By now, almost every Citizen has learned of the horrific events this morning in Newtown, CT.
Words fail. There is no way to convey the revulsion that I feel. Many of us have been grappling with how to respond and whether to respond here at the wgom.org. As a community, we've strived to make this a place for fun and fellowship. Political questions vex us, in significant part because this is not a bar or a buddy's man cave, where we could actually look each other in the eye or read each others' body language to monitor when conversations are running off the rails.
At the same time, lots of us see this as a place to have adult conversations. Politics is a part of adult life.
This post is an experiment -- a place to divert our discussions about Newtown and its Forbidden Zone implications -- to see whether we can create a walled garden in which to have adult conversations about politics without ruining what we have in the Basement.
Just don't bring your guns into the Garden. The 2nd Amendment don't apply here.*
*Please note: Sean set this category up so that comments won't show in the sidebar. If you want to participate, you'll have to be here.
I really just want to go pick up my kids now. Give them a hug. Maybe let go.
I think that is about the healthiest response possible. Life is short.
Huh. A lot has happened since I went to lunch. Color me worried about this experiment, even though I think this issue should be far above politics.
I'm too destroyed emotionally to have any kind of conversation about this, political or otherwise. I want to call in sick and be with my kids. I know that wouldn't be considered acceptable, so I'll be wandering there all night like the walking dead, pretending I care about something as vapid as the need for a new TV.
I know I'll be over it soon, but I can't stomach the idea that after hearing this news, I'll be going about my business as usual. It seems like such an insult somehow.
Testing... Sidebar?
Nope, still shows.
Yeah, I'm perplexed and a bit annoyed.
I'm tempted to vent a bit about this as I go about my normal day of work in the studio, running errands, and living my life, but the truth is that there isn't anything that can undo this mess. What worries me more than the guns and politics is the tone of the comment sections linked to the news reports.
I've tried to type this comment for several hours seeking to create a well worded response to the negativity I see on the greater interwebs, but all I can return to is an overwhelming sense of sadness. I'm terribly troubled by the killing of so many young people, but the words and accusations folks are carelessly throwing around out there are even more terrifying to me. Events like these should be used as moments of national reflection, but here we are at each others throats.
This.
I had very much the same reaction on 9/11 -- numbed and horrified.
I think back to the days immediately following 9/11 when a person was killed in Phoenix(?) because he was wearing a turban. He was Indian, for crying out loud! Regardless of the tragedy, stupid uninformed reactions only make things worse.
I truly wonder sometimes if our nation is simply too big. Not necessarily because we have so many differences among us, but how detached the common man is to things that go on in such a large stage. How can we expect one person, say trained to farm potatoes in Idaho, to really have a grasp on how to fix things on a national level? Yet, these days, the whole world is their stage. With this large a nation, we need to elect representatives to make big decisions for us, but many don't seem comfortable with that arrangement either.
Here is what I think of that. Very few people seem to have the ability to say, "I don't know." Whether it is a serious political topic, who the Vikings should draft, or gas prices next week. The correct answer for just about everyone should be, "I don't know."
I am not saying people shouldn't be entitled to their opinions. I am just saying very few people admit that they have no idea what should be done to solve complex problems.
I'm 100% with this. There's a difference between being entitled to an opinion as a result of free speech and being educated enough for that opinion to mean anything.
Days like this bring out the absolute worst in our "news media." It's a rush to be the first to report the story, and I guess that means ignoring fact checking. Yuck. I wanted to know what happens but watching them plaster the name and picture and Facebook profile of someone they thought was the shooter (but really wasn't) is just... ugh.
And it sounds like the guy they plastered everywhere was the brother of the actual killer? So he found out about this through people accusing him of doing it? Terrible.
I'm waiting to hear from Lenore Skenazy how not to overreact, as a parent.
sean: sometimes the sidebar shows up within the article thread, and sometimes not.
I'm experimenting. It seems there lie bugs in the (ancient) code. I think I have something working now though.
Dubiously working. I knew I should have switched out this plugin earlier, but the replacement didn't support grouping by post just yet. I better look into that tonight.
tonight "my" K and 1st graders sing in our church Christmas musical -- I'm definitely going to need the hugs I usually get from them.
I'm looking forward to my kids coming home too. Having kids certainly has changed my understanding of the "problem of evil." Not on an intellectual level, but somewhere deeper.
I know there's no reason to be found in something like this, but dammit if I don't want it.
I'm a little concerned this might be too soon to try this. I would think emotions would be running too high so soon after an event like this. I agree with Strategery's initial comment, however.
I don't know whether the LTEs on this post constitute a success or not for this experiment. I suspect that we are all treading very carefully, not quite sure what is worth saying at such a time.
But I kind of like having a side venue here to give folks space to speak their minds on sensitive topics without opening the Cuppa to chaos.
Right, we're being careful and have had time to cool.
But that makes sense. No one wants to be the first to take a step too far.
This.
It's what I was hoping we'd get here. Whether it's sustainable is another question entirely.
I was happily going about my day, running errands, honey-do list, doing stuff around the house...and then I heard about the tragedy. I don't know if it's an indictment of me, or on the state of affairs in this country, but when I got out of the car, I put it out of my mind. It was still there of course, lurking in the background, but I've been trying to ignore it - actively pushing it back into the closet.
I'm glad we're experimenting here (and I'll continue to read along) but all I'm willing to add to the discussion at this point is this: I'm a gun owner and shooting enthusiast. I hunt birds with shotguns and large and small game with rifles. I also own a handgun for the purpose of self-defense and the defense of my family. I shoot with it at the range for both fun and practice. I'm trained to handle guns and I'm aware of (and respect) their awesome and deadly power. I’ve also always supported gun control measures that respect the rights of people like me to own guns.
That being said, something needs to fundamentally change in this country. This sort of tragedy can't become so common place that I, or anyone, can get so complacent that we just say, "That's awful. What a tragedy. Those poor people. I empathize and my heart goes out to those parents." and go on with our day.
There are all sorts of hard issues wrapped up in here, Can.
I have a little bit of awareness of the issue of suicide amongst veterans. Vets tend to be "successful" on their first attempts, because a larger share of such attempts are done with firearms, with which those vets have been trained.
At the same time, Israel and Switzerland are two countries with levels of gun ownership comparable to the U.S.'s, and are two countries with universal (male) conscription. They also are two countries with much lower levels of gun violence than is true of the U.S.
strat has alerted me to the fact that Klein has walked back a bit on the gun ownership thing in Israel and Switzerland. See here.
Ezra Klein:
I don't have anything to add to the topic but I did want to say that I support this kind of discussion on the site.
Noted leftist Rupert Murdoch:
Oz as in Australia where there was a massacre and they clamped down on guns and it hasn't happened since. Only in the US is this worship of guns prevalent.
What policy changes should be proposed?
Given this hidden corner of the basement, I've been pondering...
As a hunting, gun-borrowing, libertarian-leaning, quasi-free-range-parenting guy, what would I support that would actually make a difference? And what would make a difference but wouldn't I support? And how comfortable am I with the ramifications of my policy preferences?
(This is a general question: not aimed solely to SBG. This is a reply as his comment started the train that led to the above timid and noncommittal query.)
Let's throw this out there...
Constitution says "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 don't read that as "all arms" just "arms." So do you think there are some reasonable limits as to type of arms? (bazookas, fully automatic, armor-piercing, etc.?)
I think that's probably the first step that most people think about when they talk about regulating these kinds of things.
I'm a hunting gun-borrower too.
One of the problems with gun control legislation is that the people in charge of it have demonstrably little knowledge about the mechanical functions of various classes of weapons. This seems to be changing somewhat (though very slowly), but as somebody who knows a fair bit about guns, the kind of things said on this topic by politicians, talking heads, and regular citizens alike are a bit concerning. Poor control of nomenclature and poor knowledge of mechanical firearm functions will lead to bad policy made by politicians, uninformed commentary by the media, and a citizenry without the tools to properly evaluate the efforts of their representatives.
In short, a whole lot of firearms education needs to be given to everybody with a stake in this issue, just like an actual nation-wide education in health care matters would be necessary for meaningful health care reform.
This is well said. The best I can really do is "I don't think a weapon should be able to X" (hence my crude examples above). I only meant to suggest to AMR that this was a starting point for discussion. I'm not personally well-equipped for the discussion itself.
Totally understandable, and I think your instincts are pointing you in the right direction of inquiry. I was talking with my wife and a gun-averse friend of ours tonight, trying to explain to them how something that looks like a "hunting rifle" and something that looks like an "assault rifle" share the same basic mechanical operations. Their response was basically, "I'm not sure I understand, but I'll take your word for it." My response to that is they probably shouldn't, if only so they can form their own opinions about the problems involved in determining what kind of guns need what kind of regulation.
For personal reasons I've refrained from posting a reply until the 14th has passed, but I want to say that if this community is going to discuss difficult issues like those which surround the deaths of these innocent kids, we owe it to them to do a better job than this comment. I'm not saying this because I disagree with the actual content of SBG's post above, but I do think the spirit in which it is said shuts down needed dialogue among those who may disagree rather than provoking thoughtful responses to sources of disagreement. There are two points I'd like to address:
1. It's fair to observe what Murdoch wrote, particularly in light of his other politics, but the way this comment was made suggests (at least to my reading) that those who disagree or agree to lesser degrees are somehow unreasonable, particularly since "unreasonable" is the way Murdoch himself is frequently (and perhaps often rightly) characterized. If our idea of discussing politics is to declare certain positions, and those who hold them, anathema, then we might as well admit that true conversation isn't our primary goal. I say that as someone who thinks that our society has become far too insular in its approach to politics - most of us inhabit ideological echo chambers that condition us to respond poorly to those who do not share our views. At a certain point we're going to have to fix this or suffer horrible consequences, and we can't fix it until we can talk about politics with others who disagree in ways which nurture further conversation and engagement.
2. To that point: I've been trained in the use of firearms and deadly force. I have seen what humans using guns can do to other humans, what bullets do to fragile human bodies. With luck, I won't ever have to see that again. Though I'm a pretty good shot with most any kind of gun, these days I don't do much more than skeet shooting with friends. Though I would prefer to own a gun, I do not because my wife does not want one in our home. All that said, to want to own a gun does not mean one worship guns, and the statement above paints this issue with a brush I think is too broad. For some of us, guns are tools used to do certain jobs, some of which are exceptionally distasteful, even when necessary. We don't worship them, and I'd prefer not to be lumped into a category with those who fetishize guns.
Serving in the Marines and seeing the things I saw instilled in me a respect for the power of guns which I wish everyone who ever held one would share, though I'm not naive enough to even hope that would be possible. My experiences have also beaten into me great distaste for the way we present violent material, not just in media like video games, movies, and TV shows, but the way our media sensationalizes it, and most of all the way we seem oblivious to it until something evil happens. We ought to own up to the fact that our culture's fascination with violence is pornographic in a way that far outstrips our relationship to sex, drugs, or other, seemingly more taboo, things. If we are going to talk about meaningful gun control, we also need to address cultural media which glorify violence in ways that, if you have ever witnessed a fatal act of violence, you never find remotely appropriate, much less entertaining. I tend to think that our culture has so insulated itself from realities of violence in war and (in more, uh, fortunate communities) crime that we have come to treat it with a bizarre, unthinking casualness. I'm all for violence being rare, but when it happens I'd like our response to be meaningful enough that it takes a hard look at things like our socio-cultural relationship with violence, with those we ask to do violent acts, and the way we circulate violent entertainment while simultaneously suppressing videos and images of the real-world outcomes of violence.
SBG, if you've read this far, I don't mean to pick on you or anything like that. Though I'm not a parent, I understand your anger through the lens of my own experiences, and I share the absolute heartsickness you must feel to speak so strongly. Though I think it's futile to hope that gun violence can be eradicated, I'm not necessarily against some kind of gun control that is meaningful and realistic in its aims. I think a good, thoughtful conversation could be had on that subject. But if you - or anyone - wants to talk about this kind of political issue here, the way you talk about it matters if the conversation is going to be meaningful and inclusive.
Thanks for all the thought and time you put into composing that, CH.
dido. I will pick out one phrase from CH's comments on which to continue what I hope is a conversation.
I am neither a veteran nor a police officer, so (like most of us) thankfully I have never had the direct honor and displeasure of either inflicting or observing the awesome and horrible damage a firearm can do to a human body. I don't hunt, because I have zero interest in doing so, despite the efforts of my father to get me interested when I was young.
But like many of us, I grew up around guns. My father owns several firearms, including shotguns, rifles and handguns. He shoots trap recreationally, and has long belonged to gun clubs. My brother hunts big game (elk, deer) and proudly displays the gaudy trophies of his favorite kills in his basement. Both brotherS and I were required to go through a gun safety course; I have shot trap and done target shooting with both rifles and handguns -- for a novice, I am a pretty good shot, but this experience taught me that hitting the broad side of a barn with a handgun from more than a few yards is no easy feat).
All this is meant to establish some minimal credibility for my viewpoint. I'm center-left on these issues. I am highly skeptical of the empirical validity of the presence of handguns in the home as a net gain for personal security. I am highly skeptical of the empirical validity of conceal-carry laws as a net gain for personal security. I personally do not want to live in a Wild Wild West society, which seems to be the implicit or explicit goal of many gun advocates.
While the threat that a person MAY be carrying a concealed weapon may have a minor deterrent effect on muggers, I strongly suspect that packin' heat (concealed or openly) has much larger, negative effects on civil interaction and discourse. True civility is not based on fear, it is based on mutual respect.
Hence, my personal druther would be that the open display of weapons be minimized, that conceal-carry be severely limited to those with a professional reason to carry, plus perhaps a very select few who have been properly trained and have a bona fide reason to carry, and that gun ownership carry with it strong expectations of proper training in gun safety, and strong safeguards against possession by those whom society determines cannot be trusted to possess.
Regulation of weapon types (firepower, magazines, etc.) strikes me as very, very difficult, for reasons CH has stated or implied. Regulation of possession seems much easier on grounds of conflicting Constitutional principles. Freedom of speech does not extend to unjustifiably yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. Neither are 2nd Amendment rights inviolable. If we can deny legal possession of alcohol to citizens of majority age (18-20 year olds), why can we not do likewise on gun possession, for example? If we can put minimal competence requirements on obtaining a driver's license, why can we not do the same for firearm possession?
And the 2nd amendment certainly says NOTHING about the construction and maintenance of gun registries. One perhaps naive suggestion along these lines: why not require that EVERY firearm [ed: err, rifle or handgun, for which ballistics testing is meaningful] sold in the U.S. have prior ballistics testing and the results of said ballistics tests be maintained in a national registry accessible to law enforcement authorities nationwide?
there is a conservative-libertarian fantasy that gun ownership somehow constitutes a bulwark against totalitarian government in the U.S., as well as against the omnipresent threat of successful invasion by the commies. These are fantasies and they are stupid, in my not-so-humble opinion. The original justification for the 2nd Amendment (rooted in ancient English traditions that balanced the petty nobility against the Crown and high nobility) is obsolete and should be recognized as such.
I recognize that there is an ARGUMENT to be made for the secondary justifications of the 2nd amendment (personal security, securing one's home, and liberty to pursue recreational activities involving firearms). But these secondary uses can and should be subjected to significant and considered regulation.
There is a difference between owning a gun and worshipping a gun or the gun culture. I am not and never will be a gun owner. I do recognize that there are valid uses for guns and even some recreational uses of guns. However, anyone who has even passing knowledge of the NRA's agenda knows what I am talking about. They have strongly advocated NO LIMITS to gun ownership. They want no background checks. Unlimited access to ammunition. Their response to these types of tragedies is that if only the teachers were packing heat this wouldn't happen. That is in-fucking-sane.
Look, if I go to a bookstore and buy the wrong book, the government may start spying on me. But, the kid in Aurora who shot up that movie theater, he was known by the schools where he was studying to be unstable. And yet, any yet, he was able to buy an assault rifle and 6,000 rounds of ammunition, no questions asked. This is what I'm talking about when I talk about worshipping guns. The rights of gun owners, any gun owner supercedes, in some peoples minds, everyone else's rights. Then, when this disturbed individual goes into a movie theater and destroys the lives of the people in that theater and the lives who loved those people, we are shocked. I, for one, am not shocked. I have come to expect this. This is what our gun worshipping has wrought. It is easier to buy the necessary tools to destroy the lives of hundreds of people pretty much instantaneously than it is to get a god-damned driver's license.
Think about that for a second.
And why is it that we, as a society, require driver's licenses and other driving regulations, anyway? It should be obvious to anyone what the public policy is. The public policy is that we recognize that although transportation by automobile generates such an enormous amount of good for people and freedom, there is an inherent risk involved in travel by automobiles. So, to even drive legally, you have to demonstrate aptitude. You have to pass a written test. You also have to demonstrate at least a minimum ability to drive a car before you are issued a license. You are required to be insured. That's just the start. We have also obey rules when we drive. You can't just drive as fast as you want. When there's a stop sign, you have to stop. When the light is red, you have to stop. We have lanes for turning. We aren't allowed to drive on people's lawns. Also, we are not allowed to drive when we are under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. Of course, not everyone follows these rules. But, we also pay policemen to patrol highways and streets and enforce these rules. Does anyone think that it is a good idea to eliminate our system of driving regulations? Not adjust, eliminate. Of course not, that would be absurd. Does anyone think that advocating for tough drunk driving laws equals the same thing as advocating for the elimination of automobiles? Of course not, that would be absurd. But, we have decided as a country that even with the great societal goods that the autombile has provided us, we find these deaths to be unacceptable. We have enacted policies to address the issue. Look at the results.
This chart doesn't even adjust for vehicle miles driven, which would paint an even more dramatic drop in automobile deaths.
There are other negative externalities related to automobiles, namely the use of resources and the resultant pollution. The government, in the face of opposition has acted on that, too. We have fuel economy standards, we eliminated lead from fuels, we put catalytic converters on cars, etc, etc. I think there is more to do, but as a society, we have done a lot. And again, this is for something that provides tremendous benefits, including freedoms that simply were not possible before the advent of the automobile. For example, we can live where we want and commute to work! We can go on vacations! We can go to public events! We can just get in the car on Sunday afternoon and drive. Tremendous personal freedom! Also highly regulated by the government.
And just what, exactly about gun ownership begins to compare to the societal good of the heavily regulated automobile industry? Hunting? Okay. Trap shooting? Okay. Help me out, because I'm drawing a blank.
The societal benefit of owning guns doesn't even begin to approach that of automobile travel. It's not within 10 orders of magnitude. And yet, the gun worshippers want no regulation of highly efficient killing machines. None. They want no regulation of ammunition. None. Want to buy an AK-47? Sure. 6000 rounds of ammo for that assault rifle? Why not. Hey, how about a grenade launcher, too? Of course! I'm sorry. That is fucking NUTS. But, when you talk about gun control, any regulation at all, a certain segment of the population screams, "the president is going to take away our guns" and they run around in a fevered panic. Read the link, people are buying up AK-47s and AR-15s. What the fuck? If that's not gun worship, I don't know what is.
Those who argue that gun control laws won't work miss the point. Of course, we can never completely stop tragedies from happening, just as we can never completely stop automobile related deaths. People still drink and drive! But, increasingly, tougher laws have made an impact. Increasingly, drunk driving is not accepted. Increasingly, safer cars, safer roads, tougher penalties for automobile misuse has reduced the likelihood of death on the roads. Automobile travel is so much safer than it was 40 years ago. Why? Because we as a society have FUCKING DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT. It's not perfect, but if we hadn't done something about it, would you feel better than you do now about it?
Guns do not provide this same amount of societal good. They don't. We need to regulate them. I'm not saying that we eliminate guns, but hey, doesn't it make sense to make it harder for people to get them? Of course, the argument is that with a gun you can protect yourself! That's a fairy tale for the most part. The United States has the highest gun ownership rates in the goddamned world, more than twice tne number of the next country, Yemen. If guns made us safe, we would be the safest country in the world! Of course, that's completely the opposite of the truth -- we have outrageous numbers of people being killed by guns in this country, and 20(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) school children, babies really, died yesterday at the altar of this perverse priority that we place on the ownership of killing machines over public safety. We need to eliminate the free access to the most efficient weapons. There is no societal good that comes from this killing machines, just pain and suffering and grief and loss.
Enough is enough. We need to limit gun access. I'm not saying eliminate guns, but I am saying that it needs to be harder to get guns and to get ammunition. We, as a society, have willingly paid a high price in liberty in response to the attacks on 9/11/01 that killed, what? three or four thousand people. Nine people out of every 100,000 people die from firearm deaths in this country every year. In a country of 300,000,000, that's 27,000 a year. In England, the rate per one hundred thousand is .22. I refuse to believe that there's nothing that can be done about this. I refuse to accept that our individual liberties are more important that the needless deaths of 27,000 people every goddamned year. As a matter of public policy, we have elevated the right to unlimited gun ownership over the lives of innocents. By doing nothing, we are now complicit in the deaths of thousands of people. If that isn't worship, I don't know what is.
I should add that people have pointed out that mental health is an issue. Sure! Yes, we need, as a society, to help those who have mental problems. Working on that is a societal good, as well. But to suggest that that is a substitute for gun regulation is an attempt to hide the freaking ball.
Stick: compare the trends and levels in assault deaths presented above to motor vehicle deaths you presented. They are very, very similar since the mid-1970s, both trending down significantly, and both on about the same scale.
The decline in motor vehicle deaths is strongly associated with regulation-driven changes in automobile safety since the publication of Unsafe At Any Speed in 1965. But what explains the largely coterminous decline in assault deaths?
Still unacceptably high (not even close!), given the miniscule public benefit. Frum:
But what explains the largely coterminous decline in assault deaths?
The Clean Air Act?
Yea, as crazy as it sounds, reductions in lead in the air may well have something to do with the declines in violence in the U.S. over time.
what about abortion?
I remember reading that in Freakanomics, right? My recollection from the article I linked is that other countries have experienced comparable drops in crime rate after banning leaded gasoline. That is pretty persuasive. But as with all things it's probably some of column A and some of column B: fewer unwanted babies, and less brain poisoning.
I wholeheartedly agree that the NRA is complicit in this ongoing national tragedy of gun violence.
It has not always been so. Once upon a time, the NRA supported many reasonable measures to regulate the firearm trade and gun ownership in America.
read that second link. really.
I should further add that I used the analogy to automobiles for two reasons. One, as an example of how the government regulates something that is very important to us, to dramatically positive effect. And two, because two people, including my own father, argued to me yesterday that passing gun control legislation would be the same as outlawing automobiles because people die in them. That argument is absurd on its face for the reasons I point out above.
I should further add that my stupid brother owns a modified AK-47. I don't understand why on earth he would need such a thing, and further why it was legal for him to acquire such a thing. He has a 200 round magazine. In. Sane.
He also has a concealed weapon permit. He's my brother and I love him and I don't think that he'd ever kill me, but these facts make me uncomfortable around him.
I could see a number of reasons for wanting to own an AK-47 or a variant, one of the most significant being inexpensive Soviet surplus ammunition. Believe it or not, the AK and an earlier Russian rifle, the Mosin–Nagant, are very popular because of the vast quantities of ammunition produced for them. Shooting's an expensive hobby, and people who want to buy additional gear for their weapons have to find ways to economize in other areas. AKs are also significantly more rugged than AR-15s, which maybe makes a difference to him. At any rate, this doesn't mean your brother owns the kind of AK-47 you see in any action movie set in the former Soviet bloc or in the third world, but that he owns a rifle with a similar design and (more than likely) different capabilities.
As for the 200-round magazine, that's just silly and lazy. Loading magazines is one of the most menial and sucktastic activities I can think of (short of cleaning new riles packed in cosmoline), so I suppose he feels like he doesn't have to do it as much with a 200-round magazine, even though you have to put the exact same number of rounds in that as you would in a series of 30-round magazines. In the military, if you're shooting something that needs more than 100 rounds fired through it in short order, you're using a machine gun with linked ammo that comes out of a box. When I see someone with a 200-round magazine poking out of a gun, I start to wonder how often they clean their guns and how well they're maintained, because it's kind of an amateur thing.
A couple responses as I read your post:
- I agree that there should be some kind of way of providing better access to the mental health state of individuals seeking to buy firearms. To your point about 2nd Amendment rights of one, possibly disturbed, individual trumping rights of others, however, I would say that this is as much a matter of tactfully accessing information protected by HIPAA and other health care privacy laws as it is one of gun control, however. Figuring out how to strike an appropriate balance is going to take time and consideration, but I think it's clear something needs to be done which simultaneously respects folks' privacy. You're also going to have to figure out what to do with folks who suffer from certain kinds of mental trauma which aren't personality disorders. How do you feel about veterans or law enforcement agents suffering from PTSD owning firearms, for example?
- I am equally afraid of people with atrocious driving habits and decades-old training as I am by people with atrocious shooting habits and decades-old training. Statistically, I'm more likely to be killed by the former, rather than the latter, but I think it's silly for firearms advocates to try to draw parallels. I would submit, however, that the reduction in automobile deaths has more to do with advances in automobile safety design (and attendant federal safety requirements) than any kind of legal regulation of drivers themselves. Not saying those other things don't matter - the legal crackdown on drunk driving in particular are important - but there are a ridiculous number of factors involved in those statistics, which is why I find that whole comparison useless. Let's treat cars as cars, and guns as guns.
- As with most political issues, we're not going to reach hardliners on any side of an issue, so I'm not sure why you're focused on them instead of people who might be willing to address things sensibly. Obviously the gun lobby has outsize influence on our political process, and that needs to be brought out into the open. There are good reasons I'm not an NRA member. I'm willing to bet a significant coalition of people could be made between those not at the ideological extremes of 2nd Amendment interpretation, so that's where effort ought to be concentrated.
I get that, but it's all about how you define those terms. Semi-automatic firearms have been around since the mid-1880s, so it's not necessarily even a question of design modernity. What does "efficiency" mean? Cyclic rate of fire? Limiting civilian firearms purchases to revolvers, bolt-action or lever-action rifles? It's a lot harder to pin down than you might think.
- I'm not trying to shift the question away from guns, but I do want to ask - is there any harm in trying to address homicide/violent crime as a whole issue? I think we ought to be asking tough questions about what measures might help us lower these rates regardless of how the killing happens. Perhaps some of these measures could support sensible regulations on guns in a way which reduces both gun crime and other violent crime.
None at all.
But the facts are that violent crime of all types (murder, aggravated assault, rape, and robbery) has been in decline for years. The rate of violent crimes per 1,000 population (age 12+) today is less than half what it was in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. See here, here and here.
Some of this decline is driven by demographics -- the aging of the baby boomer demographic bulge and consequent decline in testosterone poisoning. Much remains unexplained.
And to the best of my knowledge, rates of gun ownership have not shown corresponding declines.
Of course, the rates of violent crime in the U.S. remain much higher than those in many other western, industrialized countries.
Are you saying that the NRA is a hardline organization that I shouldn't be focusing on?
I'm saying that, rather than stridently arguing against the NRA and its supporters, your energy might be better spent convincing people who own and like guns – but who are disgusted to the very core by Columbine, Aurora, Newton, Oak Creek, etc. – that there are ways to approach regulating access to firearms that allow even-keeled, law-abiding folks like them to continue buying, owning, and using guns.
Criticize the NRA all you want if it's helpful for getting some of the anger out, but if you're looking for movement, I think you'll find concentrating your efforts elsewhere is more successful.
See below. My data was culled from here.
I will agree that movement will come from citizens pressuring their elected leaders, but the fact remains that pretty much every Republican member of the US House and Senate is a hardliner. That is the political reality. The NRA owns the Republican party on this issue. That's why it is relevant to lash out against their agenda and not just because I'm personally angry.
the NRA owns a fairly large share of the Democrats on this issue as well.
That's true and another reason why criticizing the NRA's positions is relevant.
In 2012, the NRA rated the voting records of 3,349 Republican office holders in various offices up for re-election around the country. The average, AVERAGE score was 87%.
Of those 257 Republican members of the United States House of Representatives scored, the average score was 91% (brought down by a few Reps in CA and the Northeast).
Of those 9 incumbent Republican members of the United States Senate that were up for re-election in the Senate, the average score was 89%. Throw out Scott Brown, who was running in Massachusetts, and the average score was 95%.
I chose to discuss the NRA because they embody the Republican party's position on guns. This is borne out in their voting records. There will be no change until a significant portion of these people are either (a) replaced by more reasonable people or (b) willing to break free from the influence of the NRA and start moving toward a more sensible gun policy.
Since I brought it up yesterday, the NYDN has an illustration of the makes and models the murderer used. Not as vicious-looking as the one SBG posted, but not as plain as the bolt-action I linked to. I'm unfamiliar with this type of ammo, so I really can't speak to much more.
Most of my shooting has been .22 rifles and 12-gauge and .410-caliber shotguns: both slugs and shot. I've shot maybe another two dozen different guns, most on the same day*, but really don't remember much of the specifics.
*"Bachelor party" for my now-BiL, up in Alaska. Makeshift shooting range. Each of the locals had his own handgun (because bears). Most looked like the handguns pictured at the link, though there was one revolver. One guy brought a Russian-made sniper rifle. After years of shooting shotgun slugs and having never used a scope, it was exciting to be able to aim at the red dot on a 7-up can at 100 yards and hit it.
For anyone seeking context on these firearms:
If this list is accurate, the Sig and Glock 9mm pistols are variants of duty pistols one might expect to find in just about any law enforcement agency. Both manufacturers have a reputation for making quality products with substantial civilian, law enforcement, and military following. In terms of mechanical operation they don't differ in meaningful ways from other semi-automatic pistols on the market, nor should their use by police and military imply anything about their specific capabilities. Their widespread use is mainly due to quality (especially in the case of the Sig), sturdy construction, ease of use, accuracy, and officer familiarity/agency-wide adoption. A cheaper or lower-profile brand pistol would most likely be just as deadly in the hands of someone intending harm, though these cheaper guns do have greater reputation for malfunction due to lower quality standards, typically are less accurate, are made from cheaper materials and finished to lower standards, and may have poorly designed safety features.
As for the Bushmaster, it sounds like it was a civilian variant of either the M-16 or M-4, commonly called AR-15s regardless of manufacturer. AR-15s are designed to have a wide degree of interchangeability with aftermarket accessories that allow the end user to tailor their rifle to a specific task - hunting, competitive shooting, police applications, and so on. The AR-15 is likely the most popular rifle in production today for a host of reasons - familiarity with the platform based on prior military service, a design which allows users to fix or change many aspects of their own guns instead of relying on a gunsmith, deep aftermarket support, and (this is very significant) cheap ammunition. Many of these rifles are chambered in (designed to fire) .223 Remington, a cartridge which has the same external dimensions as the standard NATO 5.56x45mm cartridge. Ammunition is fairly expensive, and certain kinds of ammunition - .22, 12 and 20 gauge, 9mm, .223, and others - are cheaper than others because of their market share.
As a personal note, if I were to own one rifle, I'd probably want to own an AR-15, simply because that's the firearm design with which I have the most training, and which I feel the safest and most competent using around others. It's also a versatile rile, meaning I could hunt with it if I wanted to (and found a place where it was legal to do so) or target shoot at a range, or what have you, without needing to make expensive/time consuming modifications or buy more than one rifle.