling gun indulgence, will develop mental health disorders induced by disarmament. For America there will be former gratuitous owners who suddenly won't be able to go outside for defencelessness: the Wyatt Earp syndrome. Who knows how that will play out.

First and foremost America needs to take a long hard honest look at its coercive use of gun-power to promote politeness, domestically (and then internationally, please.)
posted by de at 8:11 PM on December 23, 2012

I don't see prohibition being realistic in the short term, nor is it necessarily what those of us who want a low-gun environment think is the answer. I think much can be achieved by changing the nature of gun ownership and the types of weapons and ammunition that are out there. The traffic in illegal guns can be clamped down by such means as closing the gun show loophole (aka the gun show Holland Tunnel). Institute a heavy tax on gun purchases that will fund a national buyback program. Go for the low-hanging fruit. Yeah, it could take ten years to start to see results, and that will be politically difficult. There will be more massacres, more lists, more dead schoolkids, and the NRA will be in our face very damn time telling us that it proves the reforms didn't work. But I really think, for instance, that targeting the 10% of gun owners who are amenable to a buyback now, today, will get a lot of the unnecessary guns and the poorly secured guns out of the way. Meanwhile, continue to make it as difficult as possible for criminals to get guns and shut down some of the notorious "over the border" gun shops around cities like Milwaukee and Chicago and in infamous places like Virginia Beach (said to supply almost all of the illegal guns in NYC). There's a place called Badger Guns in Wisconsin that gets implicated in shady transaction after shady transaction that results in guns in the hands of known felons, and they just change the names on the LLC to another set of cousins and stay in business. Remove the protection for gun manufacturers from liability lawsuits. None of these constitute prohibition.
posted by dhartung at 9:36 PM on December 23, 2012 [3 favorites]

George H.W. Bush (41) resigned his life membership from the NRA back in 1995 when Wayne LaPierre shot his mouth off after Okalahoma City.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 10:27 PM on December 23, 2012 [9 favorites]

Comment deleted. Cut the "fuck you" crap or take the day off.
posted by taz (staff) at 5:20 AM on December 24, 2012

An SMLE (Rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield) can put, at best (if you're Sgt. Snoxall), 38 rounds into a 12 inch target at 300 yards in under 1 minute.

But mall, theatre, and school shooters aren't aiming for a foot wide target at the other end of a football field, they're aiming for a foot wide target ten or twenty feet away, and the occasional miss doesn't really count against their score. You need no training whatsoever to pump off 60 or more rounds a minute in this situation.

Not everyone is going to be Simo Hayha, but with training someone can achieve 30 accurate rounds in one minute with a bolt action, so 40 people in 4 minutes is doable.

We are talking about someone with no or minimal training. Such a person is not going to do bupkis with a bolt action rifle compared to what their untrained pointy-shooty finger could do with a semiauto.

Except for the poster child for autistic thoroughness most of the mass shooters have fallen short of what they might have done because they did not bother to practice or train. Holmes was cut short at the Aurora because his 100 round mag jammed and he couldn't clear it.

One of the crucial things firearms training teaches is that a firearm is a firearm and not something else.

A semiautomatic rifle is a machine for killing lots of people fast. That's all it is. It has no other practical application. So unless you have a good reason to be trying to kill lots of people fast, you do not need to own one. After all, if you're serious you can get good enough with a bolt action to do whatever you're likely to need to do, right?

As for needing more training, whatever. Maybe if Lee Harvey Oswald had been an amateur with a semiauto President Kennedy would have been able to finish his term.
posted by localroger at 6:00 AM on December 24, 2012 [6 favorites]

More on how Israel regulates gun ownership and how their guards for schools were for completely different reasons.
posted by samsara at 7:34 AM on December 24, 2012 [2 favorites]

A gunman shot and killed at least two firefighters responding to a house fire at a Rochester suburb early Monday.
posted by futz at 7:57 AM on December 24, 2012 [1 favorite]

Media is reporting that a total of 4 firefighters were shot. wtf.
posted by futz at 8:00 AM on December 24, 2012

I'm sure the "logical" response is that we should now arm & train all firefighters as well.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:48 AM on December 24, 2012 [9 favorites]

He said the case is still under investigation, but "does appear to be a trap that was set for first responders." via futz's link.

Um, holy fuck.
posted by Phire at 9:33 AM on December 24, 2012

It is possible that one or several at the scene were armed. Two police officers and a 911 dispatcher.

One of the deceased, Michael J. Chiapperini, was a police lieutenant in the Webster Police Department; the other, Tomasz Kaczowka, was a 911 dispatcher for Monroe County.

“These people get up in the middle of the night to go put out fires,” he said. “They don’t expect to be shot and killed.”

John Ritter, an off-duty police officer from Greece, N.Y., who happened to be driving by and stopped to help, suffered shrapnel wounds from the shooting, Chief Pickering added. The firefighters who were injured, both volunteers, were identified as Joseph Hofstetter and Theodore Scardino.
posted by futz at 11:37 AM on December 24, 2012 [1 favorite]

Anyone with a collection of guns who dies in a fire now... well, you brought that on yourselves, didn't you?

/supposes that preventing discrimation against firebug ambushers will become another plank in the argument for not tracking guns.
posted by Artw at 11:47 AM on December 24, 2012

Holy crap, 7 families lost their homes on Christmas eve so this lunatic, who had been imprison for beating his grandmother to death with a hammer, got a gun and set a trap for fireman. Wtf, America?
posted by dejah420 at 12:39 PM on December 24, 2012 [4 favorites]

"You need no training whatsoever to pump off 60 or more rounds a minute in this situation."

You realize this counters the original argument, a point of which I was clarifying, not making any assertion?

"We are talking about someone with no or minimal training."

Except the question was what can someone do with training. Specifically: "How many seconds does it take to change a magazine for a highly skilled shooter? " So again, how does this apply to me?

"Such a person is not going to do bupkis with a bolt action rifle compared to what their untrained pointy-shooty finger could do with a semiauto."

If you're talking about Lanza, he did have some training, and from what I understand he killed his mother with a bolt action. If you're talking theoretically, you're also wrong.
Bolt-actions tend to be more lethal since they're designed to be very accurate and very powerful. This is why they are still used by snipers and marksmen in combat and firefights.
Most shooting is done to suppress the other person shooting.

Except for the poster child for autistic thoroughness

My little cousin is autistic. He wouldn't harm anyone no matter what he had in his hand. So... yeah, not to further degrade an already degraded comment, and with all due consideration, fuck you and your spread of your ignorant prejudice.

A semiautomatic rifle is a machine for killing lots of people fast.
Except it isn't. A machine gun is a machine for killing lots of people fast. A semiautomatic rifle is for repeat fire. Which can be handy when a cape buffalo decides to run at you.

As for needing more training, whatever
I know, trying to understand someone's educated and informed opinion can be such a bother. I like to prescribe my own medication and engineer my own composite materials without input from any so called "experts."
But as I've actually held a firearm once in my life, I'd've thought a suggestion like more social controls for potential firearms users using communication and engagement might be a better aid in preventing situations like this shooting from occurring than attempting to legislate against a mechanical process that is easily technically avoided.

Someone with basic machinist skills can make a weapon as fast as what you think of as a semiautomatic with a double action trigger.
This is not a pro or anti-gun argument. This is basic mechanics.

If I take your ignorant thinking and try to understand it beyond "whatever", then you'd seem to be wanting legislation that allows only single-action. This would require the hammer be cocked for each pull of the trigger and would slow the rate of fire down considerably.
However, this is why I used the bolt action example. It's possible to overcome that with training. Which Lanza apparently had. One can say it is possible - without debating the likelyhood - for Lanza to have killed as many people as he had with a different weapon.

Anything in your argument would seek to mitigate that likelyhood by depending on changing the weapon.
It has been my experience that it is easier to control the shooters than the flow or nature of arms.
Typically by talking to the potential shooters and changing the environment such that people don't feel they need firearms.
But perhaps your demonizing folks with autism and attempts to legislate against a mechanical process will work.
In my experience it's lead to fractiousness and feelings of anger and isolation. Similar to the ones hard core doomsday preppers seem to have.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:21 PM on December 24, 2012 [2 favorites]

Anyone with a collection of guns who dies in a fire now... well, you brought that on yourselves, didn't you?

Hey thanks. Now that's the kind of insight that makes me come to Metafilter.

I know now my ideas of being careful with attendant rights (such as property and search and seizure) and technically achievable gun control law alloyed with social inclusion and reinforcement of safety and reality through communication and licensing programs is misguided and foolish.

I hope my wife and I and our kids and family die in a fire too. Merry Xmas Artw! Merry Xmas every one.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:41 PM on December 24, 2012 [1 favorite]

/shug.

You DO expect everyone else to put up with the risk of their children being murdered on your behalf, I think you can live with pretend not-having-fire-service.
posted by Artw at 1:49 PM on December 24, 2012

Full auto is for military style situations where you have a supply chain to deliver an infinite supply of ammo
Just like Call of Duty.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. On this and on people with autism. Autism has nothing to do with Lanza being a methodical school shooter. He was methodical because that tends to be how school, and other shooters of this type, tend to be.
It may have affected his style in some way. All I have is my cousin to go on. I'm not a psychologist.
But I do know something about these situations. And I have a very good understanding of military and law enforcement operations as it relates to tactics.
And no, full auto is for suppressive fire. So is semiauto in most situations. So is three round burst. So is selective fire.
In most cases, in firefights and in hunting, semiauto is for when you have to shoot again if you have not brought your target down.

Necessity is another question.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:53 PM on December 24, 2012 [1 favorite]

Ron Paul rips NRA plan for officers in every school

"School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America," Paul said in a written statement.

We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders. This is the world of government provided 'security,' a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse," Paul said.

He continued: "I don't agree that conservatives and libertarians should view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the solution to violence. Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets."

posted by Golden Eternity at 1:56 PM on December 24, 2012 [1 favorite]

You DO expect everyone else to put up with the risk of their children being murdered on your behalf

Well, yes. There are a number of amendments to the Constitution that decrease security in exchange for greater liberty.
posted by Jahaza at 2:11 PM on December 24, 2012 [2 favorites]

You DO expect everyone else to put up with the risk of their children being murdered on your behalf,

What a startlingly grotesque thing to say. It astonishes me that you people can't comprehend why you're actually so viciously opposed on everything from the slightest point. Even taking the dismissive projections of "gun nut" and so forth, aside.

Myself, I'm authorized to carry a firearm. Whatever laws are passed, I'll still have firearms. Additionally, all my hardware from sidearms to rifles are well protected in safes. I abhor people who don't have them secured, particularly when there are so many ways to do it and still quickly access them - given one wants a firearm for self-defense.

I'm for reasonable, technically achievable gun control based on licensing and regular training programs that require communication.
If engagement and inclusion works on people as fanatic as terrorists, it would have worked for Mrs. Lanza.
It would have at least put a dent in their perception of the environment the way an absolutist law being forced onto people would not have.

I'm not arguing a political position. I'm talking about what is mechanically feasible and what is more practically enforceable as law.
I'm not sure how many folks here have actually been in the military, been in firefights, and gone on to make this kind of work their career. But you have access to an essentially non-partisan position explaining the realities of firearms and training.

Should all guns be banned, or not? Whatever. I'm not going to argue that. There's no point to it here.
Can guns do 'x' or 'y'? Can someone with training do 'x' or 'y'? That, I thought I'd spell out.

But you're neither inclined to learn nor desire to give time to understand basic technical understanding and cling to to your divisiveness like the worst fanatic in the face of simple clarifications of fact.

That kind of absolutism, I thought I'd seen go with the Bush administration.

But there's always someone more than willing to start a war they'll have someone else fight.
Speaking of which, ever actually taken a gun from someone? Ever save a child? I have. A number of first responders in my family too, and they have had to run into burning two flats.
Having lived that reality, I think you can live with not having to pretend this-is how-guns-work and throwing "child-killer" around to advance a reasonable political argument.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:26 PM on December 24, 2012 [2 favorites]

smedleyman, you pretty much got everything I said wrong.

Most mass shooters have had little training and done little preparation other than collecting. It's the sort of thing you only do once by its nature. There's not much evidence that even Lanza trained or prepared specifically for the spree, although his mother took him to the range often so he was more familiar with the weapons he used than most such shooters are.

You gave two examples, one with semiauto and one with bolt action, of what highly trained users can do. My point is that this does not apply in any way to most mass shootings.

In the case of a semiautomatic rifle used at short range in a crowded room you don't have to do much aiming. You're not a marksman needing breath control to steady your aim. You can shoot fast and hit a lot more targets than the trained marksman trying to maximize his score at the far end of a football field.

On the other hand, an unskilled person will take significant time to reload a bolt action rifle. Yes you can get fast, but it takes more practice than most of these people bother to do. So a mass shooter with the same close range crowded room will have to stop, frequently, perhaps long enough to be tackled or for victims to run or seek cover. Your story of what the skilled marksman can do does not apply again, although for a completly different reason.

I worked with an autistic person for 10 years, and yes he was an amazingly gentle and naive person; we used to joke that he was 34 years old going on 14. The one solid thing about M was that if he started something, he would finish it. Having decided to do a certain thing, the rest of the world ceased to exist until he had completed the task to his exacting satisfaction. It caused us to be a bit careful about what we asked him to do.

Going on the killing spree isn't typical of autism, and that's not what I said or meant to imply. What is typical of autism is that he made completely sure each person was dead before moving on. That's not typical and I believe it's entirely down to Lanza's autism. Most mass shooters focus on putting bullets, however many, in as many people as possible. Contrast Lanza's outcome with Holmes at Aurora, or Loughner's in Tucson. If Lanza had done the Tucson shooting, Gabby Giffords would be dead.

A semiautomatic rifle is for repeat fire. Which can be handy when a cape buffalo decides to run at you.

I'm sure that American gun owners are frequently faced with the dangers of hunting African game. In any case, every rule has exceptions and I'm sure we could write gun laws that would keep the fast refire guns out of the hands of ordinary lunatics while making them available for your professionally monitored big game hunt.

I am also aware that semiauto is used for suppressive fire. That's another thing no citizen is ever likely to find himself needing.

However, this is why I used the bolt action example. It's possible to overcome that with training.

...having conveniently failed to understand my point from the first paragraphs of my post, because you were too busy being poutraged by my horribly unPC reference to Lanza's autism, to realize my whole point is that we are talking about stopping untrained people. One could make a good case -- which I'd be likely to buy into -- that trained people are a lot less likely to become spree killers because they don't think of the gun as a magic pointy death device. In fact, I'd be quite open to rules allowing semiauto weapons to be owned by people with some (real) training and regular monitored practice in their use.

But frankly, you're right, I generally don't see any reason for ordinary people to need a gun that can refire without being manually cocked or set, or that can fire more than six or ten rounds without being reloaded. If you have a specific example of such a situation likely to occur in America (hey: I'll give you grizzly bears as a starter) I would be real interested in hearing it. Because I don't think there are many.
posted by localroger at 3:04 PM on December 24, 2012 [4 favorites]

P.S. Someone is sure to mention Charles Whitman as an example of a spree killer who had training. In fact, he very effectively strategized, deliberately wounding his first victims so he could kill those responding to their cries for help. Like Lanza's thoroughness this is not typical though, and Whitman was not in a close range situation; he deliberately chose an overlook where he would have to make infrequent but accurate shots.

Kind of weird that we've had enough of this crap for there to be atypical examples.
posted by localroger at 3:11 PM on December 24, 2012 [1 favorite]

What a startlingly grotesque thing to say.

I'm sorry you are not getting the good feels you feel you deserve from us, but frankly you should expect that if you come into a thread about murdered children and passionately argue in favour of the weapon used to kill them you shouldn't expect anything. Your lack of shame in this is what is grotesque.
posted by Artw at 3:17 PM on December 24, 2012 [2 favorites]

> If engagement and inclusion works on people as fanatic as terrorists, it would have worked for Mrs. Lanza.

Is walking on eggshells like cajoling without the arrogance?
posted by de at 3:27 PM on December 24, 2012

Why would someone own a military-style rifle?

Here are five reasons many gun owners say they want military style rifles:

'Some people play golf, others bowl. I shoot'

'It's cool'

'A part of history'

'Protecting my family'

'Fascination with the Second Amendment'

Metafilter: 'handy when a cape buffalo decides to run at you'
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:31 PM on December 24, 2012

folks, dial it back, please.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 3:31 PM on December 24, 2012

How about "five reasons to own weapons favored by crazies on a killing spree, reasons that don't come across as uncaring and selfish"?
posted by five fresh fish at 4:32 PM on December 24, 2012

"what's on display", an essay by kaigou.

Starts off with the question: how do you responsibly store and display firearms of historical or aesthetic interest? She brings up a salient issue, given that many descendants of Revolutionary or Civil War soldiers have inherited these sorts of guns. Then she goes into some interesting thoughts around US history, which gun control approaches people seem open or closed to, what it is to be a responsible citizen and to be a responsible gun owner, some useful analogies, and more. Excerpt:

Talking about something that impinges on that freedom is like tugging at a single strand and knotting up the entire rest of the blanket. It's really hard to detach just that one thread of "gun control" or "gun rights" because it's knotted around our national identity itself, which includes how we understand and value our freedoms. Including the freedom to never have need to take advantage of that freedom: to speak up or to remain silent, to pray or not, to own a gun or not. Including the freedom to never exercise that freedom.

A commenter:

...when only licensed officers of the state can have weapons at all, there's a line between being a citizen and being a subject that feels like it's being crossed. Rationally or not, my subconscious classifies this one with the set of citizenship rights that I've spent the past few weeks exercising the hell out of: assembly, speech, the ballot and the way honest elections make it possible to keep a check on the actions of your elected officials, all the mess and minutia of self-government as it was intended to work.

posted by brainwane at 5:19 PM on December 24, 2012 [2 favorites]

how do you responsibly store and display firearms of historical or aesthetic interest?

If they're not (any form of) automatic I see no problem at all. This pretty much exempts everything pre-WWI and everything pre-WWII except for some very unusual battle weapons which you probably couldn't hang on your wall anyway.

Should you own one of those other things, then display requires locking stops that interfere with the weapon's action if it's not stored in a safe. Of course such stops can be cut off, but that requires time and preparation. The point is that you can't just grab it off the wall, load, and shoot. It would really also be best if the licensing authoritiees also require that the weapon be disabled in some other, less obvious and hard to repair but not cosmetic way, in case it is stolen if it's not stored in a safe. Automatic weapons are in a lot of ways delicate mechanisms and fucking them up isn't really that hard. So if you want to hang them on the wall, fuck them up so they can't be used to shoot people.
posted by localroger at 5:32 PM on December 24, 2012 [1 favorite]

Which can be handy when a cape buffalo decides to run at you.

Dangerous game rifles are almost never semi-auto. They're side-by-side or single shot, sometimes bolt-action, with a hot load and a big projectile, or they're a lever-action guide gun with the same. You're gonna go after cape buffalo with a .30-06? Something smaller like a .308? Fired from something that has a complicated mechanism that could jam? Lots of luck, chuck.

No, you hunt in a group who can cover you in case your .600 Nitro Express double rifle isn't enough in the second and a half it will take for the animal to kill you.

The longer these arguments go on, the more I'm convinced the gun nuts are living largely in a fantasy world, divorced from actual technical and real world considerations.

Here's another case in point:

An SMLE (Rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield) can put, at best (if you're Sgt. Snoxall), 38 rounds into a 12 inch target at 300 yards in under 1 minute. So just under 40 people in under 1 minute for an outstanding shooter.
Not everyone is going to be Simo Hayha, but with training someone can achieve 30 accurate rounds in one minute with a bolt action, so 40 people in 4 minutes is doable.
There are Mad Minute challenges and high power matches, someone doing those would have no problem clearing that many targets.

Banning semiautomatic firearms isn't going to accomplish much even given it had some practical reality.

Let me follow the logic...

1) Jack Reacher can kill a man with a pair of chopsticks and a rubber band from a half-mile off.
2) Therefore, outlawing* high-capacity semi-automatic weapons so unstable college-kids with no formal training or interest in shooting recreationally can't buy them and use them to kill people by the dozen somehow won't make anyone safer.

It doesn't even make the smallest bit of logical sense. It's a fairytale land of wonder you're living in if you think any of these nutsos killing kids have the skill or discipline to put on a trick-shot circus act like that.

But gun culture has never, ever been about facing reality. It's always been about scaring away the boogey-man in the closet.

(*or better than outlawing them, taxing the everloving snot out of them and making their owners follow onerous licensing and on-site safety reviews. More effective than a ban, and consitutional. Also, ammunition sales need to be very tightly controlled from now on, and that includes keeping track of spent brass. No more stockpiling hundreds of rounds.)
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:05 PM on December 24, 2012 [5 favorites]

Anybody got any stats on whether high performance automobiles are involved in a disproportionate number of fatal accidents?

If, as I suspect, they are, would we be in favor of extra taxes and training requirements before one can own, say, a Corvette? Should there be horsepower limits, or state-monitored governors which only allow racing in private?

I think, as the other leading cause of preventable death, a car analogy is apt.
posted by MoTLD at 9:22 PM on December 24, 2012 [1 favorite]

And yes, driving a car in public requires a license, but owning one does not. And many unlicensed people drive illegally, just as many unlicensed people carry guns illegally.
posted by MoTLD at 9:26 PM on December 24, 2012

Oh, also...driving isn't in the constitution, FWIW.
posted by MoTLD at 9:27 PM on December 24, 2012

Are strict licensing requirements for high performance cars supposed to be a ruductio ad absurdum? 'Cause they don't sound that bad to me.
posted by Trochanter at 9:32 PM on December 24, 2012 [1 favorite]

If, as I suspect, they are, would we be in favor of extra taxes and training requirements before one can own, say, a Corvette?

The insurance system takes care of that to some degree (not applicable for firearms) and for the class of vehicles that generally cause mass fatalities (buses, large trucks, etc.) special regulations do indeed apply.

I'm not convinced that the assertion is correct (my guess is that fatal accidents most meaningfully split along age lines) or that the analogy holds up, given that accidents are... accidental.
posted by holgate at 9:38 PM on December 24, 2012 [2 favorites]

Everyone's giddy from all the hyperbolic oxygen.
posted by Pudhoho at 9:39 PM on December 24, 2012 [1 favorite]

The analogy might not hold up, and if the stats don't bear it out I retract it. But it's still interesting discussion-fodder, no?

And the special licensing for trucks/buses/tanks without armament applies, again, only to public use. You can buy a 747 without a license, you just can't fly it.
posted by MoTLD at 9:50 PM on December 24, 2012

MoTLD writes "If, as I suspect, they are, would we be in favor of extra taxes and training requirements before one can own, say, a Corvette? Should there be horsepower limits, or state-monitored governors which only allow racing in private?"

They are because one of the demographics attracted to those automobiles are young inexperienced men.

I'm not really a fan of extra taxes on a horsepower basis though the graduated displacement limits that some places have for motorcycles seem like a good idea and I could see them being good for cars too (though you can build a lot of power above the factory if you don't mind your power train blowing up all the time).

However I think it is way to easy to get a licence in the first place and then way to easy to keep it going forward. I had to pass a fairly simple test 25 years ago and on my renewal last week I didn't have to pass anything besides $75 to the service agent.

Requiring a licence for a constitutional right though is somewhat problematic. I doubt a requirement for journalists to be licensed would be popular here for example. It is very easy to have a licensing requirement to become a defacto ban.
posted by Mitheral at 9:53 PM on December 24, 2012 [1 favorite]

Ok, I'm reading the essay that brainwane linked above, and I think this sums it up pretty well:

But overall, [the] discussion revolves around: "availability of guns to capable people" versus "unavailability for people who aren't equipped in some fashion to be responsible" versus "keeping guns out of the hands of people with homicidal issues" with attendant "even if that means no one can have any guns at all". (The last of which reminds me of the snark, this is why we can't have nice things. Which is probably inappropriate humor here, but I can't help it.)

Go read it, it's got something for everybody, especially everybody American.
posted by MoTLD at 10:02 PM on December 24, 2012

"It is very easy to have a licensing requirement to become a defacto ban."

It's similarly easy for a tax to do likewise. Anybody ever seen a marihuana tax stamp?
posted by MoTLD at 10:36 PM on December 24, 2012

"They are because one of the demographics attracted to those automobiles are young inexperienced men."

This strikes me as especially apropos, as the same demo is likely attracted to shiny tac-black rifles, and for many of the same reasons. And those military looking rifles are to the identically capable hunting rifles as the Corvette or Mustang is to the Lexus or Caddy.

And while accidents aren't directly comparable to homicides, a preventable death is a preventable death, right?
posted by MoTLD at 10:58 PM on December 24, 2012

If you haven't yet seen the PDF linked by Bulgaroktonos, please, do so. It is unreal. Some of the artwork is frankly gorgeous.
posted by deo rei at 11:23 PM on December 24, 2012

And many unlicensed people drive illegally, just as many unlicensed people carry guns illegally.

and

"It is very easy to have a licensing requirement to become a defacto ban."

It's similarly easy for a tax to do likewise. Anybody ever seen a marihuana tax stamp?

So, what you're saying is not only should we eliminate all licensing, taxation, and restrictions on firearms (no more NFA, no more background checks, no more need for a concealed carry permit, etc), we should also do so for cars (because sometimes people illegally drive without a license).
posted by dirigibleman at 12:29 AM on December 25, 2012 [2 favorites]

localroger Going on the killing spree isn't typical of autism, and that's not what I said or meant to imply.
My mistake. I apologize.

My point is that this does not apply in any way to most mass shootings.
My point is I was answering a direct question about a skilled shooter.

to realize my whole point is that we are talking about stopping untrained people.
You, are talking about stopping untrained people. Your comment addressed me. I addressed a direct question concerning a skilled shooter.
Not a complex problem I'd think.

In fact, I'd be quite open to rules allowing semiauto weapons to be owned by people with some (real) training and regular monitored practice in their use.
Then in terms of a value judgement on gun control we're at least near the same page. But again, I wasn't offering one. I was making a technical clarification.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:11 AM on December 25, 2012

"So, what you're saying is not only should we eliminate all licensing, taxation, and restrictions..."

Now that is what I call reductio ad absurdum. Easy /= inevitable.

And while the libertarian in me, who trusts his fellow humans with dangerous things, screams yes, of course, the realist in me answers no, anarchy is a dangerous thing.
posted by MoTLD at 1:14 AM on December 25, 2012 [1 favorite]

but frankly you should expect that if you come into a thread about murdered children and passionately argue in favour of the weapon used to kill them you shouldn't expect anything.
Well, except where did I do that?
Here, all I expect is reasonable respect for offering the same. Your expectation to be exempted from from offering basic decency is offensive. Whatever the words are.

If I attempt to teach you something about a process you're ignorant of, that's not doing you a disservice. It's my understanding that this community is based on sharing information and contesting points honestly and at least attempting to discuss them rationally.

If that goes out the window depending on the subject matter, well, lots of luck. I'm sure screaming back at Wayne LaPierre types will garner you plenty of insight into useful legislation that will result in a solid work product.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:21 AM on December 25, 2012 [1 favorite]

One could make a good case -- which I'd be likely to buy into -- that trained people are a lot less likely to become spree killers because they don't think of the gun as a magic pointy death device.

Exactly the case I made.

You're gonna go after cape buffalo with a .30-06? Something smaller like a .308? Fired from something that has a complicated mechanism that could jam? Lots of luck, chuck.
No, you hunt in a group who can cover you in case your .600 Nitro Express double rifle isn't enough in the second and a half it will take for the animal to kill you.

So, ever hunt buffalo? Elk? Or is google about the extent of it? I have hunt them. Went there with a buddy of mine from here who's got a shit-ton of money to spend on his good buddy who shoots very very well and can right next to our man Art when he wants to hunt. He's so happy I'm there his wife doesn't give him crap about a first class ticket for a non-business purchase.
Our professional hunter used a .500 A-Square (which is a bolt action with an extended clip)
a CZ550 chambered for .585 Gehringer for extra insurance. Both have a 5 shot internal magazine. His guides had BOSS .338 Browning BAR Safari semi-automatic rifles.
I like them big and heavy myself. But having seen the guides use them made me rethink my position on them as hunting weapons. There are guides who will instead of walking the semiautomatic-but-for hunting dark grey line, completely cross the line in the rules in most African countries and use assault rifles. Which is understandable, but not appreciated.

Still, only point being they have other uses such as hunting.

Is self-defense one of the uses? I don't contest that argument. It's the police's job to protect you. If they can't, I think people should have the right to some protection. What form that protection takes is debatable. My advice on what form it should take does not include semiautomatic rifles unless one is deep in the country with an 8 or 10 minute police response time. I prefer shotguns and very large knives in CQB. As far as I can tell, no one has spoken about banning shotguns.

1) Jack Reacher can kill a man with a pair of chopsticks and a rubber band from a half-mile off.
2) Therefore, outlawing* high-capacity semi-automatic weapons so unstable college-kids with no formal training or interest in shooting recreationally can't buy them and use them to kill people by the dozen somehow won't make anyone safer.

1) Jack Reacher can smith a trigger with a lathe and a small machine shop from a garage.
2) Therefore outlawing high-capacity semi-automatic weapons so unstable college kids with no formal training or interest in shooting can buy them and use them to kill people by the dozen won't make anyone safer. Because Jack has retooled the trigger to double action, a different type of mechanism from the one banned under the law, but one that can shoot just as fast.

The point was about the rate of fire, not protecting kids. You think the way to protect kids is to lower the rate of fire on weapons. Fine.
I'm showing you how someone can and will circumvent the law when that's done such that the legislation isn't worth the paper it's printed on and you've wasted most of your effort and all of your goodwill.

And I get shit on for my effort to give you a hand there in making a better anti-gun law.
I'm simply grotesque in my lack of shame in pointing out how a pro-gun gunsmith would circumvent the law on the trigger.

The only way to accomplish what you're aiming for is to ban all actions except single action.
Does that sound like it's an argument contrary to yours in form? Because what it actually is is information that aids your argument by clarifying what double action, semi-automatic, and single action means.
Does that clarification sound like I'm opposing semi-automatic, or endorsing single action?
Am I passionately argue in favour of the weapon used to kill some children?

Or am I just disabusing your of your prejudices regarding of how triggers work?
posted by Smedleyman at 2:36 AM on December 25, 2012 [2 favorites]

His guides had BOSS .338 Browning BAR Safari semi-automatic rifles.

Thats pretty much the only semi-auto weapon on the market for big game: most hunters hate them because they're not reliable and require a lot of maintenance compared to the alternatives. You and I both know that the vast majority of big game rifles for North America are either lever action guide guns or big bolt-action rifles. In Africa, it's not even part of the discussion.

Still, only point being they have other uses such as hunting.

No one ever came home empty because they couldn't send a dozen rounds downrange as fast as they could pull the trigger (except complete shit hunters.) The most popular hunting rifles, in every category, are bolt-action. This is because they are the most convenient and effective.

The point was about the rate of fire, not protecting kids. You think the way to protect kids is to lower the rate of fire on weapons. Fine.
I'm showing you how someone can and will circumvent the law when that's done such that the legislation isn't worth the paper it's printed on and you've wasted most of your effort and all of your goodwill.

Number of expert machinists and experienced gunsmiths involved in mass shootings: 0

And more, it's a silly argument... just prohibit the manufacture and sale of any self-loading long arm or any sidearm with a removable magazine. Then it doesn't matter what trigger you use, or how it can be modified. If you think Lanza would be burning through a couple hundred rounds in ten minutes with any kind of bolt-action, you're doing the living-in-fantasyland thing again.

OK, let's say we need to keep semi-auto .223's because them woodchucks and prairie-dogs are feisty beasts and they could be coming right at us. Prohibiting the sale and manufacture (including private sale and manufacture) of any firearm that accepts a magazine larger than five rounds would be a nice compromise. It would slow the rate of fire, and let you keep your Browning BAR semi-auto elephant gun. I can't think of a legitimate purpose for even a 10 round magazine that doesn't involve killing more than one person at a time.

The blunt of it is this: If the law is too narrow, it can easily be broadened, and constitutionally. Part of the problem with the initial assault weapons ban is that it was given a stupid definition of assault weapon by those in congress who wanted the bill sunk or at least rendered toothless. Not gonna happen this time, because people who are actually familiar with firearms and the way the NRA works are very, very invested in sensible gun control.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:00 AM on December 25, 2012 [2 favorites]

My point is I was answering a direct question about a skilled shooter.

I am genuinely mystified as to where you think you saw this "direct question about a skilled shooter" since everything I've said here has been to the point that most mass shooters are unskilled, which is why they are so much more dangerous with semiauto rifles and large magazines than they would be without.
posted by localroger at 6:10 AM on December 25, 2012 [2 favorites]

Just popping in to mention that my liability rates for my Corvette are actually lower than for my little two door econobox. Insurance is funny like that.
posted by indubitable at 6:12 AM on December 25, 2012

it's still interesting discussion-fodder, no?

In the way that apple pie is "interesting" when made with oranges.

The "this is why we can't have nice things" argument is more compelling, going way back upthread to my point about the social repercussions of individual freedoms.

There are guides who will instead of walking the semiautomatic-but-for hunting dark grey line, completely cross the line in the rules in most African countries and use assault rifles.

I've seen game wardens with semi-autos in Asia, but that's explicitly to defend against poachers.
posted by holgate at 8:27 AM on December 25, 2012 [1 favorite]

Number of expert machinists and experienced gunsmiths involved in mass shootings: 0
Who made those weapons? Elves?

And more, it's a silly argument...
It would be if I were making an assertion.

except complete shit hunters.
There are novice hunters.

just prohibit the manufacture and sale of any self-loading long arm or any sidearm with a removable magazine.
Ok.

Prohibiting the sale and manufacture (including private sale and manufacture) of any firearm that accepts a magazine larger than five rounds would be a nice compromise
It would be if there was any value judgement on my end of the table. That wouldn't prevent them from being made though. It would only make possession illegal which becomes a law enforcement problem. Which then becomes a question of efficacy. In those terms, I don't know what that would be.
If y'all had bothered to look through some of the small arms studies, it's hard to track black marketing to otherwise lawful civilians.
So again, if this were coupled with a larger social program, it might or might not work. I can't say. Might not hurt to try but it might. And it might take attention and funding away from other programs.

I'm more concerned with the ongoing slaughter in schools, particularly in Chicago, where it's done one or twos or threes every few days.

So I support funding law enforcement programs that take already illegal guns off the streets.

But whatever. This is why I'm not arguing legislation to prevent as very specific kind of firearm violence.
I wasn't offering why's or should's. Only what firearms can do and what they can't do.

This was extrapolated into an argument. I don't know why. Perhaps any form of commentary contrary to those preconceptions are seen as an attack or filed as opinion.

I haven't given my opinion on gun control (barring 2ndary comments like the shortly above or where I've pointed out I'm not too far from most of your positions generally).

Part of the problem with the initial assault weapons ban is that it was given a stupid definition of assault weapon by those in congress who wanted the bill sunk or at least rendered toothless.
So you're opposed to that law? Why do you hate children and want to see them killed?

- understand the nature of the rhetoric from my position?

It was a stupid definition of assault weapon. That's why I was against wasting time and money and resources sending rubber gun squads to put on a security theater show.
Let's pretend we've traveled back in time and I've just pointed out the exact same thing you did. "X" is an assault weapon. "Y" is not. "X" does this. "Y" does that. This is a dumb law.
The above waste of time in responses and misunderstanding would have been the same result. You can't reasonably argue gun policy with emotionally charged people who know nothing about guns.

Not gonna happen this time, because people who are actually familiar with firearms and the way the NRA works are very, very invested in sensible gun control.

Anything I've said above indicate I've got my tongue up LaPierre's ass? Didn't think so.
Pretty sure I indicated not only was he offensive, but I didn't think LaPierre was even in earnest.
If you wanted my opinion, I'd say I think LaPierre said what he said so stupidly as to incite and draw angry people out and spin the whole discussion off into an irrational smoke screen.
...not that a multi-million dollar extremely politically active organization long familiar with mass communication techniques would do something like that, gosh. Just prop up some fanatic shill as a mouthpiece to draw the heat. Pshaw.

And of course, no one here is dumb enough to fall for such a silly trick even if they were.

I am genuinely mystified as to where you think you saw this "direct question about a skilled shooter"
I know. It's so hard to read instead of making knee jerk responses. Someone has to be the "other" you can hate though, no? Can't get to LaPierre, might as well be a guy pointing out a technical issue with your thinking.

But some folks love their echo chambers and any opposition of any kind isn't raising points they may not have thought about that ultimately strengthens one's argument, but is immediately a hateful, contemptible being.

I believe this
How many seconds does it take to change a magazine for a highly skilled shooter? How many rounds could he have fired in those seconds? (Not rhetorical)
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:20 PM on December 19 [+] [!]

was posted well before you jumped on my back.
I won't hold my breath for your admission of error.

everything I've said here has been to the point that most mass shooters are unskilled
Anything I've said here that contested that point? Did my 1st comment start with "localroger is wrong and here's why"?
Pretty sure I said I was avoiding the debate.

But here's a tidbit on that - what's the War on Guns worth to you?
How successful has the War on Drugs been?

You get these goofy laws that crop up over these things that wind up getting people who blow glass sculpture getting put in jail because it's only vaguely related to the object the policy is trying to ban.
We don't like drugs, so we have to arrest Tommy Chong for "drug paraphernalia."

That's not an argument of policy. I don't think heroin should be in widespread usage. But I do support a more reasonable drug policy that is actually enforceable.

So too with firearms. Some kid makes an extended clip for his nerf or airsoft gun, will he get put in jail?
Again, that is not what will happen or should or even a projection. I'm simply saying the matter is more complex than leaping on a broad general "guns are bad" policy and worrying about the enforcement details later.

We've seen how that goes. It gets innocent people jailed, but more importantly, it doesn't stop what it's intended to stop.

Will limiting magazine capacity and rate of fire end the number of people harmed in school attacks?
I don't know. I'd hope so. But I don't just want to hope. I want to explain the realities of what a firearm can and can't do so it doesn't become another boogeyman in another useless series of practically unenforceable feel good policies.

Is that at all clear? Or you just want to not read me and respond as though I'm hillbilly redneck sloganeering again?
posted by Smedleyman at 11:19 AM on December 25, 2012 [3 favorites]

New York Journal News Publishes Gun Owners' Names In Westchester, Rockland Counties.
posted by ericb at 11:39 AM on December 25, 2012

Ya know what? In California you can get the salaries of UC secretaries and other state employees by going to the Sacramento Bee website. Public info.

If the Westchester & Rockland county information was gotten by a legal FOIA, I say tough shit. I say it's a good thing to know who is armed in my neighborhood. I say the public interest is served by putting this info out there.

I think it makes good citizenship for that information to be out and I hope to see a whole lot more of it going on.

Bravo, Journal News. And a Very Merry ChannuKwanzSoltsMas to y'all & yours.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 12:09 PM on December 25, 2012 [4 favorites]

The information could be partially obfuscated to the zip code or block level and let you know about guns in your neighborhood without providing a directory for would be thieves. Unless the purpose is some kind of public shaming; which seems like a good way to create an incentive for off-books and black market firearms transactions.
posted by BrotherCaine at 12:23 PM on December 25, 2012 [2 favorites]

I see the confusion. You were replying to Dynamite Toast's question. I'm not Dynamite Toast. You didn't just answer his question though; you prefaced your answer with this:

The issue isn't with the firearm, it's with the shooter. Perhaps the firearm is a component of that, but either way, I'll avoid the debate over whether attempting to limit the paraphernalia related to something limits the usage and cut to what's possible.

This sounds an awful lot like you have actually drawn the conclusion that, based on the anecdotes you're about to deliver, that limiting access to semiauto guns would not in fact change anything. And that's what I was replying to -- clearly, since mass shooters tend to be unskilled, it would.

If I was answering the same question you were about to, I'd have prefaced it with something like this:

You have to remember that what a skilled shooter can do and what an unskilled shooter can do are very different things, and that the current discussion is about a pattern of activity that almost always involves an unskilled shooter.

I'm really not interested in keeping AR15's or TEC 9's out of the hands of people who've worked on their skills enough to nail a target even once at 300 yards. (Those people probably wouldn't even want the crappy TEC 9 themselves, but whatever.) I'm interested in making those guns as unavailable as possible to the guy Robert Earl Keen is singing to in Blow You Away.
posted by localroger at 12:40 PM on December 25, 2012 [1 favorite]

Guns are not the problem!
posted by growabrain at 12:41 PM on December 25, 2012

which seems like a good way to create an incentive for off-books and black market firearms transactions.

Easy; release everyone caged up for NON-VIOLENT drug offenses to make room for the off-books/black-market gun-runners. Along with closing the gun-show loophole.

But wait, there's more! We introduce strict liability with response to gun ownership.

Specifically; If your gun gets stolen and used in a crime, you are held partially to blame BECAUSE IT WAS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP YOUR KILLING TECHNOLOGY FROM GETTING STOLEN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If they took a cutting torch to your gun-safe while you were out, that's mitigating. But when you choose to take responsibility for owning a gun, there is NO ZERO LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY WHEN THAT GUNS KILLS SOMEONE, BECAUSE YOU TOOK IT UPON YOURSELF TO OWN IT.

Rights, rights, rights, yadda, yadda, yadda.

No rights without responsibilities.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 12:43 PM on December 25, 2012 [11 favorites]

A few years ago Baltimore put a pretty good dent in their murder rate with a single policy change. When busting a street-corner drug distro the prior policy was to go after the guys with the drugs, often ignoring the guy with the machine pistol. They changed that to go after the possible gun priors first, putting those people away for the gun violations, instead of focusing on the drug supply chain. That got a lot of the relatively small percentage of the drug traffickers who were violent off the street and left the rest to coexist more or less peacefully with the citizens who were no longer getting mowed down in the crossfire.
posted by localroger at 12:52 PM on December 25, 2012 [13 favorites]

Am I the only one who thinks that this discussion of rifles is kind of a distraction when the large majority of America's 9000+ yearly gun murders are committed with handguns?
posted by Pyry at 1:57 PM on December 25, 2012 [2 favorites]

Pyry, that's just a completely different thing. The large majority of America's gun murders are committed by people who know their victims. The NYT mag article I linked (which i got from metafilter IIRC) shows a way to deal with that. The lone person who decides to shoot up a school, a restaurant, a movie theatre, a political event -- that's a different thing, and you're almost never going to see it coming. All you can do is try to keep the tools available to people like that as ineffective as possible.

Semiauto action and large easily changed magazines (and their proper operation or lack thereof) have been the difference between a few deaths and a few dozen when these people decide to act. Making it hard to get the cannons in the first place, when they really have few legitimate uses anyway, makes more sense than hoping the shooter's 100 round clip will jam and he will be too unskilled to clear it before he can be tackled.
posted by localroger at 2:42 PM on December 25, 2012 [3 favorites]

Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey writes "If they took a cutting torch to your gun-safe while you were out, that's mitigating. But when you choose to take responsibility for owning a gun, there is NO ZERO LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY WHEN THAT GUNS KILLS SOMEONE, BECAUSE YOU TOOK IT UPON YOURSELF TO OWN IT."

Is this precedent for this kind of liability with any other consumer product? If not, and I'm not aware of any, this is the kind of extreme position that drives moderates away.
posted by Mitheral at 3:57 PM on December 25, 2012 [1 favorite]

Product Liability: Strict Liability:

In Escola, now widely recognized as a landmark case in American law,[6] Justice Traynor laid the foundation for Greenman with these words:
“ Even if there is no negligence, however, public policy demands that responsibility be fixed wherever it will most effectively reduce the hazards to life and health inherent in defective products that reach the market. It is evident that the manufacturer can anticipate some hazards and guard against the recurrence of others, as the public cannot. Those who suffer injury from defective products are unprepared to meet its consequences. The cost of an injury and the loss of time or health may be an overwhelming misfortune to the person injured, and a needless one, for the risk of injury can be insured by the manufacturer and distributed among the public as a cost of doing business. It is to the public interest to discourage the marketing of products having defects that are a menace to the public. If such products nevertheless find their way into the market it is to the public interest to place the responsibility for whatever injury they may cause upon the manufacturer, who, even if he is not negligent in the manufacture of the product, is responsible for its reaching the market. However intermittently such injuries may occur and however haphazardly they may strike, the risk of their occurrence is a constant risk and a general one. Against such a risk there should be general and constant protection and the manufacturer is best situated to afford such protection.

So the doctrine already exists in American jurisprudence re: "defective products".

All it takes is a shift in the social attitudes to extend that to "Products that work exactly as designed when that product is wounding and killing humans".

Not an "extreme" leap to make at all.

I live in Oakland, where a WHOLE LOT of stolen guns end up shooting my neighbors. I bet it'd be an EASY sell in my 'hood. And every upcoming mass shooting will make it just a little bit less extreme a position nationally each time.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 4:20 PM on December 25, 2012

U.N. To Reconsider Arms Trade Treaty Blocked By NRA Conspiracy Theories
posted by homunculus at 4:36 PM on December 25, 2012 [1 favorite]

"In the way that apple pie is "interesting" when made with oranges."

Well put. One is a right, the other a privilege. Apples and oranges.

However, comparing rights is problematic as well. First amendment rights aren't often killers, so also apples/oranges. The other killer amendments, 4-8, don't invite the same sort of regulatory rhetoric as guns, cars, or printing presses (though I'm still surprised how little they're discussed at all IRT regulating dangerous rights/privileges), so ditto.

So far as I see, there isn't anything directly comparable to the right to bear arms. We gotta do the best we can with the rhetorical tools we have at hand, I suppose.
posted by MoTLD at 4:45 PM on December 25, 2012

"So the doctrine already exists in American jurisprudence re: "defective products"."

From a certain point of view, this is not an extreme leap when one wants to put responsibility for gun use on the heads of manufacturers, and it's been tried many times in the courts already.

However, I don't see where it's on point WRT owners' responsibility for the subsequent use of their stolen property.
posted by MoTLD at 4:52 PM on December 25, 2012

And, if the owner should indeed be held responsible if their stolen gun is later used in a murder, should the reporter that printed the owner's name and address also be held responsible?
posted by MoTLD at 4:56 PM on December 25, 2012

From a certain point of view, this is not an extreme leap when one wants to put responsibility for gun use on the heads of manufacturers, and it's been tried many times in the courts already.

The problem is not the courts. The NRA lobbied Congress to pass legislation eliminating liability in the particular example of guns. Thanks to that law guns are subject to less liability than food that might be poisoned.
posted by localroger at 4:58 PM on December 25, 2012 [2 favorites]

Well, localroger, I think fugu might be a better parallel than any other food.
posted by MoTLD at 5:01 PM on December 25, 2012

Sure, strict liability is fine, I'd be happy to see it. I'm guessing it'd result in a rider for homeowner's insurance with ~$50/yr in premiums? Hopefully the insurance companies would give discounts for clients with better gun safes.
posted by BrotherCaine at 5:04 PM on December 25, 2012 [1 favorite]

The deck chairs look much better this way.
posted by telstar at 5:16 PM on December 25, 2012 [2 favorites]

And, if the owner should indeed be held responsible if their stolen gun is later used in a murder, should the reporter that printed the owner's name and address also be held responsible?

For publishing information that anyone who files an FOIA request and pays the fee can get? No.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 5:17 PM on December 25, 2012

Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey writes "All it takes is a shift in the social attitudes to extend that to "Products that work exactly as designed when that product is wounding and killing humans"."

So you aren't aware of a product currently has the kind of liability where a stolen product remains the responsibility of the last registered owner?^[1]

I think a law that has the potential to randomly make people criminals through no unlawful action themselves would be an inherently bad law.

I also think that's a pretty big shift in social attitudes but I'll concede it's possible; people don't give a shit about bad law that doesn't affect them directly. Though I'd bet a comparison to cars made by the anti forces of any such initiative would give people pause.

¹Geez can you imagine the **AAs rolling with this line of reasoning?
MPAA Spokeswanker: Judge the owner of Bob's video rental allowed Friday the 13th Part 83 "Jason kills people with his walker" to be stolen from him. Said title was consequently ripped and uploaded to assorted torrent trackers with the result it was illegally copied 60 gazillion times. Per the allowed statutory damages Bob now owes us the GDP of China, the USA, and the EU combined.
posted by Mitheral at 5:38 PM on December 25, 2012 [1 favorite]

Snark, thy name is telstar. ;)

And I'm new here, but i think that even qualifies for a MetaFilter: The deck chairs look much better this way.

In all seriousness, what's sinking? I'm still of the opinion that this thread is showing a commendable level of civility, that my country is a shining beacon of freedom, and that the world is a better place to live in general than it's been at any point in history.

Don't get me wrong, we (MeFites, Americans, and humans all) still have a long way to go and plenty of opportunities to destroy all the good we've accomplished.

But everything I see around me says that we've steered around all the icebergs so far and that discussions like this are our lookout for the inevitable next near-collision.
posted by MoTLD at 5:39 PM on December 25, 2012

If a shooter is changing magazines, that's not necessarily a safe time for a bystander to bum-rush him. If he has a 10-round magazine, he can fire 9 rounds and leave one in the chamber while he reloads, which means that at all times he can shoot the first person who runs towards him. Now maybe this wouldn't really make much difference in practice given the skill levels of a typical shooter and so on but from a gun safety p.o.v. it's a dangerous misunderstanding of how magazine-loaded weapons work: such a gun remains loaded and can kill even when there is no magazine attached.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 6:19 PM on December 25, 2012

and that the current discussion is about a pattern of activity that almost always involves an unskilled shooter.

The current discussion is about legislation concerning a pattern of activity. I can't speak to whether it absolutely involves an unskilled shooter but if you narrow it down to a specific type of spree killing often involving schools I would agree.

But I wasn't interested in getting involved in whether limiting access to semiauto guns would change that or not. I simply don't know.

What I do know is that semiautomatic guns have sporting applications.

The cape buffalo thing was just an offhand comment. Most of the hunting I've done in Africa was other humans trying to kill me.

I'm not a big fan of hunting with semiautos. I prefer, and I've gotten flak for (here even), large caliber weapons that assure of a one shot kill. Particularly with my overlarge (and seen as scared little boy gun) sidearm. But I don't like having to shoot twice. If it cost me some bones in my wrist, meh.

And the main reason hunters, especially idiots like me who like be in wet, subzero weather for a week tracking something over rough terrain, use bolt actions is because they're more reliable generally and more accurate. When you lock the bolt with a bolt action the round is solidly seated. When it's autoloaded it doesn't seat as consistently and you can't tell perfectly the way you can from the mechanical connection you have with the bolt in a bolt action.

That said, the BAR design set the standard for hunting with a semiautomatic and using inexpensive ammo it can give you the same kind of groupings you get out of a bolt action.

With an AR rifle platform like the Bushmaster, it's cheap, accurate, and most importantly, modular. You can customize it. So if you're hunting boar or deer or whatever you can switch things out. Not many caliber options (.308, etc. or .243 Winchester for coyote or pronghorn, but I don't like smaller calibers)

Relevant here is that there are large and/or tough animals (boar) that can shrug off a marginal hit from a large bore.

What you don't want if you're any kind of hunter is a wounded animal getting away from you. If you manually reload you lose the sight picture and have to require the target. A skilled hunter can be back on target and firing far quicker.

Does that support the idea that semiautomatics make it easier to kill people? Yes and no. No in that it doesn't make them a more capable weapon. That depends on the skill and tactical knowledge of the shooter.

Yes, in that you can put multiple rounds into a single target quicker.
Does the latter sound like what happened at the Connecticut shooting? Sounds like it to me.

It's a technical argument.

If I came in here and said it's dumb to put linux on a mac because mac processors can't handle linux my ignorance would be disabused pretty quickly.
Regardless of whether it's dumb or great or neutral to run linux or use a mac or whatever, it's a technical question as to whether you CAN or NOT.

But when it comes to this area of expertise, people who can enter keyword search terms into google are suddenly experts too and forget the difference between 'can' and 'should.'

If there are folks more than 15 years old here, you might remember the Beltway sniper attacks.
Same kind of rifle platform (the AR). He was a trained shooter. Even shot near schools. But he had a lower body count (one could argue he spread more fear and chaos, in the Montgomery County Public Schools for example, despite this. But I'm not big on comparing relative morbidity.)

Nothing in those attacks would have changed much if he only had a bolt action rifle.

What made the difference there was tactics. He apparently read something about what the IRA had been doing making mobile sniper nests by tricking out the back seat and trunks of cars.

So in this case you have to take into account the objective of the shooter. Lanza's objective, apparently, was to shoot many kids many times.
Limiting his access to semiautomatic weapons would, of course, prevented that objective.

I'm interested in making those guns as unavailable as possible to the guy...

But again, that's an argument with a very narrow scope. And why I didn't really want to debate in this thread. There's no possible counterpoint.
Yes of course if we prevent these kinds of people from having these kinds of firearms and using them at schools than these are the kinds of firearms these kinds of people are less likely to have.

But schools are one of the safest places to be. (From those right-wingnuts at NPR).
Bolt action rifles can be just as lethal, it depends more on the skill of the shooter and tactics. If an unskilled shooter is a given, that eliminates consideration of other spree killings.
But the weapon is no guarantee of a higher or lower casualty rate. In the Zug massacre the shooter had an (excellently made) assault rifle. Only 10 dead.
(Again, this presumes the earlier comments that limiting the number of dead is given some weight as a consideration).
And semiautomatic rifles do have applications other than just killing humans.
Those are facts.

None of that addresses "should."

Should semi-automatic weapons be limited to prevent - or mitigate the number of - deaths in school shootings?
I really don't know. Politically it looks like Gun Owners are the new Terrists and we'll throw more money, time, resources, etc. on a security theater fix because its politically expedient to do while waiting to get struck by lightning again.

But if done properly it could be effective, sure.
Despite aspersions cast to the contrary, I don't much like to see children killed.

I'm not a fan of the "you have to break some eggs to make an omelet" thing, but I might not be too picky about what kind of legislation goes to fix this specific kind of school shooter.

But I damn sure want to make sure the practical realities are covered and the information is accurate so a more effective law can be made. Otherwise, it's the same ground with people pissed off over misconceptions and prejudices.
Which is why I'd like to see something address the broad spectrum in an attempt to change the social environment rather than just slapping "Ban" on something and praying it works.
Plenty of good (and bad) ideas floated above. Typically though, no one reaches across the isle and asks people who use firearms for their opinions.
Almost never do you hear from street cops and sworn folks who are actually involved in shootings. To wit:

They changed that to go after the possible gun priors first, putting those people away for the gun violations, instead of focusing on the drug supply chain.

Which was an excellent policy. Permit owners are visible to street cops. Illegal guns aren't. Enforcement from there is simple and straightforward and effective. You have an unregistered gun. I don't see you in the system. You are under arrest. No b.s.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:50 PM on December 25, 2012 [4 favorites]

I'm quite surprised there haven't been beltway copy cats. Proficiency with a hunting rifle out to a couple hundred yards isn't all that hard to acquire. You get to spread the terror around making it that much more likely people will remember you and if publicizing a manifesto is a goal it is an ideal way to focus attention on it.

And if you don't taunt the police; don't do something as stupid as to use a dirty gun; don't leave finger prints at the scene (better yet don't even get out of your car); and switch up your car during your spree you could easily surpass all the other spree killers.

Plus you are less likely to be caught in a rain of bullets.

Though I guess you don't get the personal interaction with the victims that school shooters get.
posted by Mitheral at 7:38 PM on December 25, 2012

The lone person who decides to shoot up a school, a restaurant, a movie theatre, a political event -- that's a different thing, and you're almost never going to see it coming. All you can do is try to keep the tools available to people like that as ineffective as possible.

Ok, but would banning rifles with various scary features have reduced the number of deaths when handguns with similar magazine sizes and 'lethality' are readily available? Harris and Klebold used mainly handguns in Columbine (although they had other weapons), and Cho was able to kill 32 and wound 17 using only handguns in the Virginia Tech massacre. Note that Cho didn't even have gigantic 100-round magazines; the largest magazine he had was 15 rounds.

I just hope the gun control movement doesn't squander all of its effort and the tide of public outrage on an assault weapons ban when it is just as easy to mass-murder (and 'regular' murder, which isn't as shocking but occurs with far greater frequency) people with the handguns that will (presumably) continue to be available.
posted by Pyry at 7:58 PM on December 25, 2012 [2 favorites]

Oh, also note, that ammunition control would have stopped or caught earlier the Beltway Snipers.

The gun nuts keep hoping we'll conveniently forget about one part of the plan or the other. No. Comprehensive plan, one that includes stamped brass and identifiable bullets, and unstamped and unmarked rounds bought back at competitive rates, and then ruthlessly fined and taxed after the buy-back period.

G'night.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:32 PM on December 25, 2012

Comment deleted. Stop the personal attack comments. If you feel like calling another user racist, or suggesting they're happy to see dead children, etc., get out of the thread and come back when you can participate without trying to completely blow up the discussion.
posted by taz (staff) at 10:50 PM on December 25, 2012 [1 favorite]

Slap*Happy, don't forget buyback of all the reloading presses out there (whose sales are not tracked if I recall) that make it possible to manufacture your own ammunition. Not to say ammunition control isn't feasible but you'd have to really control the reuse of cases and/or sale of primers.

If he has a 10-round magazine, he can fire 9 rounds and leave one in the chamber while he reloads

That's really, really, really hard to do. If someone has trained that hard you might as well be charging because you are probably dead anyway. I can barely manage to keep a count like that shooting at paper targets.

---

Pyry, while I agree that day to day individual or smaller scale shootings are a more important problem, I'm not sure they can be addressed by anything other than a gun ban. Although banning high capacity magazines might help (assuming most murders are spray and pray, maybe they'll hit less often if they fire 10 shots than 30).
posted by BrotherCaine at 12:19 AM on December 26, 2012

What I do know is that semiautomatic guns have sporting applications.

I am certain I can easily conceive sporting applications for most anything you care to name. Yogurt wrestling. Grenade sportfishing. Moon rock shotput. Grapefruit spoon shark wrestling. Semi-automatic lizard trophy hunting. Easy peasy.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:29 AM on December 26, 2012 [10 favorites]

Most of the hunting I've done in Africa was other humans trying to kill me.

You know, as a noted non-expert I have to opine that you might have been doing that wrong.

More seriously -- no, I'm not an expert on firearms or war, but I do have a little hobby horse I exercise about mass murder, to the extent that if I had to do the one book on a desert island thing Colin Wilson's A Criminal History of Mankind would be on the short list.

You mention the beltway snipers. There was also Charles Whitman. And you know who else? Pretty much nobody. There have been lots and lots of mass shootings, nearly all of which have been spray and pray. This is a problem that is only going to get worse as disaffected people who feel they have nothing to lose look for ways to leave a visible mark on a world-sized screen.

These people don't train. If they had the temperament to train they probably wouldn't stay in the mood to shoot up $public_place. We have plenty of history on this.

You still won't stop them from killing if they want to kill, but you can limit the amount of damage they can do. There are lots of things with other uses that you're not allowed to own without a damn good reason because of the bad things you could do with them. You can't even buy fucking sinus medicine now without a hassle because of the risk you might turn it into methamphetamine. If we can muster the spine to limit access to ephedrine, but not high capacity fast fire murder weapons, there is something drastically wrong with our priorities.
posted by localroger at 5:53 AM on December 26, 2012 [17 favorites]

BrotherCaine writes "That's really, really, really hard to do. If someone has trained that hard you might as well be charging because you are probably dead anyway. I can barely manage to keep a count like that shooting at paper targets."

Eject your mag after 7 or 8 shots and you don't need to keep exact count.

localroger writes " If we can muster the spine to limit access to ephedrine, but not high capacity fast fire murder weapons, there is something drastically wrong with our priorities."

I'll say. It's idiotic that pseudo-ephedrine is so tightly regulated in the states. I'm glad that kind of lunacy hasn't happened here.

Charles Whitman is someone else who you would think would inspire the spree killers. Charles was a good marksman hitting several people at ranges of 450+ metres. However you don't need that kind of range if you are firing on an elementary school at lunchtime. Or say a crowded parking lot or train platform outside a stadium after a sporting event lets out.
posted by Mitheral at 9:24 AM on December 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

The state of gun control in 2012:

Exhibit A, wherein Dick Armey enters the headquarters for his FreedomWorks Tea Party group with an armed escort and walks out with $8 million.

Exhibit B, wherein an NBC anchor brings an extended magazine on set for demonstration purposes, and becomes the subject of a police investigation after a freakout from wingnuts who support restrictive gun control laws when they can be used to score political points.

From now on, Meet the Press should just settle all political debates with an OK Corral-style shootout.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:44 AM on December 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

Ok, we just had Christmas here. My daughter and her ex both got nerf guns for their 6 year old (my grandson) who just loves nerf guns and has for years. Of course the kids were over here at Christmas and they played with them.

I almost threw up.

I have never ever before had an issue with nerf guns or water guns or things like that. I never really ever gave them a moment's thought. I used to think that people who were against toy guns were just silly. But when they were playing yesterday, it was like I saw it all with fresh new eyes.

And it was nauseating.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 10:45 AM on December 26, 2012 [11 favorites]

The state of gun control in 2012:

Extremists ensure we wind up either with nothing or worse than nothing.
posted by Pudhoho at 11:08 AM on December 26, 2012

It's a shame conservative views seldom change without having to experience bad things for themselves. Anti-gay until their child comes out, anti-abortion unless they need one, pro-gun until they realize their grandchildren are harmed by this violent culture. It is sickening.

Every progressive step has improved the nation. Yet every progressive step is fought tooth and nail. It is discouraging.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:09 PM on December 26, 2012

Extremists ensure we wind up either with nothing or worse than nothing.

As with many issues being debated these days, the extremism is remarkably one-sided. Concern-trollish comment in this thread have indicated that proponents of gun control are hurting their own cause by staking out a position that's too extreme, but out in the real world, there is literally no measure too small for gun control advocates to accept, and none too small for their opponents to oppose as if it would be the end of freedom as we know it.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:29 PM on December 26, 2012 [5 favorites]

It occurs to me that gun die-hards ask us to trust them. They ask us to trust the organization that most represents their views.

Huh. Seems like asking for a lot.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:26 PM on December 26, 2012

Every progressive step has improved the nation.

Because you're defining "progressive" as "things that improve the nation." That's not, however, particularly illuminating.

there is literally no measure too small for gun control advocates to accept, and none too small for their opponents to oppose as if it would be the end of freedom as we know it.

This is not actually true. The NRA has backed a strengthening of the disqualifying mental health record provisions of the National Instant Check system. (Yes, I know about the gun show loophole, but this actually is a strengthening of gun control, despite that.)
posted by Jahaza at 2:01 PM on December 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

Concern-trollish, cute.
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:04 PM on December 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

Every progressive step has improved the nation.

It's like getting trolled by a fortune cookie.
posted by Pudhoho at 2:13 PM on December 26, 2012

Polling on the issue is why I express the desire to see an incremental approach to gun control. Essentially, the trend for polling on strict gun control has been down over time. When 78% approved of stricter gun control there were still no effective changes to the law. If you think being around 50% somehow improves your chances of getting major reform passed, go right ahead.

Personally I think the corollary to the perfect is the enemy of the good is something like the nearly impossible good is the enemy of the barely adequate achievable goal, but I know there are people that disagree with that.

I see this as a long game, and one where the lives saved will be few and far between on the margins as gun control pendulums back and forth. I still support high capacity magazine bans, stricter licensing, education and safety requirements and a federal registry for now, and hopefully education and statistics gathering to tackle the second amendment later.

Part of my frustration with this whole issue is that at least one side is making sure there's little useful data to work with to tweak and improve the policy, and there is so much ignorance and paternalistic assumption on both sides.
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:18 PM on December 26, 2012

Jahaza: "This is not actually true. The NRA has backed a strengthening of the disqualifying mental health record provisions of the National Instant Check system. Yes, I know about the gun show loophole, but this actually is a strengthening of gun control, despite that."

Much the same way that closing the front door while leaving the back door wide open is a way to secure one's home. Of course, the NICS Improvement Act of 2007 of which you speak has received about 5% of the allotted funding annually since its inception, largely because of a certain party in Congress that doesn't allow any federal program to get fully-funded (especially one that the NRA was dragged kicking and screaming into publicly supporting) because they want to starve the beast, a point which I already made upthread.

There is zero sincerity behind this empty gesture. To count it as a positive step toward actual progress gun control would require grading on the kind of curve that, if the roles were reversed, would count "one private citizen in each county gets a federally-issued handgun with which he can defend everyone else" as a compromise from the maximalist gun control position.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:46 PM on December 26, 2012 [3 favorites]

Folks, make your nasty asides to yourself and don't post them here please? Thank you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:18 PM on December 26, 2012

I think the bigger issue here is that the argument is between people who think that the majority or the government needs to regulate things in a tighter way versus people who want to feel free to make certain decisions based on what seems right to them. This is why I would have been totally be happy to be in a gunfree environment while still being somewhat against gun control.

Right now, after going over all of it in my mind (plus keeping up with this thread) I think that the problem is with the culture and not so much the gun laws. Many of us don't have a healthy respect of what a gun actually is and does. A responsible hunter certainly does. Someone in the military or law enforcement does, or should. But for quite a huge lump of us, we have watched so much violent tv, violent motion pictures, and bought so many toy Nerf guns that we are just totally desensitized. Which is how we can think of such a thing as a Nerf gun. Until something happens, and then we tut tut for a week or two and then go back to our Tarantino movies and gun shows.

When you talk to a gun show person about reasonable restrictions on gun ownership all he can hear is that you want to take control away from him. Which in his world is about the worst thing.

On the other hand I know many of you don't understand why some people really want a gun for personal protection, and you can cite statistics that back your opinion up. But what those people hear is that you want to take their freedom of choice away from them in their personal circumstance. I know there are a lot of homes out there that would be better off not having a gun in them but I also know of too many people who have stayed alive and safe because they had that choice.

This is a hard discussion, made harder because of the multitude of things that gun represents in America. In one sense it's like owning a car-something dangerous in the wrong hands, something you need to be trained and licensed to use...and yet, the baggage is totally different. In an alternate universe one could use statistics to prove that most of us shouldn't have personal vehicles, either. But that isn't the universe we live in.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 4:52 PM on December 26, 2012

Regarding Westboro Baptist protesting at Newtown funerals ...

Westboro Is Left-Wing In The Fox Nation

Fox Nation, a Fox News spin-off site self-described as "a new community where all Americans are encouraged to share, discuss, and debate," last week featured a story in which Westboro Baptist Church, the fringe congregation universally loathed for spreading its vile "God Hates Fags" lies at high-profile funerals, including those for students murdered in the Sandy Hook shooting, is described as a "left-wing cult." [via].

FOX News: Fair and Balanced ... and 'full o' shit!'
posted by ericb at 5:37 PM on December 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

I think that the problem is with the culture and not so much the gun laws.

Why isn't "both" the problem here? You don't think that the laws a culture is willing to make are part of that culture? How is Junior's belief that the government wants to "take control" away from him any less part of the problem than Tarantino's movies or the determination of Junior's representatives to resist any and every attempt to regulate the ownership of guns.

Everyone knows that this is "a problem with the culture." That's a platitude when it isn't used as an excuse. The argument is over the degree and kind of change to that culture we are willing to undertake.
posted by octobersurprise at 5:46 PM on December 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

St. Alia of the Bunnies: "I think the bigger issue here is that the argument is between people who think that the majority or the government needs to regulate things in a tighter way versus people who want to feel free to make certain decisions based on what seems right to them."

You're really oversimplifying by saying "the majority or the government", since we have a set of rights that can't be overturned by simple majority rule, and we have multiple levels of government that are able to establish laws that limit those rights that are not guaranteed in the Constitution. Our system is pretty specific about what freedoms you're guaranteed as an American vs. which ones can be limited by state and local governments as they see fit.

On gun rights, there was no guarantee that individuals could possess firearms during the first 230+ years of our republic, yet somehow we muddled through. Then a few years back, five out of nine justices decided to interpret the Second Amendment in a novel way, and now suddenly we're expected to believe that this right belongs alongside the others.

Nobody went to the Supreme Court when local sheriffs in Old West towns like Dodge City and Tombstone asked visitors to turn in their guns and collect them when they left. As mentioned earlier, the one major case that did rise to the Supreme Court level did not motivate the court to call out this individual right. It strains credibility to think that this inalienable right was always there, but that the legal system didn't get around to codifying it into judicial opinion until the early 21st century.

I have no sympathy for a view of the world that describes the world in terms of what rights they have instead of what rights we have. None of us has any rights that can't be taken away with a Constitutional amendment, and, in fact, we have a very small number of rights that are guaranteed at the federal level. Everything else is a result of our collective majority rules system that elects lawmakers to restrict our individual freedom in ways that enhance our collective freedom (e.g. "your right to swing your fist ends when it encounters my face".)

In light of this, it's pretty rich to talk about this in terms of "freedom of choice" when DC v. Heller took away the freedom for states and municipalities to set gun laws that the majority of their residents were comfortable with.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:47 PM on December 26, 2012 [5 favorites]

"Oh, also note, that ammunition control would have stopped or caught earlier the Beltway Snipers."

So they would break the law against murder, but would obey the law concerning what ammunition they use? Smart enough to use a suppressor, trick out the car, but there's no way they could have accessed reloading technology?
Muhammad can plan an execute a complex, legally savvy attack (in using a minor to make the shots) but there's no way he could have figured out where to get ammunition.

I mean, if you'd google more than "why gunz r evilz" sites you'd know they found a magazine at the scene of a murder in Alabama
with his prints on it. That .223 wounds are distinctive. That he sent the police notes and gloves with his DNA all over it.
Plenty of public documentation on this from the trial.

So after the police could not find shell casings because they were shooting from the trunk of a car, and they were smart enough to pick up casings where they shot for practice where the police had to use metal detectors to look for brass, and Muhammad purposefully left the police a shell casing sitting on the Death tarot card with his handwriting, prints, and DNA all over it, what were the forensic scientists doing?
Biding their time? Toying with him until he shot more people?
What ammunition key would have helped them find Muhammad once they knew who was doing the shooting, what kind of rifle they had, his DNA, his prints, and the shell casings he himself gave them?

It wasn't until they were able to run down the car that they actually "stopped" him. It's the enforcement that stops people.
Passing laws, not so much.

Ammunition control would have contributed to an already airtight case. Not much more than that.

More generally, would ammunition control be more of an incentive to be responsible with firearms? Perhaps, yes.

But in that particular case, they weren't much concerned with the law so it would have simply been a minor hurdle to overcome.

A more logical retort might have been that the beltway attacks show vulnerability despite the fact that one might be armed oneself. And, what, they're going to be armed mowing their lawn?
Even at that, there's no way someone could have returned fire or protected themselves from the beltway snipers given they were shooting from cover. You couldn't have targeted them.
And even then - with just a handgun, some of those shots were from 100 yards.
Easy shot with a rifle. Not so much with a sidearm.

How's that saying "gun nut" over and over working out for you? And dismissing everything as "fantasy." Converted a lot of NRA folks to your side have you?

"I am certain I can easily conceive sporting applications for most anything you care to name."

I can conceive of reasons to smoke marijuana other than getting high. But I don't begrudge anyone the right to do it just to get high.

"You know, as a noted non-expert I have to opine that you might have been doing that wrong."
Strangely, a lot of Republicans agreed with you.

"You still won't stop them from killing if they want to kill, but you can limit the amount of damage they can do."

I like to think I know something about doing a lot of damage with firearms. This is why I offered an informational opinion.
But you keep going off into the "why" category off a "how" answer. Sure, there are ways to limit damage done by someone who wants to kill schoolkids. Some means are more efficient than others.
Where you're off base in your opinion informationally, I've put in my 2 cents.

Qualitatively - I cede everything there. Feel free to come up with ideas. There's nothing that says you can't look for a semiauto rifle gun ban despite there being sporting application for them.

I contest the assertion that there aren't any sporting applications. Not whether they should be banned anyway.

Y'know, I get the same format from the righties. Weed is bad, it kills kids, it's a gateway drug, they say.
If it's legalized for medical purposes, people are only going to use it to get high.
And I know enough to disagree factually. But I don't contest that people are going to use it to get high.
Because that's the real argument. If someone thinks getting high is wrong, I disagree, but there's no way I can convince them why.

Same thing here. If someone hates guns, they're going to want to ban anything that shoots. I can only point out the facts.
In that way, I'm hoping for more reasonable discourse when the rubber hits the road.

I think that the problem is with the culture and not so much the gun laws. Many of us don't have a healthy respect of what a gun actually is and does. A responsible hunter certainly does. Someone in the military or law enforcement does, or should. But for quite a huge lump of us, we have watched so much violent tv, violent motion pictures, and bought so many toy Nerf guns that we are just totally desensitized

Yeah, I did a U-Turn on violent videogames myself. Suprised the hell out of me. I think they should be much more tightly controlled.
It wasn't some hippy-love-festival that did it either (no slight to hippy love festivals of course) it was Lt. Col. Grossman.
Might seem an odd position - pro-gun, anti-guns in games. But yes, I think the culture that views the firearm as a magic "problem solver" is a big part of the gun problem. Bigger than the actual object itself. Lot of right wingers miss the abstract concept on flag burning. Lot of lefties miss this part of the equation on guns.

Violence in movies too. I watched "Let the right one in" the Swedish version with my kids. I'm pretty permissive as a parent. But there wasn't much gore, and my wife and I were there to discuss the themes - primarily bullying and isolation - and there was a nude scene we had to come up with some snappy answers for *spoiler* for the scar, not for anything else* - but we got the U.S. made one and had to stop it pretty early in the film. Too bloody (and that's coming from someone who not only loves Tarantino, and guts animals himself). And too violent for violent sake. For kids anyway.

My kids shoot and we spar a bit, stuff like that. But they've never seen an adult strike a child in anger (we don't spank. I don't even really raise my voice).
It really shook them up.
It didn't occur to me until later that such a thing probably never occurred to them as possible. So they're pretty sweet natured as a result and expect it. I see some parents ruling by fear, but they have zero fear of me.

It's weird. I listened to the radio today about Hagel. People gave him crap about not being tough on terrorists and being too scared to go to war. It's so odd how someone who's actually been in war can be seen as soft by someone who's never been there - on the subject of war. As though hatefulness was some sort of virtue of fortitude.

But there really is a vast difference when someone is taught violence without hate or anger as compared to someone who is merely hateful or angry, and seeks to use violence.
I think that is social and too I think law can craft social change.

Christmas morning an 18 year old kid and an 11 year old boy were killed on a bus in West Englewood, Chicago. Past 24 hours that's 1 dead, 5 injured.
Just handguns.
I can't not think it's the parents.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:23 PM on December 26, 2012 [3 favorites]

I also know of too many people who have stayed alive and safe because they had that choice.

Really? Where the heck do you live that you know many people who've had to use a gun against someone? Detroit? Grizzly bear country? It strains credulity.
posted by desjardins at 7:31 PM on December 26, 2012 [3 favorites]

Really? Where the heck do you live that you know many people who've had to use a gun against someone? Detroit? Grizzly bear country? It strains credulity.

I live in a low crime suburb and know two business owners who've shot armed robbers in self defense (one guy on two occasions). I have trouble agreeing that that statement stains credulity. However, I've also met at least three civilians who've been shot for no good reason, and it's not like we get to hear from the ghosts of shooting victims, so I'm more interested in stats than anecdotes.
posted by BrotherCaine at 8:29 PM on December 26, 2012

Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia: NRA Armed Guard Proposal A 'Completely Dumbass Idea'
posted by Drinky Die at 8:33 PM on December 26, 2012 [5 favorites]

A cop just got shot here - not while responding to a call, but while taking a break outside a fire station. If a trained, armed police officer wearing a vest was unable to protect herself against an assault, I have little faith that I'd be able to.
posted by desjardins at 4:23 AM on December 27, 2012 [3 favorites]

I'm sure a number of people have prevented crimes with guns. It would be easy to speculate that if they hadn't had a gun, they'd be dead. But that's just bullshit. How many studies have to actually be done before defenders of gun ownership are like...wow....okay.

But then, one would have to believe in science, and there's a problem there too.
posted by angrycat at 8:09 AM on December 27, 2012 [5 favorites]

After Newtown, some parents impose (toy) gun control.
posted by ericb at 8:19 AM on December 27, 2012

New York Journal News Publishes Gun Owners' Names In Westchester, Rockland Counties.

Blogger Christopher Fountain Hits Back Against Gun Owners' Map, Publishes Addresses Of Journal News Staff.
posted by ericb at 8:29 AM on December 27, 2012

Groceries For Guns: Los Angeles Police Department Collects More Than 1,500 Weapons In Annual Buyback.
posted by ericb at 8:32 AM on December 27, 2012 [1 favorite]

Newtown Officials Ask Gift-Givers To Stop Sending Packages

... [Newtown officials] say since a gunman killed 20 first-graders and six educators Dec. 14, gifts from school supplies to artwork have arrived in such numbers they've overwhelmed the small community's ability to process them.

The officials are asking people to temporarily stop sending gifts. They say once they process the "warehouses full of items," they'll detail the best ways to help.

Meanwhile, the United Way of Western Connecticut announced Wednesday that a fund established after the shooting to support Newtown has grown to $3.5 million.

posted by ericb at 8:37 AM on December 27, 2012 [1 favorite]

^ After Newtown, some parents impose (toy) gun control.

And some parents don't:

“I’d rather not make it taboo and forbidden but let him play with certain rules,” [one parent] said of her son [...]

She teaches him to be a good guy who leads people to safety, not a killer, so he’s not getting the message that using a gun is the only to way to get what he wants.

“You don’t let them pretend to shoot everyone in the room because heroes don’t do that,” [she] said. “Heroes protect. That’s what I’m teaching my son.”

So he's not hunting charging labrador, or clay pigeons, or rehearsing Operation Iran; not playing farmer, not even policeman. He's playing for 2nd amendment accolades: only a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun. OK.

> How many studies have to actually be done before defenders of gun ownership are like...wow....okay.

Keep going. (See above.)
posted by de at 9:02 AM on December 27, 2012 [1 favorite]

White House Petition To Recognize Westboro Baptist Church As Hate Group Becomes Most Popular Ever.
posted by ericb at 11:32 AM on December 27, 2012 [1 favorite]

ericb, you made me look. And then I saw the third most popular petition:

British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.

posted by peeedro at 11:51 AM on December 27, 2012

White House Petition To Recognize Westboro Baptist Church As Hate Group Becomes Most Popular Ever.

This is so monumentally stupid because there is no such thing as a "legally recognized hate group," and we really, really don't want the government to start classifying groups based solely on their beliefs. Holy hell, what a disturbing precedent that would be.
posted by desjardins at 12:18 PM on December 27, 2012 [6 favorites]

The White House Petition website is really instructive on how many different dumb things you can get people to support. I'm just glad we aren't ruled by people randomly selected by lot, like the Ancient Athenians because you might get the people signing the petition to make a month to remember the victims of White GeNOcide.

Obviously, though, that one to make John Darnielle poet laureate is spot on.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 12:54 PM on December 27, 2012

Statistics mean nothing to someone who feels she needs a personal firearm for protection, perhaps because she lives alone in a rural area. Whether or not one agrees that that hypothetical person statistically would be safer without one, that individual is going to be incredibly pissed off at anyone who would stand in the way of her legally being able to have a firearm.

(Me, I would prefer a huge German Shepherd. And I HATE dogs. But, I am not "everyone." )
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 2:15 PM on December 27, 2012 [1 favorite]

The White House Petition website is really instructive on how many different dumb things you can get people to support.

I'm sure they'll get on that right after they get that Death Star built.
posted by JHarris at 2:55 PM on December 27, 2012 [2 favorites]

It turns out that the police officer I mentioned earlier was shot in the face with her own gun. By her husband, who had previously put a gun to her head. Again, this is a trained police officer. On duty. Wearing a bulletproof vest. Who was unable to defend herself.
posted by desjardins at 4:14 PM on December 27, 2012 [6 favorites]

ericb's link on the gun buyback in Los Angeles is missing a detail this LA Times article included: "A one-day gun buyback event in Los Angeles on Wednesday gathered 2,037 firearms, including 75 assault weapons and a rocket launcher, officials said."
posted by lullaby at 5:13 PM on December 27, 2012 [2 favorites]

I'm a stickler for precise language, so this is a personal pet peeve: buyback.

Unless one bought one's gun from the government, the gov't can't buy it back.

Unfortunately, it's a loaded term which seems to have stuck.
posted by MoTLD at 6:33 PM on December 27, 2012

On the assumption that it comes originally from stock buyback, it's a very appropriate term, because the point is to reduce the supply out there. Besides, back has several adverbial senses, and isn't restricted to (say) "In, to, or toward a former location", but can also mean "In, to, or toward a former condition", "In reserve or concealment", or "In check or under restraint" -- not to mention "At, to, or toward the rear or back; backward." So I don't agree that this is a grammatical imprecision at all.
posted by dhartung at 11:18 PM on December 27, 2012 [2 favorites]

I was listening to Michelle Williams's show on NPR, and on their "Beauty Shop" segment they had one 'expert' who volunteered that her five year old told her she would feel safer if there was an armed guard in her school. Well, just give non-armed guards fake guns, sorted.

If we can agree that gun shootings are a public health problem, why would ideology, tradition, or emotion enter into it at all, but for realizing that some communities will reject x y or z proposal.
posted by angrycat at 3:42 AM on December 28, 2012

Gun group offers training for Utah teachers (photo gallery)

I just see too much fear in these people. Fear that's clouding their judgement and critical thinking skills.

Sure, arm the teachers... but they've gotta go to lunch at some point right? What if a shooting happens while they're all having lunch in the teacher's lounge?

Then what? Arm the janitors? But the janitors are too old and have poor eyesight! (sorry janitors)
Then what? Arm Lunchlady Doris? But the lunchladies are too big, too slow (sorry lunchladies) and too busy behind the counter during lunchtime!
Then what? Arm the class president. That seems like the only logical, right-wing, double-down-on-~~stupid~~-smart thing to do!

“We’re sitting ducks,” said Mr. Leatherbarrow

You're sitting ducks at a mall, at a church, at a concert hall, at a swimming pool... should you try to conceal carry while you're in your speedo? When does it end?

posted by querty at 5:13 AM on December 28, 2012

Arm everybody, as it's all about selling guns anyway, isn't it?

And then in a year or so when the dust has settled, the Native Americans can have the country back.

The important thing about gun control in countries such as the one I live in is that it keeps guns out of the hands of ordinary people (professionals, whether the police or criminal, still have the usual access to them) who might think them useful for settling disputes or petty irritations. That's where most of your victims come from.
posted by Grangousier at 5:50 AM on December 28, 2012 [1 favorite]

Oh, and I realise that binge killers are beneath contempt and all that, but why is it not seen as significant that very many of these mass shootings are, in fact, acts of suicide? "The gunman shot x number of people before turning the gun on himself" The suicide is so often represented as tangential, whereas it seems to me to be the fundamental fact of the incidents.
posted by Grangousier at 5:56 AM on December 28, 2012 [5 favorites]

dhartung, if your assumption is correct that the gun buyback term stems from the same concept as a stock buyback, which seems a reasonable assumption, then it's meant in the "former location or condition" sense. As per Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

"Stock repurchase (or share buyback) is the reacquisition by a company of its own stock."

Of the other senses of the word back, "in check or under restraint," as in hold back, is probably the closest to this use, but it doesn't seem to fit very well. If you can explain further how any of these other senses could apply, please do.

But don't worry about it too much, I don't want to derail the real discussion to appease my own linguistic pedantry. ;)
posted by MoTLD at 6:52 AM on December 28, 2012

Freedom Group, a gunmaker ripe for an ethical takeover

Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, David Geffen and the like should establish a nonprofit SPAC (Special-Purpose-Acquisition-Company) called BidForFreedom.org [...]

BFF should pay "whatever it takes" to acquire control of the Freedom Group in the upcoming auction by Cerberus (which has a fiduciary obligation to sell to the highest bidder) and then immediately implement a "moral turnaround" plan under which the Freedom Group: [...]

Operates the business as if sensible gun laws were in place (this may turn out to be a wise investment in future-proofing the company): discontinuing sales of the most egregious assault weapons and modifying others as necessary so they cannot take huge-volume clips; offering to buy back all Freedom Group assault weapons in circulation; micro-stamping weapons for easy tracking; and providing price discounts for buyers willing to go through a background check and register in a database available to law enforcement.

posted by Golden Eternity at 9:05 AM on December 28, 2012 [1 favorite]

White House Petition Calls For David Gregory To Be Charged Over Gun Magazine Use.
posted by ericb at 10:24 AM on December 28, 2012 [1 favorite]

Adama Lanza Was Not Wearing Bullet Proof Vest in Newtown Shooting, Police Say.
posted by ericb at 11:10 AM on December 28, 2012

Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio Aims to Put Armed Posse at Schools.
posted by ericb at 11:12 AM on December 28, 2012 [1 favorite]

I guess we need to arm the police now.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:25 PM on December 28, 2012 [2 favorites]

Twitter user @GunDeaths tallies every gun death since Aurora; coverage on Slate & NPR.
posted by BrotherCaine at 5:36 PM on December 28, 2012 [2 favorites]

I shouldn't be telling you all this but the acting police chief here in my city (who is just standing in till we choose between two candidates) managed to shoot herself in the hand at home today.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 7:17 PM on December 28, 2012 [8 favorites]

I keep looking for an in-depth report about the day of the shooting but I can't find anything. Is that strange?

I feel like we know nothing about the survivors.
posted by morganannie at 8:27 AM on December 29, 2012

morganannie, I think the cops are struggling to put together Lanza's motivation; he went to a lot more trouble than is usual to keep his secrets, and I have been wondering if this was all triggered because his mother discovered whatever it is he didn't want extracted from the hard drive he destroyed. And he took no risk of being captured; he apparently took his own life as soon as he heard the sirens approaching. Dude had something he absolutely did not want us to learn, even after his death.

There have already been seriously conflicting accounts reported of exactly what happened at the school, which is going to be a hideously complicated crime scene to unravel. So all in all I think it might be a while before we get a detailed account.
posted by localroger at 8:50 AM on December 29, 2012

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Cry.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:10 AM on December 29, 2012

Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio Aims to Put Armed Posse at Schools.

Oh, of course he does.

Can't wait for him to get voted out of office.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:42 AM on December 29, 2012

US gun rights advocates have signed a White House petition calling for British CNN host Piers Morgan to be deported for allegedly attacking the Second Amendment rights of ordinary Americans.

Piers Morgan Taunts Attackers Calling For His Deportation.
posted by ericb at 10:48 AM on December 29, 2012

Newtown Warehouse Scene Shows Why Donations After Sandy Hook Shooting Need to Stop.
posted by ericb at 11:08 AM on December 29, 2012

Newtown Search Warrants for Adama Lanza's Home, Vehicles Still Sealed For Another 90 Days.
posted by ericb at 11:10 AM on December 29, 2012

Maybe it's just me, but it seems beyond thoughtless to send toys to someone who just lost a child.
posted by empath at 12:55 PM on December 29, 2012 [4 favorites]

Maybe it's just me, but I think gun ownership for 2nd amendment purposes is beyond reason and wonder what all those useless donations are really saying.

I'd have been impressed had the Newtown police station become overwhelmed with relinquished guns from all over America.

Instead I can see more 2nd amendment creep in the pipeline: posses! yay! ... the right to keep and bear arms for condoned vigilantism. Way to go America. Congratulations.
posted by de at 1:24 PM on December 29, 2012

empath, I believe the toys are for the surviving children.
posted by KathrynT at 1:36 PM on December 29, 2012

Journal News To List More Gun Permit Holders After Uproar.
posted by ericb at 1:46 PM on December 29, 2012 [2 favorites]

Then he began to speak, and taught them, saying: 2. "Blessed are those who know how to defend themselves, for they will be secure. Blessed are those who arm themselves, for they will not be sorry. Blessed are those with one club, for they will be safe. 3. How much more blessed are those with two clubs, for they will be able to win a fight with those with one club. 4. Let the one who has two clubs buy four, and the one who has four buy ten. Let them increase clubs a hundredfold and a thousandfold." 4. "But woe to you with no clubs, for you are asking for trouble. Woe to you who don't arm yourselves heavily, for you're just begging for people to steal your stuff. And I say, woe to you peacemakers, for you are wasting your time." 5. The disciples were amazed. "Lord," said Nathaniel, "Did you just say 'Woe to the peacemakers?' The last time you spoke on the Mount, you said they were blessed." 6. "I changed my mind," said Jesus.

Laugh or cry? Once again, they both seem appropriate.
posted by hap_hazard at 3:39 PM on December 29, 2012 [3 favorites]

Violence, gangs scar Chicago community in 2012

Police say they've seized more than 7,000 guns in arrests this year. Strict gun control measures in Chicago and Illinois have been tossed out by federal courts, most recently the state ban on carrying concealed weapons.

posted by Golden Eternity at 4:37 PM on December 29, 2012

I believe the toys are for the surviving children

Ultimately, it's just another form of Not Knowing What Else To Do, Woman Bakes American-Flag Cake.
posted by dhartung at 5:00 PM on December 29, 2012 [4 favorites]

GE; not wanting to start a late thread argument; but there is a serious difference between Urban Chicago and the rest of teh country. I have *no* clue where a 'city can not own firearms' and 'rural country can own firearms' line would even begin to be drawn; and as I type that phrase a sci-fi image of OMG lawlessness : OMG armed everybody landscape emerges in my mind; but respectfully; Chicago is one of the most restrictive gun areas in the country.

The criminals using the guns involved in Chicago are either oblivious to anything outside of a 10' radius of themselves and a two hour attention span; or flat out not going to ?turn in their guns? unless a buy back is going to pay enough to purchase another gun.

Go figure demographic spectrum Joe six pack wants a gun in the nightstand; or to be able to have one if they have to leave the home after dark to buy diapers or formula. Create a lawless social scenario; and citizens will desire legal rights to equal or counter the absence of legal adherence by others.
posted by buzzman at 5:02 PM on December 29, 2012

there is a serious difference between Urban Chicago and the rest of teh country.

No doubt, but it's worth pointing out that of the 30k/yr U.S. gun deaths only a small, but frighteningly growing, number are a result of mass shootings.

American Gun Deaths to Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 2015

•Among the world's 23 wealthiest countries, 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids.

Sane gun control policy would probably help in all cases, it seems to me. Better policing and law enforcement practices have effectively reduced inner city and gang related killing in some cities like New York and LA (and apparently even Chicago). Maybe better access to mental health care could reduce suicide rates. I suppose random shootings like Newtown and Aurora are the most difficult problem.

The Real Story of Chicago's Bloody Summer
(by William Bratton)

Because of effective work by the Chicago police and federal authorities (including the Drug Enforcement Agency and the FBI), many experienced kingpins are in prison. This has made some territories ripe for takeover. Younger leaders who have moved up are short on judgment and long on guns, which account for 85% of Chicago's murders.

crime is caused by individuals whose environments and behaviors can be positively shaped by police work. Two decades of evidence now bear this out—as do the past few years, when America's economic slump hasn't led to a crime wave, as the old theory would have predicted.

Oakland Hires Proponent of 'Broken Windows Theory' as Police Consultant; Dept. to Return to Neighborhood Policing

Bratton was New York's police commissioner from 1994 to 1996 and police chief in Los Angeles from 2002 to 2009 and is widely credited with significantly reducing crime in both cities. In Los Angeles, he focused on community policing and worked to resolve tensions between officers and minority communities.

posted by Golden Eternity at 7:30 PM on December 29, 2012 [1 favorite]

Back in 2010: London's Olympic Stadium to Be Made Out of Recycled Guns and Knives!

Imagine what America could do with a bit of creative and concerted marketing and energy.
posted by de at 9:44 PM on December 29, 2012

Coming in 2013: America's Massive Fucking Gun to Be Made Out of Recycled Guns and Knives!
posted by tonycpsu at 10:14 PM on December 29, 2012 [2 favorites]

I posted this in another thread yesterday but thought it also belonged here: Guns and Gun Deaths, State by State. The red state/blue state bar chart is pretty boggling. Even though it might be expected to play out that way, it's pretty dramatic to see it laid out.
posted by madamjujujive at 5:41 AM on December 30, 2012 [7 favorites]

CNN article on a donor-funded gun buy back program in CT.
posted by jetlagaddict at 10:48 AM on December 30, 2012

Is there any way to track that people selling guns at buy back programs aren't buying more, or is the price point so low that it's below even the used sale level? Do they appraise or do flat pricing?
posted by BrotherCaine at 4:02 PM on December 30, 2012

The prices listed in jetlagaddict's CNN link are pretty dramatically below retail prices for most guns and somewhat below the retail prices for the cheapest guns in each category. At those rates it would pretty much never make sense to sell to that buy back program just for the money. However, if only from a disinterested selfish economist perspective, one of the big benefits to selling to one would be how much easier the paperwork would be compared to selling to a private buyer who would give you a decent price.
posted by Blasdelb at 2:14 AM on December 31, 2012

American Gun Deaths to Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 2015

Damnit, there go my plans to market grill-mounted assault rifles for SUVs!

Is there any way to track that people selling guns at buy back programs aren't buying more

Usually, they only "buy" them for around $100 or so. Often times they exchange them for gift cards to places that don't sell guns.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 6:44 AM on December 31, 2012

> At those rates it would pretty much never make sense to sell to that buy back program just for the money.

No. These buyback centres are providing a service to the anti-gun crowd. It seems reasonable to expect an incurred fee. It's an industry in the making: reverse gunning. If it's to survive what's needed is a bunch of innovative middlemen to emerge who will drive growth (and industry profit).

By jumping the gun on top-down gun reforms, these early buyback schemes (unlike anything anyone else has tried) may grow to be the bottom-up gun reform America would seemingly prefer.

It'll be interesting to see how buyback schemes develop.
posted by de at 1:05 PM on December 31, 2012

The advantage to the gun buyback thing for the seller getting "below market value" is a) convenience and b) legal protection. Usually these things are no-questions asked and people sell their unlicensed illegal firearms.
posted by Jahaza at 1:26 PM on December 31, 2012 [3 favorites]

I've just caught up on this thread after taking a break over Christmas/New Year. There was talk of some legislation to do a few things like close the gun show loophole, limit capacity and re-do the assault weapon ban. What stage is that at now? Has it lost steam or is it just the lull while everyone digests large amounts of ham?
posted by harriet vane at 6:17 AM on January 2, 2013

I think right now the focus of the Federal government is the fiscal cliff. Then there's Obama's inauguration and the seating of the new session of Congress. So mostly a lull while other business is taken care of. Biden is going to be the administration's point man, I doubt he's lost interest in the topic.
posted by soundguy99 at 6:47 AM on January 2, 2013

Gun purchasers set new record in December: FBI

At the E.R., Bearing Witness to Gun Violence
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:58 AM on January 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

"Another theme that crops up a lot in U.S. history is apocalyptic thinking.... they dream of a time when civilization is swept away. It will be a time of fierce tribulations, but nevertheless, they look forward to it with great anticipation. After all, everyone and everything they don't like will die horribly, and from the ashes will rise a better, purer, more natural society that just so happens to conform to their personal ideal."
posted by brainwane at 4:23 PM on January 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

brainwane: "Another theme that crops up a lot in U.S. history is apocalyptic thinking"

Considering that when the Colonists were landing along the Eastern Seaboard, the nations already occupying those lands had been nearly wiped out by a plague of smallpox brought by earlier European explorers, it seems that theme's been baked in right from the start.
posted by radwolf76 at 7:42 PM on January 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

'Stand Your Ground' Linked to Increase in Homicides

"These laws lower the cost of using lethal force," says Mark Hoekstra, an economist with Texas A&M University who examined stand your ground laws. "Our study finds that, as a result, you get more of it."

...

"Our study finds that, that homicides go up by 7 to 9 percent in states that pass the laws, relative to states that didn't pass the laws over the same time period," he says.

As to whether the laws reduce crime — by creating a deterrence for criminals — he says, "we find no evidence of any deterrence effect over that same time period."

...

"One possibility for the increase in homicide is that perhaps [in cases where] there would have been a fistfight ... now, because of stand your ground laws, it's possible that those escalate into something much more violent and lethal," says Hoekstra.

...

The imperfect but growing evidence seems to suggest that the consequences of adopting stand your ground laws are pernicious, in that they may lead to a greater number of homicides — thus going against the notion that they are serving some sort of protective function for society," he says.

And in murder cases, Donohue says, the laws might end up being a refuge for some defendants.

"I've been hearing from defense lawyers around the country that if they happen to have a criminal defendant in a stand your ground jurisdiction, pretty much no matter what happens, you can say, 'Well, I shot the guy, but I felt threatened and had a reasonable basis for fearing injury to myself,' " he said.

posted by Miko at 8:28 PM on January 2, 2013 [7 favorites]

What I learned at the Red Lake school shooting, by retired FBI agent John Patrick Egelhof.

Despite some unbelievable comments, postings and opinions to the contrary, the NRA did not commit the Sandy Hook massacre and is not a terrorist organization equal to Al-Qaida. The NRA does much good in regards to firearms in this country, sponsoring responsible shooting events, safety training and education for thousands every year, including children.

The NRA is not composed of cowardly white rural males who drive pickup trucks and use poor English. People from all walks of life have benefited from being taught the principles of safe and responsible firearm use by the NRA.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is about the history-changing idea that common people should be able to possess arms to preserve their safety and freedom....

All that said, the NRA and we gun owners have tolerated an intolerable situation: the profusion of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines; the ridiculous loophole of gun shows and private sales evading the instant background check; the inability of the background check to be integrated with the National Crime Information Center; the lack of due diligence in transferring firearms to those who should not have them; the lack of cooperation with law enforcement to report problematic behavior; the selfishness of our desires to have more and more lethal weapons and technology without concern for our terrified fellow citizens who do not share the belief that such weapons better secure us....

But unfortunately, right now, even as you are reading this essay, at least several people in this country are plotting new attacks. They may or may not have already assembled their guns, or picked out the person they will kill to get them. They may have decided on and researched their target.

We don't know who they are. But we know what they are -- members of a new cult of death that worships the monsters who came before them and has but one goal: to exceed the body count or the horror of the latest massacre and thus be remembered as the worst of them all....

What is missing in all of the current discussions is what we can do to preempt an attack. Many of our faceless monsters share one significant vulnerability -- their own obsessions. The FBI for years has had squads devoted to tracking people attempting to sexually exploit children: the "Innocent Images" initiative, in which agents work on a task force to lure molesters and exploiters by pretending to be innocent minors surfing on websites.

The school shooters are also surfing: There are websites devoted to such evil. The Red Lake shooter spent two years researching on the computer, and though I know little of the Newtown, Conn., shooter, I am struck that he destroyed his computer before carrying out his spree.

It is time to treat these people for what they are -- terrorists -- and to hunt them down using the very medium through which they gather their bloody statistics, plan and recruit fellow travelers....

We need to talk, to really listen to each other, to compromise. It is perfectly understandable to react with horror and lash out with frustration at the atrocities committed in Sandy Hook and Webster, N.Y. But if we are to solve this problem, we must work together: both parts of the country, and all the various factions that are part of this situation.
posted by dhartung at 11:14 PM on January 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

Thanks, soundguy, I wasn't sure if I'd missed some action or not. I'm glad Biden's the one on the case, I doubt he'll let it slide.
posted by harriet vane at 12:02 AM on January 3, 2013

BBC: A gunman has opened fire in a village in Switzerland, killing three people and wounding two others, police say. .... The BBC's Imogen Foulkes, in the Swiss capital of Bern, says the case is certain to call into question Switzerland's relatively liberal gun laws, under which Swiss men, all of whom must serve in the army, keep their guns at home.
posted by Westringia F. at 6:25 AM on January 3, 2013

The imperfect but growing evidence seems to suggest that the consequences of adopting stand your ground laws are pernicious, in that they may lead to a greater number of homicides — thus going against the notion that they are serving some sort of protective function for society," he says.

A greater number of homicides is not obviously or uncontroversially per se a pernicious result. For instance, are people comitting justifiable homicides instead of being robbed or assaulted?
posted by Jahaza at 6:42 AM on January 3, 2013

?! Jahaza, are you suggesting that homicide victims might have needed killing? Because "committing justifiable homicides instead of being robbed or assaulted" is basically a preemptive meting out vigilante justice in the form of a death penalty for crimes that our laws don't consider capital offences, and substituting homicides (even ones in self-defence) for robberies would indeed be a pernicious result that would rather obviously go against the notion that SYG laws serve a protective function for society.
posted by Westringia F. at 6:59 AM on January 3, 2013 [8 favorites]

I know a guy (well, have met -- I certainly don't consider him a friend) who shot a guy in the back as he was running away from his car after being surprised while breaking into it. It was an issue in the news here for a couple weeks, but ultimately, charges were dropped. He had a concealed carry permit, & it was ruled justifiable self defense, or something like that. Protecting his property.

Basically, He killed a crack addict who was no longer even attempting to take anything -- the guy was fleeing, empty-handed -- but the law in Texas ruled that a proper use of force.

You can obviously reason in a court of law that this was justifiable, but I have a pretty hard time with the ethics, personally.
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:12 AM on January 3, 2013 [10 favorites]

Oh hey, this thread.

I just finished reading Columbine, a factual look at what occurred before, during and after that shooting. It was interesting to read it, having remembered the incident when it happened and in the wake of the Newtown shootings.

One of my first thoughts was "They only killed 13 people (though injured 21 others). That seems so small compared to Virginia Tech and Newtown."

The second was that "Over a decade later and we're still arguing about gun control. Nothing has changed."

Jesus, and many others, wept.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:20 AM on January 3, 2013 [9 favorites]

One of my first thoughts was "They only killed 13 people (though injured 21 others). That seems so small compared to Virginia Tech and Newtown."

Brandon, I read something about Columbine in the last few days and had exactly the same thought. "Wow, they only killed 13 people? Thought it was way higher than that." So fucked up.
posted by cairdeas at 1:45 PM on January 3, 2013

Extremely unfortunate ad placement.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:01 PM on January 3, 2013

I know a guy (well, have met -- I certainly don't consider him a friend) who shot a guy in the back as he was running away from his car after being surprised while breaking into it. It was an issue in the news here for a couple weeks, but ultimately, charges were dropped. He had a concealed carry permit, & it was ruled justifiable self defense, or something like that. Protecting his property.

Basically, He killed a crack addict who was no longer even attempting to take anything -- the guy was fleeing, empty-handed -- but the law in Texas ruled that a proper use of force.

You can obviously reason in a court of law that this was justifiable, but I have a pretty hard time with the ethics, personally.

UGH. Wow. I mean, wouldn't even the founders, whom these people seem to revere so much, wouldn't they think shooting someone in the back was pretty shameless and cowardly?
posted by sweetkid at 2:24 PM on January 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

I wanted to respond to a few bits from the opinion column by that retired FBI agent that dhartung excerpted:

Despite some unbelievable comments, postings and opinions to the contrary, the NRA did not commit the Sandy Hook massacre and is not a terrorist organization equal to Al-Qaida.

Anger ran pretty high there and some hyperbole on behalf of the aggrieved is understandable. However plenty of organizations are called terrorists when they are not, like Anonymous and Occupy, and often it is the FBI that calls them that, making this a goose/gander kind of situation. When you toss those accusations around casually, you're going to get misidentifications.

The NRA is not composed of cowardly white rural males who drive pickup trucks and use poor English.

"The NRA is not composed of the stereotypes that my strawmen think it does."

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is about the history-changing idea that common people should be able to possess arms to preserve their safety and freedom....

I wonder of any of Egelhof's FBI colleagues were threatened at some point in their careers by common people mindful of that history-changing idea.

All that said, the NRA and we gun owners have tolerated an intolerable situation: (blah); (blah blah); (blah blah blah); (blah x 4); (blah x 5); (blah x 6)....

This is the part where the essayist concedes a bunch of fucking obvious points in an attempt to frame the discussion of solutions there, instead of going further and doing something really substantive.

But unfortunately, right now, even as you are reading this essay, at least several people in this country are plotting new attacks. They may or may not have already assembled their guns, or picked out the person they will kill to get them. They may have decided on and researched their target.

"They might even be carrying them now, leaning out of a window, holding them steady against the sill, peering through the scope, their nervous fingers resting on the trigger, taking careful aim.... OH MY GOD LOOK BEHIND YOU DUCK"

We don't know who they are. But we know what they are -- members of a new cult of death that worships the monsters who came before them and has but one goal: to exceed the body count or the horror of the latest massacre and thus be remembered as the worst of them all....

It is here where Egelhof does that thing that most law enforcement people will do when they talk about their quarry, they talk about them in terms of The Other, although I must admit evoking a Lovecraftian cult is a nice touch.

The people who who turn their guns against human beings? Those are bad guys, diseased and sickening, if you sliced them open you would find naught but worms. Who knows how bad guyism gets started -- it's probably something genetic, or maybe a demon in their heads. Of course normal people never do things like that, no, normal people are decent, most people are good and kind and would never hurt anyone except when Christian doctrine tells us they're depraved and sinning automatons until exposed to the wond'r working pow'r of the blood of the Lamb.

Othering murderers helps us to feel better, but in the long run does us no favors. Really, lots of "normal" people would turn to using a gun to try to solve their problems if given the right circumstances. Many tell themselves they would only go that far if driven to extremes -- but hundreds of extreme situations happen every day to someone, somewhere, and hundreds of murders happen every day too.

Many of our faceless monsters share one significant vulnerability -- their own obsessions.

I guess OCD suffers are the new Al-Qaeda.

The FBI for years has had squads devoted to tracking people attempting to sexually exploit children: the "Innocent Images" initiative, in which agents work on a task force to lure molesters and exploiters by pretending to be innocent minors surfing on websites.

Wait, what? Are we dragging the paedo-panic into this now too?

The Red Lake shooter spent two years researching on the computer, and though I know little of the Newtown, Conn., shooter, I am struck that he destroyed his computer before carrying out his spree.

"I don't know what was on his computer. But I can speculate, nudge you knowingly, and cast your mind towards speculating about all the hundreds of things there might have been on it!"

It is time to treat these people for what they are -- terrorists -- and to hunt them down using the very medium through which they gather their bloody statistics, plan and recruit fellow travelers....

This is an infinitely telling sentence, from how it bends that catchy descriptor of all evil "terrorist" even further out of shape to mean what the writer wants, to how it blithely justifies internet surveillance, to how it borrows some language from one of our previous adventures in reactionary extremism. A former FBI agent unguardedly using terms like fellow travelers makes me wonder if really agency has really changed very much since the hysterical 50s.
posted by JHarris at 1:59 AM on January 4, 2013 [11 favorites]

Tyranny appears to be the moving target.
posted by de at 3:14 AM on January 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

How could murder ever be a justifiable response to robbery or assault, Jahaza? Especially when we're talking about the situations covered by SYG? It seems to me like an attempt to take the law into your own hands, not to mention a huge overreaction.

How does this have any relationship to what I wrote?

Murder would, by definition (i.e. unlawful killing), never be a justifiable response. The use of deadly force, however, is in many jurisdictions considered a justifiable response to at least certain kinds of robbery or assault (and therefore called "justifiable homicide"). The difference a "stand your ground" law makes is that it removes the "duty to retreat" from such a justification law. The controversy over a stand your ground law isn't rooted in what justifiable homicide is a justified response to, but in whether that justification depends on first fulfilling a duty to retreat.
posted by Jahaza at 11:16 AM on January 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

How does this have any relationship to what I wrote?

I think what was trying to be said, to put it in perhaps less inflamatory terms, is that Burglary and Robbery are not Capital crimes, first off, and secondly, even guilty Capital criminals have a right of due process before they are executed. Therefore, dening the accused of a fair trial and the right to appropriate punishment is a greater injustice than losing a car stereo.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 11:21 AM on January 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

Former NRA President Equates Gun Laws With Racism

Those looking for moderation and sensitivity in the gun control debate probably, by this point, know better than to look to the National Rifle Association.

But even by the standards of what we’ve heard from the NRA recently, comments made by former NRA president Marion Hammer earlier this week stand out.

Appearing on an episode of the NRA news show The Daily News on Wednesday, Hammer concluded a discussion of the prospects on gun control initiatives prompted by the Newtown, Conn. massacre by drawing a comparison between attempts to ban guns and racism.

“And they even admit this is about banning the ugliest guns, it’s about cosmetics and it has nothing to do about how a firearm works,” host Ginny Simone said toward the end of the segment.

“Well, you know, banning people and things because of the way they look went out a long time ago,” Hammer responded. “But here they are again. The color of a gun. The way it looks. It’s just bad politics.”

That's right people, gun control is just like Jim Crow. Which, as we all know, victimized 67-year-old white women from Florida, especially those who are responsible for a law that let a 15-year-old black kid armed with a bag of Skittles get shot and killed.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:22 AM on January 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

New York Journal News Publishes Gun Owners' Names In Westchester, Rockland Counties.

Because respecting and valuing people who obey the law and register and are responsible gun owners and supporting responsible gun ownership, well that's just counter-productive.

From ericb's Blogger Christopher Fountain Hits Back Against Gun Owners' Map link:
"I’ve received emails from abused women who were under protective order and in hiding, and they’re terribly afraid that now their names and addresses are all over the Internet and accessible through that map..."

That there's some responsible journalism. 'burger

And that seems to be at least one problem with the way we think about tragedies like this. Our news sources capture our attention with the most inflammatory headlines possible and the rhetoric becomes heated all out of proportion. You can't have a rational opinion, you must either hate guns with the fire of a thousand suns or love them with equal intensity.
Silly.

I suppose there's something to be said for generating the political will through passion. But that typically seems to all kinds of dumb ideas from wars (foreign and the "war on" wars) to blue laws and thoughtcrimes.

This is not going to be solved with simple bans, clever rhetoric or just giving more people guns.
(even given excellent training in marksmanship, training someone to kill, much less training a teacher to shoot a 20 year old who looks like a reedy 16 year old, two very different things).
And when the trained police officers arrived, Lanza shot himself. So "stopped" is relative.

Tough gun laws alone aren't magically going to fix things like school shootings. Norway has tough gun laws. But bring up Brevik in a gun control argument and suddenly no, Norway had these loopholes and No True Scotsman...blah blah blah. And let's just ignore the copycat killers (Poland has the lowest gun ownership level in the EU, didn't stop Kwiecien) and social ostracism (again - really nice job there New York Journal) and humiliation and alienation that all school shooters seem to share.

The social component to this is not just nice words or some fancy attempt to be pro-gun. I think it's stunningly obvious that (retired FBI agent John Patrick) Egelhof would call school shooters terrorists. Just as obvious as the knee jerk reaction from the left.
(Although I believe Eglhof argues the case for gun control through enforcement: " Law enforcement must start treating improper firearms possession with the same seriousness it now applies to drunken driving." and he's got a point in avoiding agenda-driven extremists on either side)

Not only does social engagement as a tactic not sell papers, but it seems at once too "soft on crime" and too immoral for something so dangerous.

The war on drugs has pretty much the same format. As does the war on terror. Best way to fight a terrorist is negotiation. That always seems to get flak. Not only from the people who want to send in special operators but also from the people who see them as the poor victims of an evil bullying policy.

Same deal here. The shooter is evil or misunderstood or whatever.
So what's the equivalent of negotiating with someone like him before the fact? He's going to be just as intractable as a suicide bomber. There's no penalty of law that is going to deter him given he's willing - indeed, eager given so many of these result in suicide - to die. And in a high profile manner that weapon/ammo tracking isn't going to deter (we already have NIBIN anyway)

Some of you were on to the economics. Which is a good start, but off the track - again, thanks to the media and partisans like Rosie "no one should have guns except my bodyguard" O'Donnell types.

You can buy an AK-47 in Australia for about $600. That's about the same (ballpark) as one costs in Chicago.
The law doesn't affect the economics of illicit trade because the supply side is huge and elastic. Can't afford my AK's for $2,000 like in Brazil? Ok, how's $600 grab you? Good? Cool. Deal.
Most of your weapon seekers are young men, typically under educated (that is, not invested in the educational process whether they have access to one or not) who have problems with income as related to social status (they might have a lot of dough or not much, but they're excluded socially).
So whatever a ban law might do, their motivation to get firearms (as the most effective weapon along with explosives) won't change - the illicit side will always be there.

One of the nifty resources on small arms is the International Country Risk Guide. I think it's better than USA today and OpEd sections for your info (YMMV)

The thing the ICRG gets into is that regulatory effectiveness carries most of the weight on these things. That and borders being porous (which explains Kwiecien getting stuff into Poland and why Australia has a pretty easy time of it). The latter isn't going to work for the U.S. We're awash in a sea of guns. The stuff we produce, the stuff we export, etc.

So, enforcement and prevention.

Right now it seems like we need the political will to pass new gun laws, etc. I've left that as an open question. What is glaringly obvious though, is that we have no political will to enforce the existing laws we have.

The on the ground ability of police to prosecute weapons violations works in tandem with how they communicate with the community and prioritize this as well as providing security (some people obviously - whether one agrees with it in principle or not - feel they have the right to fill that security vacuum with private gun ownership, and that is again a demand that isn't going to be legislated away).

There's an excellent gun violence resource from the International Association of Chiefs of Police (excellent resources on that in general) that goes into most of the same things. Stopping straw purchases, enforcing law in relation to illicit weapons, democratic accountability in the form of community involvement and inclusion and engagement such as establishing relationships with dealers.

The last there may have resulted in at least an investigation of Lanza, who wanted to buy a rifle but didn't have a permit and didn't want the background check.

Either way, it hasn't been a priority for law enforcement for a while. And it won't be without some social changes that support enforcement and investigation, regardless of whatever laws are passed or not.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:45 PM on January 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

Chris Ware's Newtown-Inspired Cover [and Cover Story] for the New Yorker
posted by MCMikeNamara at 1:58 PM on January 4, 2013

Ed Rendell: Listen, wusses, it's time for new gun laws
posted by Drinky Die at 4:21 PM on January 4, 2013

Donald Kaul, retired editor of the Des Moines Register and mostly-retired columnist:
The thing missing from the debate so far is anger — anger that we live in a society where something like the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre can happen and our main concern is not offending the NRA’s sensibilities.

That’s obscene. Here, then, is my “madder-than-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore” program for ending gun violence in America:

• Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a “well-regulated militia.” We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

• Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.

And if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures. None of that is going to happen, of course. But I’ll bet gun sales will rise.

Thing about Kaul is that my local shopper's weekly, which is a real Tea Party hard right venue editorially, used to run Kaul's column and I started to take him as a sort of print Alan Colmes -- a guy who trolled righties with leftie stereotypes. See! We really are all as nuts as you always say we are! Fair or not. He seems to have effectively poked the hornet's nest judging by the response, e.g.

JHarris, thanks for that response to Egelhof. I thought it was interesting to hear someone in his politics and his position wrestle seriously with the issues, and I've seen that piece touted as a really great response from the right. Naturally, posting is not endorsement.
posted by dhartung at 4:45 PM on January 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

No problem. Years of obsessing over MST3K cause my brain to generate that kind of reaction spontaneously, I just put it in the comment box and cut it down a bit.
posted by JHarris at 5:52 PM on January 4, 2013

Police: 4 dead, including gunman in Aurora, Colo., hostage situation
posted by tonycpsu at 9:11 AM on January 5, 2013

Sen. Diane Feinstein plans to reintroduce an assault weapons ban bill
Just, y'know, goddamit.
Is she going to renew her concealed carry permit at the same time?

There has to be something that recognizes the difference between people who are potentially disturbed getting their hands on weapons and someone like a Marine (I'm thinking of Cpl Boston's letter. I'm not on board with all of it, but if there's someone who knows better how to secure a rifle, probably going to be the rifleman from the Corps...)

Feinstein said "This is one effort and other things we should do to try to put weapons under some kind of appropriate authority."
Um, the ATF?

The ATF has been underfunded for years (according to the 2010 report by the Department of Justice's Inspector General).
It was underfunded after Columbine. It was underfunded after Tucson and Virginia Tech.

That's no money to enforce the laws on the books we have right now.

Remember after Virginia Tech when people we're all pissed off because he was able to buy a gun because his mental health records weren't in the NICS system?

Yeah, Congress responded by passing a law to improve the NICS (the NICS Improvement Act 2007). There were incentives to the states ($!) to fully report mental health information into the system.
Know how much money went behind it? Effectively $0. Some law enforcement agencies got up to 5% funded. Wow. Some others, it cost them money to participate. That there's sure some incentive.

I've got a buddy who's got a federal firearms license. He customed out some very fine hardware and wanted to be above board and legal because he's not Viktor Bout in disguise. So he contacted the ATF. As it turns out, it would have cost him money to get them to come out and inspect him.
Anecdotal, I know. But the OIG records can show the ATF does about 1 inspection every 10 years. That's *math.....* 10% of them at any given year.
Michael J. Sullivan - acting ATF director, appointed by Bush, who the NRA hated - showed a $70 million budget gap back in '07. So when he wasn't sending most of his people to the Mexican boarder for that big illegal immigrant thing, he was hassling mom & pop gun stores for not having the right paperwork, because that's pretty much all he could do.

Mayors against illegal guns came out two years ago and asked for full funding for the NCIS and money for trace analysis for shady arms dealers. It was sent to Pelosi as well.

So - where the hell was she? Where were any of these people before this push to blanket disarm everyone because 'current gun laws aren't working?'
Strange how that works when there's no money put into the enforcement of something.

What's so infuriating about the gun discussion is that it's not really about guns. It's another political football like abortion. Plenty of pro-lifers don't care about preventing abortions, they care about punishing people for having sex. Same deal here.
Feinstein is happy to own a gun herself. And the GOP was fine to watch police storm people's houses in the aftermath of Katrina and take their firearms. (Oh, there was some shuffling afterwards, but it was three years after the fact.)

This can't be handled for partisan public relations appeasement dance the way the assault rifle ban was.
Manifestly so, look at the result.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:32 PM on January 5, 2013 [5 favorites]

There has to be something that recognizes the difference between people who are potentially disturbed getting their hands on weapons and someone like a Marine

Marine? Mentally disturbed? How about both?
posted by desjardins at 4:03 PM on January 5, 2013 [2 favorites]

... it's not really about guns. It's another political football ... they care about punishing people for having sex. Same deal here.

Phew. We got there.
posted by de at 4:38 PM on January 5, 2013

Actually for me it's pretty much about the fucking guns.
posted by Miko at 7:05 PM on January 5, 2013 [10 favorites]

Thinking the analogy is, not that nobody wants fewer guns or abortions, but that the actual politicy/legal manifestations of that are way more geared toward point-scoring, or feel-good vote-getting, rather than actual harm mitigation. Made sense to me that way when I read it, at least.
posted by hap_hazard at 8:03 PM on January 5, 2013 [2 favorites]

The reason it's about the guns for me is that if it isn't about the guns, it's about a lot of othering of the mentally ill (see Wayne La Pierre's statement for plenty of that; although Egelhof (above) was somewhat less offensive, it is still a focus) and gets into the murkiest of precrime analysis. We really don't have good metrics for figuring out who is predisposed for violence, but we do know that with guns in the home, there's a good bet that when violence breaks out, the guns will be used.

I'm not even necessarily keen on banning handguns entirely, just restricting availability and putting up as many barriers to entry as possible. The recent flap about naming gun owners is a thing because in New York State, you have to at least apply to county authorities to get a state license. In Wisconsin, by contrast, not only is there no such hurdle, but once you have a gun or a CCL government authorities are barred from disclosing this fact, and weirdest of all, it is even protected information after the death of an individual in a firearms incident. So the press and public are not even allowed to ask whether the guns used (a real example: the guy in Spooner who got shot dead by hiding on someone's three-season porch from the cops busting up a party) were legally acquired or not. It's a SEE-KRIT. That angers me.
posted by dhartung at 11:20 PM on January 5, 2013 [4 favorites]

Marine? Mentally disturbed? How about both?
There's a stereotype that needs to be perpetuated. (Except the crazy vets don't deserve healthcare.) You seriously think this isn't a broader issue? Chuck Schumer said if you have been judged to be mentally ill (by a clerk who manages your finances) than you shouldn't have a gun.
Here, HufPo link.
Perhaps a bit of stigmatization going on there already in politics.

Thinking the analogy is, not that nobody wants fewer guns or abortions, but that the actual politicy/legal manifestations of that are way more geared toward point-scoring,
Yeah, I thought that was clear myself.

Actually for me it's pretty much about the fucking guns.
It may be about the guns for you, but clearly most politicians on both sides care more about theater. I think context is a factor when discussing legislation.

I'd like to see funding for the regulations we have in place for certifying and licensing gun dealers, limiting violent media exposure to children, and more money going to social programs that treat people previously identified as being at high risk for violence whether identified as mentally ill or not.
We had a great program here in Chicago. Made a movie about it "The Interruptors." Absolute solid data that they were curbing gun violence in the streets. I've met guys working that program, helping kids learn coping behaviors, mediating between gangs and they're some of the most awesome humans on the planet.

The state cut their funding.
Daley meanwhile went off on a rant about gun control and threatened to stick a WWI era bayoneted rifle up a reporters ass to prove how dangerous all guns are because he asked why violence was increasing if the ban was working.

For me, that seems like baseless political gun rhetoric. Not an actual attempt to curb gun violence.
But I live in Illinois. Your local political mileage may vary.

I'm not even necessarily keen on banning handguns entirely, just restricting availability and putting up as many barriers to entry as possible.

Sort of like the laws we have now that aren't funded? Never had much use for handguns myself. But what barriers?
Why does Pelosi get to have a concealed carry permit for a handgun but a trained Marine can't have a hunting rifle because it looks military-ish?

The way the laws are enforced now bespeak of a huge gap in privilege and a security theater driven enforcement. Changes in the law would have to address that in order to be effective at curbing gun violence.

And indeed, is there any guarantee those barriers would be adequately funded? That's not to argue against barriers per se, simply to point out how much of the devil is in the details.

I write long and it's sometimes hard to follow because I take a lot for granted and a lot of it is counterintuitive but I'm pointing out problems in practical execution.

For example: the assault weapons ban (in it's albeit new, still rough incarnation) asks for less magazine capacity.
Ok, not really practical, but not impossible.

And then it asks for ammunition to have a less tissue destroying capability.Stuff like that, I get hung up. Because there are trade offs in doing that which destroy the espoused goal.
"How" becomes a bigger question than - as mostly discussed here - "Why"
So - not why should, but HOW does the law accomplish that?

Full metal jacket rounds do less tissue damage because they cause less cavitation. But they tend to penetrate deeper. And potentially through walls. And they're perfectly lethal, just in a different way.
Hollowpoints don't overpenetrate but they do a great deal of damage.
Frangibles? Not as much internal damage, but stupid hard to treat. But Glaser Safety Slugs is probably what the bill writers (interns) had in mind.
Instead of dying immediately, you have someone dying over 3-4 days before succumbing to internal hemorrhaging and peritonitis.
Gruesome truth. But it's not taking a political position in pointing it out as impractical and self-defeating (of mitigating death from firearms.)

it's about a lot of othering of the mentally ill
So, Marines crazy, this guy perfectly sane. Right.

I don't have the descriptive tools here. Troubled? I don't know what one would call Holmes. He claimed he was a psychiatric patient. Lanza's mother apparently was going to have Lanza committed. You think Marines are wife killers, fine. Tough to disabuse you from that. Either way, I suspect there is a qualitative difference there between an alienated young man who kills children from an otherwise law abiding Marine like Cpl. Boston and perhaps there should be some recognition in the law for that.

I agree that it is a catch-22 to say rampage shooters are mentally ill. It bothers me the media pointed out Lanza was autistic.
But those types of shooters most certainly fit certain profiles and patterns of behavior. Most of them commit suicide. Most of them have had violent behavior in the past. Almost all male. Almost all withdrawn because of some kind of past trauma.
It's not a mental illness problem, but it is, as I've said, a problem of social withdrawal, alienation, and disengagement (last link there is to the New England Journal of Medicine, it's worth a read).

Gun violence and crime is another story. Obviously "gun" is the common denominator and I can see how it seems like getting rid of all guns is the solution. That's debatable, but I have no desire to.

But one can be completely objective and say belling that cat requires nuance and consideration to be effective and that hasn't seen much play in the political sphere in the past. And certainly none at all in following up with enforcement.

Feel free to check me on that if that's an unreasonable predication.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:18 AM on January 6, 2013

the actual politicy/legal manifestations of that are way more geared toward point-scoring, or feel-good vote-getting, rather than actual harm mitigation

That's exactly why I think it's important to be about talking policy, not platitudes, generality, or ideology.

"How" becomes a bigger question than - as mostly discussed here - "Why"

So yes, let's talk about the how of reducing gun violence. That is indeed the important conversation. But gun regulation and gun owner training, licensing, etc. has to be part of any comprehensive solution.
posted by Miko at 5:42 AM on January 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

Bennington, Vermont school teacher turns in a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle and voluntarily checks himself into a hospital for a mental health evaluation.
posted by madamjujujive at 8:33 AM on January 6, 2013

You think Marines are wife killers, fine.

Whoa, I didn't say that (and desjardins posted the link to the Wauwatosa case, anyway).
I've got a lot of respect for you as a poster, so just take care.

I agree that it is a catch-22 to say rampage shooters are mentally ill.

This is the difference between before and after. What I'm talking about is La Pierre saying we need to let everyone who wants a gun have one UNLESS we find they've seen a doctor and talked about their head. Because, hell, I've done that. And in fact the occurrence of violence among the mentally ill is generally indistinguishable from the occurrence of violence among the not-previously-noted-to-be-mentally ill.

But afterward, it's pretty easy to say, hey, that guy who killed a lot of people (or just one in an especially gruesome or depraved way) is not right in the head. The trouble is, that kind of focus doesn't help us a whole lot.

And indeed, is there any guarantee those barriers would be adequately funded? That's not to argue against barriers per se, simply to point out how much of the devil is in the details.

I dunno, I have in mind barriers like a tax on gun purchases and background check fees borne by the purchasers. I've also mentioned above using such funds to underwrite buyback programs and maybe some kind of insurance scheme. Basically, I feel this is a case where there are many more gun lovers and gun hobbyists than there are, shall we say, gun needers and they do not sufficiently bear the social cost of the hobby. (And plenty of them jeer most smugly at non-participants for being non-participants, which is a way of displacing emotional responsibility.) So again, why do taxpayers get to be the ones who have to come up with this funding anyway? Whose social costs are these? Gee, if only that mugging victim* had a gun is one way of jeering, but I think there's an analogy here to gee, if only the gun control people had paid for a few background checks, like it's our damn fault. Yeah, that ticks me off.
* I was mugged in 2011.

Let me put the shoe on the other foot. There are communities that try to control guns and put up barriers, but they are constantly fighting tooth and nail for the slightest traction, and if anything they are losing ground daily. If the pro-gun contingent believes in enforcing the law, why do they make it next to impossible to have any of these barriers or laws in place at all? That's what I see, and that's what Chicago and Mayor Daley see. I mean, it may not be much, but forcing people to drive out of the city to buy a gun is a barrier. It's not the city and mayor who are trying their damndest to make it a meaningless barrier.

Anyway, again, I feel this funding of a database of the mentally ill -- while it should be part of the regime at some level -- is a chimera, because it really doesn't catch many of the people who will become violent in the first place. It's another way of displacing responsibility. Even a fully-funded NICS isn't going to change levels of violence much because of all the guns out there that people can get access to without going through it (an argument I frequently hear from the pro-gun side), and yet the NRA is not proposing closing the loopholes through which people can buy guns without that check -- in fact they vigilantly oppose them.
posted by dhartung at 10:42 AM on January 6, 2013 [3 favorites]

Yes, I had an interesting conversation with a forensic psychologist who says that most people who commit one extreme violent episode have absolutely no history of similar previous violence and many have no history of mental health referral at all. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people who would appear on a roster as having been treated will never do something like this. It is simply not something that is predictable based on a large population category. It is not a useful filter.
posted by Miko at 12:04 PM on January 6, 2013 [8 favorites]

White House mulls broader gun control

A working group led by Vice President Joseph Biden is seriously considering measures that would require universal background checks for gun buyers and track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, the newspaper said.
[...]
To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association (NRA), the powerful gun lobby. [...] They include rallying support from Wal-Mart Stores Inc and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses, the Post said.

posted by Golden Eternity at 1:11 PM on January 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

"That is indeed the important conversation. But gun regulation and gun owner training, licensing, etc. has to be part of any comprehensive solution."

I suspect part of the problem in communication here is that I haven't made clear that I've ceded that and some other issues. So my fault, sorry.

The format for the current pubic discourse (present company excepted) seems to be:
1. gun regulation/ban/etc ideas.
2. ???????
3. Less violence.

Only step 2 concerns me. Gun owner training is critical. Absolutely. But the way it's critical, to me, is in forming the social connection and changing behavioral mores in terms of what's acceptable to foster responsible ownership.
Not as a restriction predicated on suspicion.

So, slow social change with even handed law enforcement. Eventually we won't be as much of a gun culture as we are. Which is more critical than focusing on equipment. Most particularly given advances in technology. 20 years from now who knows, you can pour some pseudo-metal into your 3d printer and print out whatever an assault rifle is then.
So my focus is on addressing making someone not want to, rather than attempting to limit their ability to.

"Whoa, I didn't say that (and desjardins posted the link to the Wauwatosa case, anyway)."

Ok. My mistake. Touchy subject for me. And my meaning was distorted there (one particular Marine like Boston vs. specific shooters, not vague Marine vs. vague mental health guy). Sorry.

"What I'm talking about is La Pierre saying..."
I think we're on the same page regarding anything that comes out of LaPierre's mouth.

And he's a prime example of the political b.s. I'm talking about. Bush's administration did militarize policing. And more and more they were becoming jackbooted thugs. But instead of sticking to his valid criticism he bends over.
But Dems are not much different than the GOP with that.

"yet the NRA is not proposing closing the loopholes"
Well, again, they're political hacks. My assertions to close the loopholes apply to their resistance as well. Frankly, I think they're one of the major forces looking to force a confrontation(s).
Pisses me the hell off because it's never those kinds of people who shed their blood.

"If the pro-gun contingent believes in enforcing the law, why do they make it next to impossible to have any of these barriers or laws in place at all?"

No, I agree. Thus the point about the respective political scorched earth tactics.

Only about 40 percent of the guns police officers seize in raids are stolen. The rest were sold legally to unscrupulous people who have licenses and deal guns to gang members, criminals, etc. without doing checks.
Fully funding the ATF or, what would be great, augmenting their funding and oversight - would cut down on that illegal trade tremendously.
Again - it's not being done. I'm not looking to play the blame game. Feel free to weigh blame however you like. But the political focus of both parties has been to wrangle over laws and ignore funding enforcement in favor of putting on a show.

Placing the onus on the gun buyer, the consumer, to fund enforcement would create a larger black market.
This happens whenever the legislation focuses on the object rather than social supports.
Prohabition as an example.

"It's not the city and mayor who are trying their damndest to make it a meaningless barrier."
Here, we'll have to agree to disagree. Watch "The Interrupters" Look at what Emmanuel's done in terms of reducing police numbers.
I stand by the assertion that, for them, gun control is a cheap fix, not a genuine strategy.

I've read loads of stuff, here and elsewhere, about how badly people hate the TSA, waiting in lines, being suspected of something when they've done nothing wrong.
And yet, that skepticism vanishes when gun control is the topic.

But it's the same thing. How best to fight a terrorist who wants to skyjack a plane?
Well, plenty of security experts, counterterrorists, et.al. said - engage the social environment which creates terrorism, use simple, straightforward controls such as locked, reinforced doors on planes, hire more sky Marshalls.

What we got instead was focus on the consumer - suspicion of everyone who gets on a plane, a massive new self-serving bureaucracy, backwards-facing rules that look to prevent the last attack such as taking shoes off, no fluids, etc. etc.

Now consider the same method of execution for gun control measures. The ATF (et.al) already kick in innocent people's doors and shoot people. Same deal with drug laws. You wind up with a constantly growing black market which fuels a larger and more excessive police response.
This from someone who has taken down "bad guys." Efficient the process can be, it will never solve the problem. Background checks are fine, whatever other gun laws one might postulate are fine - I'll cede all that for sake of argument. But there has to be social support or it will get as ugly and bloody as the drug war has been.

"It is simply not something that is predictable based on a large population category.
It is not a useful filter."

My point is, are not at-risk youth, gang members, etc, not in the same class of risk as an otherwise law abiding gun owner? Isn't that the whole idea of background checks? I'm not looking at it as a filter or stigmatization, but rather as outreach.

In terms of gun crime, would you not agree that that violence can be prevented by changing behavioral norms?
That's the foundation of The Interruptors organization (CeaseFire)

I'm going to have to check out of this discussion. Nothing personal. Sawan Patra is going to have my attention for a bit.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:57 PM on January 6, 2013 [1 favorite]

Placing the onus on the gun buyer, the consumer, to fund enforcement would create a larger black market. This happens whenever the legislation focuses on the object rather than social supports. Prohabition as an example.

So increase the penalties on buying and selling guns in the black market and step up enforcement there too. We have a massive state security apparatus with extra time on their hands. I'm sure Walmart would be on board with this.

I've read loads of stuff, here and elsewhere, about how badly people hate the TSA, waiting in lines, being suspected of something when they've done nothing wrong. And yet, that skepticism vanishes when gun control is the topic.

I have no problem with the TSA (as long as they aren't steeling stuff). I doubt Israeli's complain about security at the airport.

TSA Poll: Majority Of Americans Think Agency Is Doing A Good Job
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:52 PM on January 6, 2013

I'm not a big believer in slow social change. America is shitty at it.
posted by Miko at 6:27 PM on January 6, 2013

You can buy an AK-47 in Australia for about $600

Um, what?
posted by the duck by the oboe at 7:18 PM on January 6, 2013 [1 favorite]

Um, what?

Just nod, the duck by the oboe, because the AK-47 is an illegal import and possession, millions of Australians go out of their way to secure ourselves one (not!), along with the associated risks:

The penalty for possessing an unregistered or illegal firearm is up to AU$50,000 or up to 10 years jail (in South Australia, for instance).

Most who succeed will likely die with the US$600-thing -- 2005 price (published 2007), maybe Smedley googled -- secretly boxed away in a roof, unused and unattended, maybe even forgotten. ... expensive useless heirlooms at half the Australian dollar.

Australia offered only one buy-back opportunity back in the late 90s, it ran for 2 years only. Since then Australia state police departments run occasional amnesties for gun surrender and to this day you hear stories of thousands of guns relinquished around Australia (no questions asked); some of those have to be illegal heirlooms that granddad thinks he should finally relinquish now that he hasn't the vision to longingly stare down its barrel in the darkened roof cavity. It would be interesting to hear how many AK-47s are relinquished annually in "as new" condition. We'd immediately hear how many were involved in massacres: none since 1996 (thank goodness).

1. Australia is not a gun culture.
2. Anything you can buy illegally, you can buy illegally in Australia. (Goes without saying, really.)
posted by de at 8:30 PM on January 6, 2013 [4 favorites]

Gabby Giffords Launches Gun Safety Group, Calls For ‘Responsible Changes In Our Laws’
posted by homunculus at 12:41 PM on January 8, 2013

‘Deport Piers Morgan’ Creator Flips Out On Morgan’s Show: 1776 Will Commence Again If Guns Taken Away
posted by homunculus at 12:44 PM on January 8, 2013

1776 Will Commence Again If Guns Taken Away

At least I can be grateful for the brief but awesome moment of excitement I had on reading this sentence, at the prospect of the year 1776 commencing again which actually would be pretty cool.
posted by cairdeas at 1:24 PM on January 8, 2013

1776, hahahaha.
posted by Miko at 1:54 PM on January 8, 2013

Cool, I'm going to get in first: publish & claim copyright on The Wealth of Nations, and The History of the Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire.

Hell, might as well not restrict myself to 1776, and take out patents on the internal combustion engine, velcro, shopping trolley wheels & the computer mouse. I think I'll leave it at that. No need to get too greedy. Wait, automatic & semi-automatic weapons! With my patent money I'll be able to buy them all back.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:11 PM on January 8, 2013

1776 Will Commence Again If Guns Taken Away

Hey dude, get it right ... it's 1775, not 1776.

Battles of Lexington and Concord -- April 19, 1775.

Battle of Bunker Hill [Breed's Hill] -- June 17, 1775.

posted by ericb at 2:32 PM on January 8, 2013 [4 favorites]

Maybe he was talking about the musical.
posted by brundlefly at 4:26 PM on January 8, 2013 [4 favorites]

Keith Ratliff, a gun enthusiast, builder, and weapons manager of the youtube channel FPSRussia, was found dead recently from an single gunshot wound to the head. It has so far been ruled as a homicide.
posted by samsara at 7:57 PM on January 8, 2013

Jon Stewart Destroys The Right On Gun Control: We Can’t Do Anything Because You Fear ‘Imaginary Hitler’
posted by homunculus at 8:56 PM on January 8, 2013 [4 favorites]

Two gun advocates walked around Portland with assault rifles (legally) and shockingly people called 911.

The armed men told police that they were exercising their 2nd Amendment rights and hoping to educate the public.

Officers explained to the men that they would likely continue to generate 911 calls from an alarmed public, which would require a police response, but neither man seemed interested in these concerns.

posted by lullaby at 6:18 PM on January 9, 2013

A great illustration of why police hate open carry.

That is an education for the public...but maybe not the way they meant it.

The point about "tying up police who may otherwise have been able to respond to true emergencies" is a good one. A town near me has been having a Facebook flap tonight because someone put forward a request to post a policeman at the school during school hours. The town flat out said "we can't afford it." When challenged to just re-appropriate another officer to this new duty, they pointed out that was one less officer to do other stuff...like respond to break-ins, car accidents, robberies, domestic altercations, assaults, etc. Given that those sorts of things actually take more lives and pose more problems than the rarity that is a school shooting, it would seem really stupid to me to reduce police effort elsewhere just to tie them up at schools in an eternally vigilant but frankly pointless effort to make us and our children feel protected when we're actually all incredibly vulnerable all the time everywhere, and will be as long as we have such easy access to and uncomplicated celebration of guns.
posted by Miko at 6:20 PM on January 9, 2013 [11 favorites]

Two Shot at Taft Union High School near Bakersfield, CA.

You know, it would be nice to go a month without a school shooting. That doesn't seem like a terribly high bar to clear.
posted by Westringia F. at 10:14 AM on January 10, 2013

If you're not—privileged—to have misinformed Right Wing Authoritarians who think they're Libertarians among your Facebook friends, let me tell you: they're going off the deep end today. Which is saying something since they've overtaken funny cat videos as the main content on my feed since Newtown. They didn't even let up on Christmas Day.

Then I see the following article linked by The New Civil Rights Movement:

Unhinged Tactical Response CEO threatens to ‘start killing people’ over Obama’s gun control, David Edwards, The Raw Story, 10 January 2013

It hardly seems possible, but it's actually worse than the headline makes it sound.
posted by ob1quixote at 10:28 AM on January 10, 2013 [1 favorite]

It hardly seems possible, but it's actually worse than the headline makes it sound.

The only way I can imagine for that to be true is if he's actually threatening to continue killing people.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:41 AM on January 10, 2013

Good lord, it truly wigs me out that these knuckleheads ACTUALLY THINK they're going to go off into the woods with a cry of WOLVERINES and a backpack full of food and ammo and... do what? Against tanks and helicopters and drones and the NSA and spy satellites... just what the fuck are these neo-Rambos actually think they're gonna do?
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 11:23 AM on January 10, 2013 [1 favorite]

Gun Toting Soccer Mom Found Shot Dead - gun nut, marital dispute, things really didn't go down the way she thought they would.
posted by Miko at 11:23 AM on January 10, 2013 [1 favorite]

Oops, more news today. 2 Year old shoots self in chest with 9mm handgun. And One of the operators of a popular YouTube channel promoting high-powered guns and explosives was found shot to death last week in northeast Georgia.
posted by Miko at 12:01 PM on January 10, 2013

Two Shot at Taft Union High School near Bakersfield, CA.

Joe Biden School Shooting Press Conference Collides With News Of Another School Shooting.
posted by ericb at 12:05 PM on January 10, 2013

"Since 1982, there have been 62 mass shootings in America. Twenty-five of them occurred since 2006, with seven in 2012."*
posted by ericb at 12:07 PM on January 10, 2013 [1 favorite]

Okay, this is two cases in one day where someone got shot, and that someone was a gun owner and collector. I keep thinking of the whole claim about how the best way to stop someone with a gun is - someone else with another gun. but here are two cases in one day where the victim of a shooting did have guns, and it still didn't help.

What's next? Getting even more guns? MAD is only supposed to be a defense policy for nations, not individual people.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:15 PM on January 10, 2013 [1 favorite]

From Miko's soccer mom link above: the children told another neighbor that "daddy shot mommy."

Meleanie Hain always carried her holstered 9mm Glock pistol, even to the grocery store, and was holding a rifle while she talked to someone outside her house last week, Fortna said.

"I'm shocked at the whole thing," [her neighbour Eileen] Fortna said. "I'm surprised she didn't defend herself."

WTF is wrong with these people?!??

Also: Meleanie? Seriously?

Toys lay scattered across the corner lot Thursday in the tree-lined neighborhood where the family lived and where Meleanie ran a day care center.

What.
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:19 PM on January 10, 2013 [2 favorites]

Strong Neighborhoods Control Gun Violence - Where residents don’t feel a sense of community, they don’t feel protected.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:51 PM on January 10, 2013 [4 favorites]

What's next? Getting even more guns?

Clearly, the person with a gun in each hand will have an advantage over a madman with only one gun. Two guns for every teacher!
posted by Devils Rancher at 12:54 PM on January 10, 2013 [1 favorite]

Sure, but then the bad guys will show up with lasers strapped to their heads.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:20 PM on January 10, 2013

I suggest mounting guns on those lasers.
posted by pompomtom at 2:26 PM on January 10, 2013 [1 favorite]

The guns should have laser sights on them.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:37 PM on January 10, 2013

And One of the operators of a popular YouTube channel promoting high-powered guns and explosives was found shot to death last week in northeast Georgia.

Wow. That's not going to cause the gun nuts to go crazy with conspiracy theories. Not at all. Not in this country.
posted by Talez at 3:14 PM on January 10, 2013

Yeager Releases 2nd Video: No Murders ‘Unless It’s Necessary’, Pema Levy, Talking Points Memo, 10 January 2013
posted by ob1quixote at 4:19 PM on January 10, 2013

That's bold. I'd heard Americans were sort of against terrorism these days.
posted by pompomtom at 4:52 PM on January 10, 2013

EmpressCallipygos writes "Okay, this is two cases in one day where someone got shot, and that someone was a gun owner and collector. I keep thinking of the whole claim about how the best way to stop someone with a gun is - someone else with another gun. but here are two cases in one day where the victim of a shooting did have guns, and it still didn't help. "

I pretty sure that no one has claimed a fire arm is a magic shield that will 100% prevent owners from being the victims of gun violence.
posted by Mitheral at 4:55 PM on January 10, 2013

Guns make really shitty defensive weapons. Yeah, sometimes they get brought to bear in a way that works, but it's really unlikely, hard, and likely to blow back on you if you try it.
posted by localroger at 5:19 PM on January 10, 2013 [1 favorite]

Sure, but then the bad guys will show up with lasers strapped to their heads.

i'm putting a nuclear bomb in my backpack

YEAH, BRING IT ON!!
posted by pyramid termite at 5:31 PM on January 10, 2013

It's all clear now. It's like the NRS misread The Butter Battle Book as a how-to manual.
posted by Dr. Zira at 5:47 PM on January 10, 2013

I pretty sure that no one has claimed a fire arm is a magic shield that will 100% prevent owners from being the victims of gun violence.

Are you in the same reality I am? Because, discounting your "magic" exaggeration, that is exactly the foundation of the reasoning that more guns will make all of us more secure in a world with proliferating guns. The argument has to reduce to the idea that fewer people will be injured and/or die by gun violence where there are more guns - that there is an inverse relationship between number of guns owned by citizens, and violent incidents involving guns. Which, again discounting your rhetorical exaggeration, is exactly the position: guns make us all safer.

The problem is that this is exactly counter to the reality that gun deaths have only climbed in direct relationship to the number of guns.
posted by Miko at 7:14 PM on January 10, 2013 [6 favorites]

I pretty sure that no one has claimed a fire arm is a magic shield that will 100% prevent owners from being the victims of gun violence.

Maybe not on Metafilter, but I'm sure someone has somewhere. There's always at least one partisan in any debate willing to abandon sense in favor of hyperbolic straw man arguments. Gun owners definitely have said some really crazy unthinking things in their passion for the outcome they want.

Personally I just say things like I believe the way the amendment is worded grants the right to own a gun regardless of whether it makes sense to do so, just like the right to free speech doesn't make any kind of distinction as to what you use your right for (although there are exceptions for speech where the harm can be quantified). I make no defense on the sense of gun ownership, indeed my own personal calculation was that it was more of a PITA to own a gun than any use I'd personally get out of it at this stage in my life. But that has no impact on whether it's a right or not according to the wording of the constitution, just on whether it should be a right from a moral or strategic perspective.
posted by BrotherCaine at 7:28 PM on January 10, 2013

Gun Toting Soccer Mom Found Shot Dead - gun nut, marital dispute, things really didn't go down the way she thought they would.

Just to clarify - that incident is from 2009, not this week. I mention that in case EmpressCallipygos was referencing it as one of the "two cases in one day where someone got shot, and that someone was a gun owner and collector." In any case -- horrifying, of course.

When I took my one shooting class, the instructor specifically talked with us about the kinds of problems guns DON'T help with, and said, "A gun is not a talisman of warding."
posted by brainwane at 9:49 PM on January 10, 2013

I pretty sure that no one has claimed a fire arm is a magic shield that will 100% prevent owners from being the victims of gun violence.

Then why does the NRA always say that "if someone else in [Newtown/Aurora/Columbine/Virginia Tech/insert name here] had also had a gun they could have stopped the shooter"? They aren't saying it's a magic shield, but they DO seem to imply that any bystander when a mass shooting breaks out would magically have 100% sniper accuracy. So, they do seem to be implying that gun ownership confers sufficient experience to defend one's self and others.

But these two instances of gun owners being shot and killed would seem to imply that gun ownership does not necessarily confer skill to defend one's self, much less others, so now what?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:25 AM on January 11, 2013 [2 favorites]

Then why does the NRA always say that "if someone else in [Newtown/Aurora/Columbine/Virginia Tech/insert name here] had also had a gun they could have stopped the shooter?"

More specifically their statement, "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." It implies that all resulting acts of violence need to be dealt with as they are happening, not mitigated up to the point of happening. It embraces dealing with problem only when s**t hits the fan, regardless of any efforts to limit frequency.

Perhaps it was a poor choice of wording...perhaps he meant to say "one of many ways to stop a bad guy with a gun." Or perhaps that's exactly what he and gun manufacturers wanted him to say.

My idea of a responsible NRA would be one that supports the 2nd amendment, but also asks questions like "Where did that s**t come from? And why is this fan here?"
posted by samsara at 5:39 AM on January 11, 2013 [6 favorites]

I'd heard Americans were sort of against terrorism these days.

Sure, foreign terrorism. Domestic terrorism we're not terribly concerned with. Also, we're not at all worried about terrorizing others.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 6:53 AM on January 11, 2013

I pretty sure that no one has claimed a fire arm is a magic shield that will 100% prevent owners from being the victims of gun violence.

Indeed. It's exactly the opposite.

The risk (in America) of being a victim of gun violence (both homicide & suicide) increases when guns are kept in the house.

Abstract:
Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

-Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study

The pistol-packin soccer mom gunned-down in her own home by an armed, male family member wasn't the anomaly.

She was the pattern.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 7:38 AM on January 11, 2013 [10 favorites]

> Okay, this is two cases in one day where someone got shot, and that someone was a gun owner and collector.

In fact, merely two such incidents each day would be a blessing. Statistically it's likely well above 10 per day on average.

On average 31 people are fatally shot per day in the US [2009 CDC figures]. Approximately 1/3 of all Americans personally own a gun [Gallup 2011 self-reported gun ownership poll]. If gun ownership makes no difference to one's risk of getting shot (something which all evidence points against), then on average there are ~10 cases each day -- not just two! -- where someone got fatally shot, and that someone was a gun owner. If gun ownership is a risk factor, on average we'll have more than ten such cases per day, every day.
posted by Westringia F. at 8:32 AM on January 11, 2013 [3 favorites]

"Where did that s**t come from? And why is this fan here?"

Where did that shit come from? : Combination of poor wording in the Constitution/ Constitutional Fathers having a poor grasp on future technology arcs/ and a Supreme Court that needed a remedial reading lesson.

And why is this fan here? : That 'fan' would be the NRA itself.
posted by edgeways at 8:53 AM on January 11, 2013

For me it's more:

WDTSCF?:
1) For common gang/criminal guns: Straw buyers (second hand sellers) and absence of ANY federal mandate/law to address and prosecute them when aiding in resulting crimes by their gun running activities (which is currently by all means LEGAL to do on a national level as anyone that passes background checks to buy a gun one day, can turn around and sell it discretely the next without worry most of the time). The solution is mind numbingly simple: require that the "ownership" of the weapon is assigned to the dealer once it leaves the manufacturer. From there every change in hands should require a transfer of title/registration (even at gun shows) where a clean background check is required. Criminal liabilities are on the last legally approved owner for every gun confiscated in crimes. Anyone who currently has a clean record that is caught straw buying all of a sudden will have a criminal record preventing further purchses. The cartloads of 50-100 guns leaving dealerships in VA or surrounding Chicago would suddenly begin to ramp down as straw-buyers begin to question, "Do I really want to take responsibility for what happens with these weapons next?"

2.) For mass shootings and other murders: The lack of federal level mental health hospitals and programs since they were explicitly dismantled during Regan's term. It's been 30 years now, and obviously no private enterprise is up to taking up the task in a substantial way. While Regan firmly believed in smaller government, I think he was wrong in thinking larger government shrinks liberties. Even with myself being libertarian leaning, this is one of those cases where a federal level solution would be the best. There has to be something, for example, that could have made Melissa Brown's search for appropriate mental healthcare easier when it came to her trouble son, Max. She's lucky in that she fought hard enough to finally find something...but think of how many other parents face the same hardships. Think about a federal mental health system that could not only treat a variety of issues, but also serve as a reporting point that could identify "high-risk" individuals on background checks when they apply for gun ownership.

AWITFH?:
1) To a degree, yes. Not just NRA...but the approach they've taken that helps facilitate s**t getting all over the walls and furniture. (you can thank me later for the visual).

2) It is also the gun manufacturers behind the NRA, who's main concern is their bottom line...they are a business after all...and when you have a lobby with millions of supporters, you tend to care less about the ethics/sensitivities involved in making that profit.

3) Thirdly, it is simply the lack of accountability that is at play right now. Sure we all have this right that a 200 year old document says we have. Sure there are very good reasons that right exists. But if applied irresponsibly...if practiced without accountability and holding individuals to their actions practicing that right....and with so many avenues to deflect any liability...a system has been inadvertently created that is very self interested/preserving in nature, rather than being interested in the overall health and stability of a nation that old piece of paper was initially intended to protect.
posted by samsara at 11:10 AM on January 11, 2013 [1 favorite]

Dad poses as gunman to test school security, gets arrested.
posted by ericb at 9:28 AM on January 12, 2013 [1 favorite]

samsara: well said.

My idea of a responsible NRA would be one that supports the 2nd amendment, but also asks questions like "Where did that s**t come from? And why is this fan here?"

I think the NRA is too far gone.

So, they do seem to be implying that gun ownership confers sufficient experience to defend one's self and others.

Why does it have to be an all or nothing proposition? I see the NRA position as untenable. But I heard some commentator say ... well, wait, just defeated my own purpose there. Most media commentators of whatever politics are asshats. But taking that as read - one of the ideas there was that NO defensive shooter EVER stood up to any spree shooter ever and the assault weapons ban would have prevented ALL school shootings FOREVER.
Might have been Ed Schultz? Don't know.
But there were spree shootings during the ban. There have been spree shootings without use of banned weapons.
There have been shootings prevented by someone who was armed who certainly did defend herself and others - Jeanne Assam and New Life Church, offhand. Just recently Nick Meli perhaps.
None of that really needs to be wrangled over though.
The burden for security from or for responsibility for crazed spree killers or criminals shouldn't be left to law abiding individuals (arguments both for concealed carry as a defense and practical reasons why the defense isn't so realistic can come from the Clackmas shooting)
Strict laws are not the same as strict security and enforcement measures. Practical reasons in a nutshell right there.

“You can buy an AK-47 in Australia for about $600. “
“Um, what?”
Illicit trade. Its the next sentence.

“maybe Smedley googled –“
Or you could maybe take me at my word, maybe look at where I noted the Small Arms Survey and the International Country Risk Guide and… ah, whatever.

It's simple - when we're talking about limiting gun crime - a focus on making legal uses/ formerly lawful possession illegal does not limit the trade, it creates a larger black market.

Funding law enforcement to go after (the already illegal) open to black market gun trade is more effective at getting guns off the street. Go after the dealers who sell to criminals rather than place the onus on the individual owner.

Obviously that doesn’t address legal possession in Australia or the cultural attitude towards guns. But that doesn’t matter. Australia is a transshipment point for small arms. There are trafficking syndicates whether the average person in Australia wants a gun or not or whether the government is ok with an individual having one or not. Richard A. Chichakli (part of Viktor Bout’s arms network) was arrested in Melbourne, no?. Despite the strict regulations, there are still illegal firearms in Australia.

The point is simple enough.
Indeed, part of Australia's success has been with the ACC targeting dealers and a sustained program of imprisoning people who dealt to criminals as well as added penalties for criminals who use them in crimes. They've been more successful in regulating the market and going after illegal trade than law abiding citizens. Obviously gun buy back programs are aimed at people who generally aren't criminal and aren't going to buy or have something like an AK-47 in the first place.

I’d reference the studies from the Australian Institute of Criminology, the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Police Journal – but what’s the point if you want an echo chamber you wouldn’t read it anyway.

“Two gun advocates walked around Portland with assault rifles (legally) and shockingly people called 911.”
A. They’re not assault rifles. An assault rifle is capable of automatic fire and has an intermediate sized cartridge. The AR-15 he’s carrying is a semi-automatic rifle. It’s irritating to read people talk about these things and insist on remaining ignorant of the terms. It doesn’t fire full auto. It doesn’t fire three round burst. It is NOT an assault rifle.

B. That said – yeah, it sure as hell LOOKS like an assault rifle (an M16A2 carbine). And that seems to be the big problem with dunderheads like this and these discussions. Legislators want to make laws against “assault rifles” that aren’t effective because they address cosmetics not reality. Guys like this want to carry weapons that look like assault rifles and be passive aggressive dicks.

The Ruger Mini-14 is a solid, reliable and accurate rifle. As good as an AR platform for any kind of defense. Probably better in some respects. Bit less versatile maybe.
They could have carried two of these down the street and made the same point. But it doesn’t look like an assault rifle, so why would they unless they wanted to say something without saying it.

Again, a big problem is people treating guns as a symbol rather than dealing with the reality. Many of the people on the pro-gun side aren’t on the pro-gun side (the NRA is indeed more of a shill than a group of responsible gun owners, membership aside).

Carrying a shotgun broken open over one shoulder and a brace of pheasants dressed in Hunter Orange while walking down the street creates an entirely different reality picture and probably not one as many people would call 911 over.
Indeed, why not carry a hunting rifle? Why not carry a plastic airsoft gun? Why moan if the police come and check to make sure you have a license? Silly.

What’s also bizarre is the incongruity in desiring social reinforcement of gun culture while actively trying to provoke people.
Same stupid idea as arguing for armed guards in schools rather than school resource officers though, I suppose.
But it works both ways. Why go out of your way to socially alienate people who you'd really want to keep tabs on, particularly given they're armed?

“I'm not a big believer in slow social change. America is shitty at it.”
It’s the difference between Abolitionism and the Civil war. How fast do want the change?

Racial equality, gay rights, it’s terrible that these things take time but persistence and vigilance is the price you pay to avoid social upheaval and mass violence.

It’s surprising that so many people don’t consider this. We really want to pass laws tomorrow go and confiscate their guns the next day? Who kicks in the doors?

This isn’t like repossessing a car, you know for certain the target has firearms because that’s what you’re going after. And agents and police may kill or be killed by people who otherwise have broken no law.
Among the messages the two idiots walking around with the wannabe assault rifles are sending is that they will resist police attempting to take their firearms. Disagree with it as much as you like but it's the reality that has to be dealt with in enforcing the law.

And enforcement has to be a consideration in passing a law. I don’t know why that’s such a controversial point. It's not even close to ideological. Like pointing out using defoliant on a mass scale to wipe out marijuana production might be a poor and self-defeating use of resources. It's a matter of execution. Given we have a drug law - ok, maybe this isn't the best way of going about it.

But we don’t enforce the laws we have - meanwhile the response to a shooting like this in Newtown is to implement a law that wouldn’t have prevented him from getting the weapon he used in the first place (the Bushmaster .223). It’s entirely stupid.

Plenty of gun control folks have said the assault weapons ban was too loose and allowed for knock-offs, etc. - yes, what does that tell you? The NRA is just sooo powerful? It was public ignorance and blind ideology. Same thing that led us into Iraq. Plenty of Dems behind that too.

I think we should think twice before asking people to go and die for this. Particularly important is pointing out poorly thought ideas. I'd have thought most Americans would have had their fill of antagonism for dissent from Bush. But apparently it's only that they think we get to take turns depending on party affiliation. Or being right.
But one thing America is definitely pretty shitty at holding our politicians accountable for spilling blood.

That said, I think the Obama Administration is actually looking at constructive solutions (Biden in particular seems to be listening: “there is a surprising, so far, recurrence of suggestions that we have universal background checks.”) Less undocumented sales might not have prevented Lanza from getting a gun, but the oversight itself - particularly in that it is not intrusive - addresses the culture of silence around gun shows that allows straw purchases.
Silence certainly kills.
(For those of you not instantly thinking of bon mots such as "silence doesn't kill, guns do" or some such, I think it's obvious that greater communication and a non-adversarial relationship with enforcement fosters trust and lessens alienation).

From the man of twists and turns link Strong Neighborhoods Control Gun Violence
“That’s part of the reason that Chicago, under Mayor Rahm Emanuel, has agreed to pay $1 million to the antiviolence program CeaseFire to mediate gang conflicts in its most war-torn districts.”
I hadn't seen this until now. F’ing finally.
...not to complain, but I'll believe it when the check clears. Be nice to have more if they're serious.

“Study after study has found a strong correlation between the level of civil engagement in a community—what researchers term “social capital”—and the homicide rate. In a sense, the research is telling us what we already see with our own eyes. Homicides (by gun or otherwise) are more prevalent in areas that lack strong, cohesive bonds, whether woven through government outreach, church, kids’ sports teams, farmers’ markets, bowling leagues, or what have you.”
I can’t emphasize this enough.

I'll quote it again:
“Study after study has found a strong correlation between the level of civil engagement in a community—what researchers term “social capital”—and the homicide rate. In a sense, the research is telling us what we already see with our own eyes. Homicides (by gun or otherwise) are more prevalent in areas that lack strong, cohesive bonds, whether woven through government outreach, church, kids’ sports teams, farmers’ markets, bowling leagues, or what have you.”

This is what so many political points of whatever color deviate from. Ban guns. Lug ‘em around the streets. Whatever. It's all avoiding engagement rather than forming those bonds, knowing your neighbors. Being plugged in and engaged and promoting programs that do that rather than feel good political point scoring B.S. like the 1/2 ass double ignorant "assault weapons" ban.
Do that and at the same time fund law enforcement to go after illicit gun trade and you have a far more effective anti-violence program.
I'd submit a firearms training group (nonpartisan, nonlobbiest, local) might be more effective in producing responsible gun owners than a bowling league. But the philosophy is the same for the entire package.

Again, from the link:
"Not only does a culture of violence need to be rewired but a culture of civil alienation has to be ended. "

That's just crazy enough to work! Or we could do the same thing we did with 9/11, terrorism, sex in politics, colored jelly bracelets, shark attacks, etc. etc. etc.
(sorry for the one big comment. Still out of town not much time to respond)
posted by Smedleyman at 4:56 PM on January 12, 2013 [1 favorite]

It’s surprising that so many people don’t consider this. We really want to pass laws tomorrow go and confiscate their guns the next day? Who kicks in the doors?

That you believe this makes me think you have been listening way too much to the kind of stuff the NRA and its allies are telling you. And it's the common fantasy of all the rabid gun people out there - the idea that guns will be outlawed and the evil government agents will come and kick down your door and forceably take your guns while you stand your ground and everyone goes out in a blaze of glory. No one is coming to kick down your door and confiscate your guns.
posted by young sister beacon at 5:26 PM on January 12, 2013 [6 favorites]

There's no reasonable way to talk about solutions if increased gun control isn't part of the solution. There really just isn't.
posted by Miko at 6:49 PM on January 12, 2013 [7 favorites]

“That you believe this makes me think you have been listening way too much to the kind of stuff the NRA and its allies are telling you….No one is coming to kick down your door and confiscate your guns.”
I’ve been listening to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo saying: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option.” I’m not sure how else to take that. Sounds to me like “confiscation could be an option.” So I respond saying that would be a bad idea.

“And it's the common fantasy of all the rabid gun people out there - the idea that guns will be outlawed and the evil government agents will come and kick down your door…”
Unless it’s reality that Blackwater mercenaries kicked in doors with the National Guard and seized guns after Katrina (under a GOP president, ironic that).

There certainly is that fantasy. That is sort of really what happened at Waco. That was basically a federal weapons charge. Can we agree it sort of got out of hand?
I’m not of the opinion some militia is going to be out in the woods fighting the government. That danger exists though. But the real danger would come from a politically influential cabal of elected officials who might decide to back some move with political power. Maybe take like minded segments of law enforcement units. A county sheriff’s office here, a national guard unit there, some local law enforcement, some active (or former) military guys who might be from that area. Then you could stir the pot pretty nicely. Hitting them with a drone would actually further the cause. Once established they would likely provoke the government into committing an atrocity to gain sympathy for the cause.
Yes, with enough guns and more importantly money, political power and influence, you could have a minor coup in some areas. Enough of those, it could get pretty dicey. Plenty of politicians and military folks who would be sympathetic. It’s tough to draw hard sharp lines when it comes to ideology. David Galula wrote that a group of men without a cause can seize power by a lucky plot (and that this has happened in history) but then the plot isn’t an insurgency. As it is they’d have a cause.
But it would fail. The people of the United States, at least a large swath of them, are just fine with torture and their government spilling blood casually. I can’t imagine they’d kick if a few nuts and their children get burned to death again. So where would they get sympathy for their cause from? Too many people got the game on to care. So the fantasy is the “rising up” part, not the “kick in the doors” part. We’ve already done that.

“There's no reasonable way to talk about solutions if increased gun control isn't part of the solution”
Well, I love the universal background check idea. It would place security measures and checks into the existing process. More things like that, coupled with social programs would go a long way to find an equitable solution.

Look, most of the congressmen, 57% of the senate, have Law as their profession. Law doesn’t seek to discern the truth or uncover reality. Law is about who argues best. In practice the act of arguing - regardless of the issue - is fundamental to that profession and ½ of congress is in law.

It would be nice, in Congress, to have some engineers, machinists, more former warfighters, cops, teachers – people who deal with things not in the abstract but in practical terms looking to accomplish something.
To paraphrase Plato (from The Republic): “The good are not willing to rule for the sake of money or honor. They do not wish to collect pay openly for their service of rule and be styled hirelings nor to take it by stealth from their office and be called thieves, nor yet for the sake of honor, for they are not covetous of honor. (Their) chief penalty is to be governed by someone worse if a man will not himself hold office and rule.”
If we talk about gun control, we have to talk about the realities of enforcement. Whatever the law.
At the very least we need to show people what happens when someone gets shot. It’s not the cool guy make one last quip small neat hole dripping some blood. You get shot, you shit yourself, your guts come out, you scream and pass out. We should take our politicians out to the hospitals to talk to young gang members with half their face shot off and then go to the streets and see his brothers armed and looking for payback. Then go talk to the set that shot him and see that they’re all packed and strapped because they’re nervous the other crew is going to find them and then notice, at last, say, where are the police? Where are all the social agencies that should help take care of this?

Gun problem in a nutshell right there. Attack the source, it will all go away. Only people left with guns would be people like me.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:48 AM on January 13, 2013 [3 favorites]

It's simple - when we're talking about limiting gun crime - a focus on making legal uses/ formerly lawful possession illegal does not limit the trade, it creates a larger black market.

With respect to Australia, this is true. The black market increased as a side effect of gun control. And gun crime decreased, which was the whole point of controlling access to guns more strictly than it had been before.

Personally, as an Australian citizen, I don't much care how big or small the black market is since I don't have to worry about gun crime at all anymore. Gangs and bikie clubs and the cops worry about it, sometimes they shoot at each other (but try to avoid 'civilians' as shooting a bystander would bring down even tighter restrictions). Everyone else just gets on with their life. Occasionally the cops show up on the 6pm news to show off the results of their latest gun bust, instead of showing up on the news to talk about their investigation into another massacre that left dozens of people dead.

That's what American gun control advocates want too - the ability to just go to the cinema or school or a shopping centre without being forced to keep an eye out for nutters with guns. And right now they don't have that. Can you blame them for wanting what every other citizen of a developed nation has?
posted by harriet vane at 4:32 AM on January 13, 2013 [9 favorites]

You get shot, you shit yourself, your guts come out, you scream and pass out.

Actually this is no more accurate than the neat hole last quip trope.

If you don't get hit in the heart or the right part of your brain, what happens is you bleed out. It might take a few minutes or a few hours depending on how many and which blood vessels are severed. The fact that your liver or pancreas has been shredded doesn't matter much on that time scale. You die because you lose enough blood that your body can no longer pump enough oxygen to your brain.

And again, unless you got hit in the right part of your brain (that right part being the stem, connecting it to the rest of your body and controlling all the basic functions) you are aware and hurting while your blood drains onto the ground around you. But most people who get shot don't "scream and pass out." They have an awful realization that they are suddenly in a lot of trouble, and then the lights get dim. And if the ambulance doesn't get there soon enough the lights go out.

But that isn't very dramatic, so even when they're not doing the last quip trope they rarely show it accurately on the TV.
posted by localroger at 6:17 AM on January 13, 2013 [1 favorite]

The Hitler gun control lie
Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong
"University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general. Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning? Should we eliminate all police officers because the Nazis used police officers to oppress and kill the Jews? What about public works — Hitler loved public works projects? Of course not. These are merely implements that can be used for good or ill, much as gun advocates like to argue about guns themselves. If guns don’t kill people, then neither does gun control cause genocide (genocidal regimes cause genocide)."
posted by Blasdelb at 6:37 AM on January 13, 2013 [8 favorites]

Well, I love the universal background check idea. It would place security measures and checks into the existing process. More things like that, coupled with social programs would go a long way to find an equitable solution.

Let's talk more about this. You mention some other good steps, one of which is citizens basically being involved in democracy. You write a lot of words, but really the only important ones are the ones that say what you'd be willing to do to reduce our outrageously high level of gun violence.
posted by Miko at 6:47 AM on January 13, 2013

Unless it’s reality that Blackwater mercenaries kicked in doors with the National Guard and seized guns after Katrina (under a GOP president, ironic that).

Here's a link to (imo) a more credible source (NYT) describing what happened in NO:

Waters were receding across this flood-beaten city today as police officers began confiscating weapons, including legally registered firearms, from civilians in preparation for a mass forced evacuation of the residents still living here.

There was a mandatory evacuation of all residents, which some people were refusing to adhere to and as a result:

a wave of gun violence swept over the flood-ravaged city, with looters shooting at other refugees, police and military authorties, rescuers, and even hospital personnel.

This is even a greater argument for full gun control, if you ask me. Because the easy, easy availability of guns ensures that crazy, paranoid and violent people get their hands on them and have these kinds of standoffs (much like Waco, which was not only a because they were stockpiling weapons, including machine guns, but also on reports of physical and sexual abuse, including raping children. So, while everyone agrees it got out of hand, leaner gun laws means what exactly? That the feds couldn't have charged him? And either allowed them to go on abusing children or gone in with a child abuse or some other non-weapons related charge and still been shot at, but probably with better weapons in the absence of stronger gun laws? Do you really believe that in any other developed country with strict gun laws David Koresh would have been able to build up the arsenal he did? He was able to do so because there are so many guns in this country that it's easy to get them, legally or not. Easy.)

Stronger regulation is a great idea, but the good it will do won't be as much in the present, because there are already too many guns, but in the future. Because it will allow fewer people to get guns and over time the numbers of guns will slowly start to go down.

When was the last time that the government in a developed, first-world country abused its citizens in a way that makes clear that the citizens would have better off with guns to defend themselves?

I’ve been listening to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo saying: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option.” I’m not sure how else to take that. Sounds to me like “confiscation could be an option.”

My personal preference would be a ban of most guns with the exception of hunting rifles and maybe handguns but for those guns there would be very strict requirements such as full background checks, extensive training and storage requirements, high licensing fees and insurance premiums as well as personal liability laws for the registered owner of the gun. However, I know that in the current political climate, that is *never* going to happen. Because gun advocates have somehow totally twisted and distorted the second amendment to mean that guns are as much of a personal right as free water. So I will settle for an assault weapons ban - which I agree is kind of pointless - in the hopes that it will start us down the road to stricter requirements. Should this come into effect, there will no doubt be a grandfather clause allowing all weapons acquired at a time when it was legal to remain legal, just like there was at the time of the last assault weapons ban. This kind of thing won't hurt responsible, law-abiding gun owners, which is why I find it so difficult to understand why they won't get behind it. They say that guns shouldn't be in the hands of irresponsible people, but the continued refusal to support even the most lax of requirements shows that what they're saying is nonsense.
posted by young sister beacon at 12:16 PM on January 13, 2013 [2 favorites]

What is the functional difference between a semi-auto rifle designed for hunting and an assault weapon if any?

Why the focus on long guns at all when a handgun ban would statistically have the most impact on day to day homicide? Why bother using the nebulous term assault rifle instead of talking about the specific features you want banned like high-capacity magazines, folding/collapsible stocks, or other features of the gun you want banned? Personally my issue with "assault rifle" bans is that they are almost always knee-jerk feel-good responses to specific instances of mass murder rather than a well thought out policy decision. They also tend to smack of elitism in that they seem to focus on the most affordable weapons. I get that increasing barriers to gun ownership is a statistically beneficial model, but I'm personally much more likely to back a gun control option that impacts all classes equally; maybe even especially if we start to consider reducing armaments among police officers and focusing on an armed response unit / SWAT kind of model (Smedleyman, tell me I'm crazy here and I'll believe you).

How have gun advocates twisted the second amendment? Can anyone finally articulate the legal argument here instead of going into the history of special interests which is frankly irrelevant to the legal interpretation even if your worldview is that the 2008-2010 Supreme Court (and even liberal lawyers like Alan Dershowitz for instance) are a bunch of idiots? I get that it's contentious, but what I don't get is that it's ever been clear cut one way or another. Personally I'm really, really not fond of the dissenting opinion revisiting Cruikshank in the McDonald case as it would lay the groundwork for repressive State governments to argue that they have the authority to regulate speech, and we'd be back to blue laws, if not starting to discuss the forbidding of private speech advocating feminism, birth control, evolution, etc...
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:34 PM on January 13, 2013

How have gun advocates twisted the second amendment?

The New Yorker article by Jill Lapore which has been linked a couple times in this thread goes into detail on this. As it is, the NRA and other gun advocates pretty much are advocating for ownership of almost any kind of firearm with virtually no restrictions.* Leaving apart the "well-regulated" part of the second amendment, which is totally antithetical to the NRA (as well as the militia part of it in a time when militias had a very different role), please tell me that you really believe the founding fathers would have been a-ok with the military grade weapons and ammunition that are being justified under the second amendment today. At a time when the most dangerous firearm was a musket.

*Also leaving aside that the NRA is clearly manipulating and suppressing any kind of research into guns in our society, because they know it would turn the tide of public opinion, all the while they're spending millions every year on a misinformation campaign which involves at its heart, redefining the gun debate and its opposition as "anti-American", because constitution, second amendment etc. With little or no attention paid to the militia or well regulated part.
posted by young sister beacon at 3:48 PM on January 13, 2013 [1 favorite]

How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby

In gun lore it’s known as the Revolt at Cincinnati. On May 21, 1977, and into the morning of May 22, a rump caucus of gun rights radicals took over the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association.
[...]
The Old Guard was caught by surprise. [...] The organization, about a century old already, was thoroughly mainstream and bipartisan, focusing on hunting, conservation and marksmanship. It taught Boy Scouts how to shoot safely.
[...]
The NRA didn’t get swept up in the culture wars of the past century so much as it helped invent them — and kept inflaming them. In the process, the NRA overcame tremendous internal tumult and existential crises, developed an astonishing grass-roots operation and became closely aligned with the Republican Party.

posted by Golden Eternity at 6:56 PM on January 13, 2013 [1 favorite]

If you don't get hit in the heart or the right part of your brain, what happens is you bleed out.

I'm thinking rifle rounds. Some are so frangible they go in your finger come out the back of your knee. But with a handgun, yeah, pow. You sit. Breathe hard, shock, all that. But I have yet to see someone get shot and not let something go into their pants.

The black market increased as a side effect of gun control. And gun crime decreased, which was the whole point of controlling access to guns more strictly than it had been before.
Except the focus had been on going after the black market in the first place.
In the U.S. we do have a gun culture. There you had no demand. Here we would have the same kind of enforcement problems you run into when you make drugs illegal and then go after the junkies. It gets you a big prison system and makes no headway. Which is exactly where we are now. It's obvious it hasn't worked. It's no good addressing the demand (none in AU, plenty in the U.S.), so you have to address the supply.
So you need additional programs - as far as the U.S. goes.

When was the last time that the government in a developed, first-world country abused its citizens in a way that makes clear that the citizens would have better off with guns to defend themselves?

Offhand, 1946, the battle of Athens, Tennessee, the Black Panthers were well known for picking up guns and being veery serious in defense against police brutality, Malcolm X had a few choice words in Ballot or Bullet.
The Lavender Panthers preceded the Pink Pistols in resisting brutality from citizens as well as police. Obviously the Pink Pistols are armed and had to be because they weren'yt getting po.lice protecton.

but I'm personally much more likely to back a gun control option that impacts all classes equally; maybe even especially if we start to consider reducing armaments among police officers and focusing on an armed response unit / SWAT kind of model (Smedleyman, tell me I'm crazy here and I'll believe you).

No, I'm with you there. More police outreach without the gun would work wonders.
Frankly, most officers are far to gun focused. You see a lot of cop shows

You write a lot of words, but really the only important ones are the ones that say what you'd be willing to do to reduce our outrageously high level of gun violence

I've been trying - perhaps not succeeding - to avoid getting into a "why" argument.
If you want my opinion on how to reduce gun violence, I would prosecute it the same way you run a counterterrorism campaign. Embrace the angry folks. Let 'em light some fires. Bust something up. Get all that out of the way before we even set up the table. Then when everyone's done posturing, make connections on a local level and give local law enforcement the point on this. Joe's gun show rolls in to Dogville. The Dogville Sherriff calls the ATF, the ATF comes and does checks, Sheriff walks around glad handing, the ATF runs background checks as smoothly as possible for all transaction, takes records, keeps them confidential but FOIAble, and everyone plays nice.
From there, Billy Gun dealer takes what he bought and sells it to some people. Some nice. Some not so nice. He doesn't file the paperwork. He reports it stolen.
Normally from here the burden goes on to local law enforcement. Uh Uh. The ATF is going to come and investigate. And since we dont' want to waste our tax dollars, Billy Gun's insurance company is going to pay for the investigation. Billy's rates are about to skyrocket. Billy suddenly remembers what happened to the guns. The proper forms get filed. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson who wanted a shotgun for home defense and hunting are checked out and they're fine. Joe Creepo however has a criminal record and ties with the underworld. So his gun is confiscated. Creepo goes to jail. Billy can say it was stolen or he sold it to Creepo - either way he would be on the hook for it. If he sold it to him, he's going to jail. If it was stolen, Billy Gun's insurance company is going to boot his ass pretty solidly for some time and if he makes another mistake he's probably going to lose his business if not wind up in the penitentiary.

That nice little story illustrates what doesn't happen now. And it illustrates how all of the burden is on the dealer, not the buyer. So the rights of the individual are not infringed upon. - The government does have every right to regulate commerce however.
If Joe Buyer goes to Wal-Mart and buys a rifle and he passed the background check and everything checks out, he can go home with his rifle.
If Joe Buyer goes to Wal-Mart buys a rifle without a background check - that's not his problem. It's Wal-Marts. And the government can get involved in that.
If Joe Buyer goes to Wal-Mart, buys a rifle, then sells it to someone else - he is now a dealer and subject to the same requirements for oversight dealers are. He now has to make sure the guy he is selling to is legit. If he doesn't, he can be jailed.

Or he could just bring it back to a store dealer or gun show and not have to worry about it.

All this is aimed at eliminating the anonymity of gun ownership and recognizing the reality of being tied to what you shoot. Being responsible for your dangerous tool.
It's strange how too much fear makes one irrational, but too little does as well. There's always a little fear in me when I handle a weapon.
I suspect that if there weren't I'd have blown off a toe or something by now. But I'm a big, tough, indestructible bastard who's anywhere from 6'2 to 6'6" depending on the gas station I'm walking out of and without fear I'm as good as dead.
Of course these are dangerous weapons. One solution - the fear based one, says get rid of them all. The fearless (phony tough) one says give them to everyone.
The right one is to allow those who are responsible with them to own them. Have them prove they can be responsible. Don't tie it to something else the way they tie whether you pay your bills to if you can drive or not. It's a skill, not a test of character.
If someone is a complete slob but in all ways handles their firearm in a safe and responsible manner, let them keep it.
There are a number of ways to do this. One way - We could do annual tests the way we have to go do exhaust checks on our car for the clean air act. It costs nothing.
But regulation of sales would be a big big help for starters. Universal background checks that are semi-confidential, compartmentalized but universal for police.

More programs like CeaseFire to lessen the violence in our culture. And let's face it - we do have a violent culture. We have violent sports. We have violent entertainment. Violent games. If it bleeds it leads in the news - more than that a lack of conflict is seen as a boring news story. Cop out here ... no, wait, cop in Chiicago a few months ago saved a bunch of people from a burning building. Got the city's highest honor for it. Page 6.
Antagonism is being forced into the fibre of our society. That's the problem.

Can you - any of you - imagine I would ever shoot you? Think about it for a minute. Dangerous guy. Plenty of guns. Fairly mobile. Would I ever harm someone with my firearms over something said here? Such people exist. So what is the difference between them and me? Because I am a violent man. I don't revel in it. It is simply a fact. Part of my job.
The difference is discipline, which is ultimately training.
And understanding conflict resolution doesn't involve firearms.
If you want to lessen the violence in the U.S. you can either try to sweep back the sea which would take hundreds of years because there are hundreds of thousands of guns in the U.S. and they are not like perishable goods, a well cared for hunk of steel can last 200 years - not that I'm saying it's not worth working for, I'm a big slow change fan. But that's the reality.
Or you can address the need for guns and why people feel they need them.
One of the things CeaseFire does is train people to find ways to resolve conflicts honorablyy without resorting to violence.
I think that should be taught in all schools. Sociology perhaps. Social studies.

And training. There are no drill instructors going to come to someone's house so forming a group and teaching each other how to handle firearms properly is a good way to learn. It has the side benefit of being mostly positive reinforcement from people you know rather than some leatherneck slab of meat growling at you from around a cigar.
And that social reinforcement is important. It's done in military training all the time (albeit with a different tone). Social expectations are raised and certain behaviors suffer.
Over time this gets less and less of a problem.

My kids are well behaved because of this process. It's universally applicable. And if it will work on my kids, it will work on convicts. ... no, wait .... no, yeah, that's right.

So over time people feel they need guns less because they know their neighbors and feel safer.
For the people who still feel they need guns there are groups to go to where they can be trained in a healthy atmosphere. The sense of investing in oneself.

I know this can be tough to pull off, but people can get it together for bake sales.
A community organizer would indeed be great at something like that.
In part because gun ownership is about empowerment.
So people who no longer feel they need them feel that way because they feel empowered by their social connection to the neighborhood.
The people who feel they do need them, don't feel ostracized and feel empowered because their neighbors embrace them and they can feel like they're performing a service such as neighborhood watch.

Y'know, it sounds realluy tooti-fruity when I re-read it, but it really does work.
It's better to burn down the tall grass than to hunt through it to get every tiger.

There are plenty of opportunities for violence in teh home or in the streets and there are ways to lessen the chances of that happening.
There have been studies on this. You can google them . I'm kind of punchy so bear with me.

Why did this happen in Lanza's family and not the family next door? What made them proof against one of their kids being violent?
Fear does not work as a motivator. This is why torture is self-defeating. Even death is not enough of a deterrent for someone who might be contemplating a rampage shooting (or joining a terrorist outfit). So what research indicates is that building community resilience to violence depends on sustaining and strenghtening - or initiating if necessary - protective resources among youth, families, communities and organizations.
CeaseFire is just one (albeit key) resource in that picture.

So you identify and change family norms and community attitudes toward violence, support families and communities upholding good values and norms and provide direct guidance to youth and families regarding riskks and threats.

There are plenty of obsticles like building resilence to gang recruitment without funding communtiy building activities like after school programs, midnight basketball, mentoring programs, COMMUNITY POLICING, opportunities for civic dialogue. THey're not linked to security but they're the building blocks for it.

You need the government and the community working long term and getting support from public health programs and criminology.
That would be a huge shift, so there's no such thing right now, but improving security through community engagement is a very solid step towards ending gun violence.

They way forward is fostering trust and funding programs in communities to limit gun crime using community engagement and teaching coping skills that don't involve violence.

We do that, we separate the gun from a symbol of distrust and antagonism to the simple tool it is that we have to bear responsibly if we're to bear it, as a duty to be responsible for and proud to have, not a right to be exercised irresponsibly.

...Although hell, that's how we seem to feel about voting too.

But I agree (in small part) with the people who say the 2nd amendment was supposed to be a militia. Yes - what I'm talking about is what they had in mind. This idea that we're all armed because we're all fighting for an idea that is constantly under seige. That we're all supposed to be bound together by these duties of voting, fighting, public service. Citizen, Citizen-soldier, Citizen-stateman.

Somewhere those concepts went by the wayside. Perhaps Wall Street.

But it was Plato in the Republic that said (paraphrasing) "if you're too smart for public office, then your curse is to be ruled over by people dumber than you."
posted by Smedleyman at 1:36 AM on January 14, 2013 [2 favorites]

The most dangerous armaments at the time were pretty much the same as in the civil war, cannons, howitzers, mortars, and bombards, and considering that about .3% of the US population was killed by those weapons or muskets (not counting the additional 17,000 killed by famine, disease etc...) during the Revolutionary war I'd hope the founding fathers would be able to comprehend that there were risks to arming the populace. There were also risks to not encouraging citizens to privately purchase firearms so that a fledgling nation could accumulate armaments to defend itself. What's not clear to me is that the second amendment would've had a unanimously unambiguous meaning ever. Not at the time of ratification, and obviously not now. I'm not heartened by the collectivist legal argument which seems to veer from the grammar of the second amendment into a hazier area of surely the founding fathers weren't crazy or they didn't know about nukes. Any student of military history of the time period surely saw that innovation in weapons would continue to take place just as it had for thousands of years before.

Perhaps the founders thought we'd have the good sense to amend the Constitution to limit that right if it became a problem?

I feel like the legal history of the second amendment is the bastard stepchild of Constitutional law. In part because the idea of guns for all makes most progressives a bit uncomfortable, and because for a long time we had conservatives who earnestly desired to keep guns out of the hands of blacks, union agitators, etc... Yes the NRA lobbied hard to shape the current interpretation of the second amendment, but that doesn't mean it's being parsed incorrectly even if it's not resulting in the policy outcome we'd wish.
posted by BrotherCaine at 3:20 AM on January 14, 2013

It's simple - when we're talking about limiting gun crime - a focus on making legal uses/ formerly lawful possession illegal does not limit the trade, it creates a larger black market.

While I agree in principle...I think framing gun control this way often muddles the issue we have in the U.S. where the strictest state/county/city laws are only as effective as the weakest federal. So the idea that you can purchase guns and (for now) LEGALLY resell them without needing the 2nd hand buyer to go through a background check really defeats the purpose of the original law requiring background checks...and emboldens the original buyer who knows they normally won't face charges if that gun is later used in a crime. There's plenty of room to close those gaps today, which would have little to no effect on the honest buyer/owner/enthusiast. Seeing that Biden has been talking with video game developers and is flirting with outright bans...I'm not sure he's really comprehending the two main issues driving our current factory of gun violence: 1) lack of federal level straw buying restrictions (or restrictions in general) which easily arms criminals and gangs as they'll continue to go for the lowest hanging fruit 2) lack of accessible mental healthcare for those who have difficulty processing empathy / harm caused to others.

For that 2nd issue, adding guns to the mix simply makes it more volatile. But the guns themselves do not need to be the focus as much as the warning signs that lead up to violence. There are plenty of kids/adults that need psychological help that are not getting proper treatment. I'd much rather spend tax dollars hand over fist for treatment centers than our current military. All the multi-million fighters, bombers, carriers, drones, tanks in the world will have little to no affect on our overall happiness and freedom when we're unable to take care of our own.
posted by samsara at 6:22 AM on January 14, 2013

What is the functional difference between a semi-auto rifle designed for hunting and an assault weapon if any?

Caliber - hunting rounds are typically larger. They might fire the same diameter bullet (eg - 7.62x39 for an AK/SKS is a .30 caliber, the same as a .30-06) but the volume of powder and the length of the bullet will be much greater in the hunting round. This is because the physics of a heavier bullet means it has a flatter trajectory and greater impact. Hunting rifles are generally heavy and long in order to maximise accuracy. This focus on accuracy also leads to the next difference:

Action - "assault rifles" are semi-automatic, hunting rifles are made for flat, accurate shooting and use more accurate chambering methods; bolt action, single shots, or lever action. Semi-automatic hunting rifles are less common, which leads to the last major difference:

Magazine - "assault rifles" are made to get the most lead down range in the least time. Hunting rifles are made to get one, or two shots down range on target. Therefore a hunting rifle only needs a magazine that holds 4 or 5 rounds tops (if it has one at all) and an assault rifle will have interchangeable clips that pop in and have capacities only restricted by ergonomics.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 8:47 AM on January 14, 2013 [3 favorites]

So at the center of your brand of solution, Smedleyman, is the ATF. And the difficulty is that we don't have a functioning ATF right now - we have one underfed and weakened by restrictions on activity originating from the gun lobby. How do you propose to start setting your system up?
posted by Miko at 12:14 PM on January 14, 2013

Make Your Own "Sandy Hook Promise"

"This was made entirely by Newtown Students, Danny Bittman and Sarah Clements. This video is a dedication to all of our 26 neighbors, demanding that we change our attitude towards others. The Sandy Hook Promise group, like the video's message, is open minded, and is not trying to attack, or support just one side of any argument. Please keep that in mind before you post your opinion."

posted by ericb at 1:47 PM on January 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

« Older Life & 6 Months: Investigating the Wellcome... | Migration mapping from road kill Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Many dead in Connecticut primary school shooting December 14, 2012 2:19 PM Subscribe

Tags

Share

Many dead in Connecticut primary school shooting
December 14, 2012 2:19 PM Subscribe