A gunman opened fire on a movie theater in Lafayette, La. Thursday night, killing at least two people and injuring at least seven before killing himself, police said.
Police Chief Jim Craft said at a news conference around 11 p.m. that police received reports of a shooting at the Grand Theatre 16 around 7:30 p.m. Four officers entered the theater to confront the shooter and found him dead of a self inflicted gunshot wound. Two other people have been confirmed dead.
Police said there are at least seven other injured victims, with injuries ranging from minor to critical and life-threatening. Louisiana State Police Sgt. David Brooks told CNN that all injured victims have been taken to local hospitals.
The shooter has been described as white and 58 years old. Police know his identity.
At what point do gun rights advocates start coming up with real solutions about what to do about these weekly occurences? Too many Americans are dying from shooting rampages.
I think I am going to barf if I hear any more platitudes and slogans. Too many guns are getting into the hands of those not competent or responsible to own them. I want to know solutions. Come on, A2 advocates, pony up some REAL solutions. No bumper sticker slogans allowed.
At some point the American people are going to rebel and demand changes. It seems to me that strong 2A folks would guard their rights more by thinking up solutions for this epidemic rather than telling us why they have rights.
Scout, I like the day-glo pink holster idea, but I bet that the people who feel they need to be continually armed would become even more fearful because they’d be paranoid about being “targets”.
We already see that some local governments create gun regulations so onerous as it make it virtually impossible for citizens to carry weapons. They use regulation, not to limit gun ownership to good citizens, but rather to disarm society within their jurisdictions. Why would I support an additional set of regulations that provides over-zealous county officials with veto power over a citizen’s right to carry?
I think a prohibition against concealed carry would preferentially work against women. Think about women employed in bars and restaurants that depart for home late at night when the streets are deserted. A gun could be the great equalizer that allows a woman to defend herself against a larger, stronger attacker. I have not seen many women openly carry weapons, so it seems likely that many would prefer concealed carry permits.
Where do you see this happening?
@Kelly
@Scout
“But, not to lose the point: there is no constitutional right to carry concealed free of government regulation. Justice Scalia in Heller used concealed carry as an example of precisely the kind of situation in which local regulation would be permissible.”
Concealed carry was not addressed. That is what Scalia was talking about. Nothing in the Amendment limits carry to open carry. Only current restrictions make it necessary to have a permit.
I can answer your question about the “pre-screening.” Because it gives the government too much power to limit a right. The exercise of a civil liberty does not depend upon government approval.
@Censored bybvbl
I didn’t say I was less safe. I will say that when I carry, I am more prepared.
@Moon-howler
Personally, I think the right to drive should be included in the right to travel.
Do you think the right to drive should be unrestricted?
@MH #63
I would say it is most likely to happen in large urban areas with de facto single party rule. DC comes to mind. In fact, did you see the news series “Emily Get Your Gun”? Emily Miller is a reporter for Fox 5 in DC who wanted a concealed carry permit after she experienced a home invasion. Permits in DC have to be personally approved by Cathy Lanier, the DC Chief of Police. Her first request was denied–she did not get her permit until she turned it into a news story that received national attention.
I just re-read the saga of Emily Miller–it turns out that she was simply applying for a permit to own a weapon in the District. That was approved and she is a registered gun owner. She has now APPLIED for a permit to carry a weapon outside of her home, but that has not been approved. DC requires her to prove “a special danger to her life” in order to be granted a permit to carry her weapon outside the home.
@ Kelly – why do you think “single party rule” makes cities more violent or dangerous for law-abiding citizens? What’s the correlation between large political majorities in a particular region and the threat of violence to individual, law-abiding citizens?
The urban part, which tends to be accompanied with large drug trade, is what makes cities more dangerous. “Single-party” rule with little to no opposition correlates to overbearing firearm regulations that equate to a firearm prohibition.
@Ed Myers
“Another design is a bullet that explodes into tiny fragment shortly after exit from a barrel. If that bullet is lodged in a perp, good. If it missed the perp and is headed towards innocents, good too as tiny fragments slow down quickly and are not lethal.
Ed,
Thank you for sharing your deep knowledge of balistics and physics. I have much experience with projectiles that explode prior to reaching a target. We call them artillery shells, and the expended fragments “shrapnel”. I can assure you that the fragments you speak of will not “slow down” rapidly, but will continue to travel at nearly the same speed as the original, will spread, and will increase the likelihood of injury. Were that not the case, law enforcement would be using your rounds.
Every law enforcement agency has adopted the rapidly-expanding, non-fragmenting bonded bullet, not because they are “more lethal”, over the full-jacket rounds used by the military. Why? It is because the round enters the target, and stays in the target, rather than going through the target, and also hitting something behind the target. Law enforcement traded penetration for engergy transfer, and all modern self-defense rounds are designed to expand, decelerate, and stop in the soft target, flatten and drop, rather than richocet off of a sold surface, and minimize “spalling”. Spalling is those “tiny” fragments that you say are harmless. Why would law enforcement want to minimize the production of fragments if they were harmless?
To paraprase Ronald Reagan : It’s not that you are ignorant. It’s just that you know so much that isn’t so.
Here’s an effective solution that works: Project Exile. Instead of restricting the rights of the law abiding, hammer the crap out of those who commit gun crimes.
-Illegal possession of a gun…10 years mandatory.
-Straw purchasing a gun for a prohibited person…10 years mandatory
– Posession of a gun in commission of a felony… sentence plus 10 years, served consequtively
There was a time when Richmond and Baltimore had the same rates of gun-related crime. Then Virginia did 2 things that Maryland refused to do: Became “Shall Issue” for CCW, and at the same time, implemented Project Exile. Virginia’s violent crime rates fell, most noticably in Richmond. Baltimore’s remains high. It was also seen to be an effective deterrant to illegal posession. Both the NRA and VCDL supported Project Exile. When and why it went away, I don’t know. What I do know is this adminstration’s record of prosecutions of federal firearms violations is shameful.
Will it stop the true kooks? Nope, but neither will any of the other controls proposed by the anti’s, and the anti’s admit this. What it will do is punish behavoir without trampling the rights of the law-abiding.
Looking at recent mass killing sprees, how many of them would have been stopped by project exile? I can count zero. am I missing one?
I have a real problem with possession of a gun in commission of a felony. That very often ends up as double jeopardy. For example, if you get 7 years for manslaughter and then you would automatically get 17 years if you did it with a gun as opposed to stabbing someone’s guts out or running them down with your car.
Those efforts also seem like after the fact rather than preventative.
I just don’t believe everyone should be permitted to buy a gun.
9 out of 10 people make up 90% of the population….
If this were the case, US population would have remained at pre-1993 levels. It did not. Growth was replaced with immigration, and there were/are PLENTY of 15-20 year-old males in that group.
But I admire the boldness of your BS, er..BS. “Kill today…so you won’t be killed tomorrow”. Now is that a “less crunchy” method of crime prevention?
I want to put both of you in stocks and throw rotten tomatoes at both of you.
BS, I missed your earlier comment. I have been out of town and didn’t pay much attention to the blog. Too hard to read on my cell phone.
Steve, the immigrant population didn’t do much with guns, at least not in our area. Machetes and knives were more the weapons of choice.
@Kelly_3406
Which is
So, you are saying that if someone is attacked, it’s their fault for being somewhere they shouldn’t be? Sounds like “victim blame”. Are you also saying that mere posession of a fire extingusher indicates paranoia? I mean, should you burn bacon, and have it burst into flames, it’s better to call 911, and wait for the professionals to come take care of it, right? Or what about a fireextingusher in a car? Are those folks irrational? Better to wait for the Fire Department…no need to try to save the person trapped in a burning car… I mean, how often does that happen? How about a first-aid kit? Those people crazy too? I mean, that’s what we have ambulances for, right?
Come up on a person injured in a wreck with bright red arterial blood squirting out…they will be dead in 2-3 minutes, and this is 2-3 minutes sooner than the BEST 911 response time. Is someone who carries a tourniquet paranoid too? I mean, how often does a tramatic injury happen?
I’m getting ready to head out the door, and get on the road. Not planning to get into an accident. Should I wear my seatbelt, or is that just being paranoid?
So, if I come upon you, upside down in your burning car, unconscious (because seatbelts are for the paranoid) and am able to:
-Extinguish the fire
-break your window with a rescue tool (I could even cut your selbelt, but you aren’t wearing one)
-Extract you, and upon noticing blood squirting from your femoral artery, apply an actual tourniquet and compression bandage, and maybe even have the tools to keep your airway open, because your face hit the windshield…all because I chose to go about prepared for the “worst day” of my or someone else’s life, or:
I could dial 911, let you burn, bleed out, or choke to death. Afterall, I’m not a professional 1st responder. Heck, I could even film it on my cellphone, and post it to youtube. Only paranoid people prepare for bad things. We are supposed to let someone else take care of things.
@Steve, FYI, a bullet that explodes into tiny pieces after leaving the barrel is called a shotgun shell. The distance and lethality of a shotgun shell compared with a shotgun bullet (or “slug” ) is remarkable. The distance and lethality of a shotgun shell is related to the size of the BBs. Let me know if you need links to articles that will help explain this for you.
Oh Lord, Ed. Steve is going to eat your lunch. (ducking and headed for cover to avoid shrapnel)
People who carry fire extinguishers around on their belt are a little weird but I don’t mind because if they have an accident it won’t kill me. That is not true for guns. When gun manufacturers make guns safe for crowded places then having people carry it around all the time like a security blanket will be acceptable.
@Steve Thomas
No victim blaming – just common sense. How many times since you’ve started carrying your gun have you felt you might need it? How many times by using could common sense could you have avoided those situations – if they existed? Locally, how do thousands of students, nurses, docs, and other hospital workers manage to get home unscathed/unshot after the late shift/late classes? Yet you find it intimidating to go to Southern States or a restaurant unarmed. You should try – a’ la AA – to take one day unarmed at a time. After a week or two’s existence without being attacked, your fear of harm may dissipate.
subtract “could” up there…
@Ed Myers
Ed,’
My T/O weapon for 4 years was an 870 shotgun. I can school you all day long on shotgunnery. I was a very active skeet-shooter for quite a while. You can save your articles.
A “bullet” is a solid, conical-shaped projectile. A shot-gun shell never “explodes into pieces” upon leaving the barrell, as the projectiles were never a solid piece to begin with. If you mean to argue that a load of .00 or .000 high-brass buck shot is a “less leathal option” at 200 yards, compared to a .357 magnum or .45 caliber jacketed hollow-point….well I am just going to have to point and laugh at you.
In the case of the .357 pistol round, it will leave the 8″ barrell at something around 1400 fps, and 1200 fps out of the more common 3″ barrell. At 200 yards, if I am lucky enough to hit the target at that range (bullet drop is something like 40 inches, so I am holding 40 inches over the desired point of impact), this single projectile will generate 327 foot-pounds of energy.
If we compare this to a high-brass, 12-gauge .00 buck load, those .330 pellets OF WHICH THERE ARE 12 IN THE LOAD, will leave the 16″ (Minimum legal barrel length for a shotgun according to the NFA of 1934) will leave the barrell at 1300 fps. These pellets will “spread” 1″ per 10 yards, so there will be 12 .33 caliber pellets (which if you are up on your decimals, is pretty damn close to the single .357 pistol bullet used for comparison). So, at 200 yards, there will be 12 pellets somewhere in a 20-25″ cone flying at the target…and guess what? The energy generated by each one of those upon striking the target is generating the same amount of energy as the single .357 pistol bullet…but theres a whole bunch more of them, and the odds of scoring a lethal hit…well, let’s just say they are much, much better.
It’s math, Ed. Simple physics really. But it helps to actually have some experience too. I have fired everything from a .17 pellet-gun to 155mm Howitzers, and everything in-between. Single-shot. Semi-auto. Belt-fed Full-auto. Black-powder muzzle-loaders. Heck, I’ve even shot a flint-lock pistol. I might not be an expert, but I know enough to say you are 100% wrong in your assertions regarding firearms.
Just asking if you enjoyed lunch. I saw that one coming a mile off. (and being the gutless coward I am, I hid!!!)
That was very informative. I had no idea that shotgun shells had only 12 pellets per shell. I was never allowed to shoot the shot gun at home. Too much kick is what I was told.
I was a good math kid and was thinking math the entire time, trying to come up with a word problem.
@Censored bybvbl
“How many times since you’ve started carrying your gun have you felt you might need it? How many times by using could common sense could you have avoided those situations – if they existed?”
To answer your question honestly, twice. Neither time did I have to draw. Just swept the cover garment and assumed a firm grip. One time it was 8pm and I was in the parking lot of a convenince store, and was approached by 2 adult males who “appeared” around the side of a building. The 2nd time I was about 9pm sitting outside of a restaurant, talking with a friend of mine, and we were again approached by 2 males. Again, I swept the garment, and put my hand on the grip, but did not have to draw.
I’ve taken enough self-defense training to know what was happening. I, (we) were getting tested to see if I/we were soft targets. In the first case, one of the men stayed in front of me, engaging me, trying to intimidate me, “asking” for money. His partner moved around to cut off my angle of escape. The second case, one individual verbally engaged us, while his partner stood off about 50ft and observed. In both cases, flight was not an option, as it would have forced me to turn my back to a threat, or leave my friend (who uses a cane) behind. Since I enjoy my friendship with this lady, and she reminds me of my mom. I kinda like having her around, and would miss her if she weren’t, especially, when I could have prevented it. I chose to stand.
In both cases, I was able to demonstrate an ability to resist an assault…and they left the scene. I was glad I was armed. No, I wasn’t somewhere I shouldn’t have been, doing something I shouldn’t be doing, or any of those other “common sense” things.
To your point, asking about all those people who manage to go about peacefully unarmed, I agree that the odds are in their favor…but crime does happen. People to get raped, robbed, and killed. The two times I’ve needed it. I’ve had it. The reason I had it, is because I had it. My friend was glad I had it too. Don’t believe me? Ask her yourself. Type it right on this blog. She’ll see it. She might even answer you too.
Let me confess. I was the lady in case #2. It might have been a little later but sometimes I get wound up when I am talking with friends. (time flies when I am running my mouth.)
I saw was coming down, Steve alerted me. (I think or maybe I just saw) I wasn’t worried because I “knew” Steve was armed because I know Steve and I know he knows self defense. It all went down without incident but it could have gone the other way. I could be lying dead in the proverbial ditch. I did have my cane that night and that probably is advertisement to rob me. That is stupid on the part of those who are up to no good. Canes hurt and I wouldn’t hesitate to use it. (I don’t always use a cane–depends on the knee situation)
I will have to say … a lot unspoken when down in those 60 seconds. At no time was I afraid. I was damn glad I was with Steve because I knew he could handle the situation that might have gone down. I certainly don’t endorse everyone owning a gun. Not even me. I would probably shoot my knee cap off, especially if it felt like it has felt all weekend.
ps I never observed him sweeping his garment. Very subtle. crooks and a non-victim. they knew where to look and he knew what to do.
I was ready to knock someone’s block off with that cane though if I had to.
@Censored bybvbl
“Yet you find it intimidating to go to Southern States or a restaurant unarmed. You should try – a’ la AA – to take one day unarmed at a time. After a week or two’s existence without being attacked, your fear of harm may dissipate.”
Hey, you do what you do, and I’ll do the same. Isn’t that what you hippy-dippy tree-love-dope types preach? You have nothing to fear from me. I don’t live in fear. The difference between us is I don’t fear because I am prepared. You, I’d argue, don’t fear out of ignorance. But rest assured, I might have to leave the roscoe behind at times, I am never unarmed.
I gotta defend Censored now. She really isn’t a dope type and I probably love trees as much as she does. They just keep falling down at my house.
I have to ask what the roscoe is.
I have a problem in that I am seen as an anti simply because I want some folks not to have guns. I am really glad Steve has a gun. Cargo also. (I meant to say arsenal) I just don’t think everyone should have a gun and I don’t care much for the exile approach. I just don’t think there are many deterrents to crime. People who commit crimes either act impulsively or think that they will never get caught. both choices indicate that deterrents won’t work.
Plain and simple: some people shouldn’t have guns. There are just simply personality attributes that don'[t make for safe gun ownership or possession.
I was a nice as I could be. Ed needs Ed(ucation).
You were nice.
Ed,
You are “thinking” too much again. You are “thunk”.
The next time you are out and about, and if you are fortunate enough to spot a lawfully armed citizen twirlling his roscoe around, or otherwise acting in an unsafe manner (the mere carrying of a firearm does not consitute acting in an unsafe manner), please feel free to seek cover and call the SWAT team.
@Steve Thomas
I’m familiar with the second scenario. Had the restaurant closed? The motel nearby is rather shady. I know people get to talking with their friends and lose track of time. The best thing to do is not to be the last people out of the restaurant or offer your friend a ride or hint before the place closes that she had best call for a ride.
What would it have taken for you to pull your gun or to fire?
Hee hee – I haven’t done any dope since the Seventies and during most windstorms, I curse my 100′ trees.
The friend was driving her own self. I was running my mouth. I probably would have gone about my merry way had Steve not been there. I don’t see Steve that often and sometimes we both talk too long, making up for lost time.
I guess I am just one of those who isn’t going to let a couple of thugs dictate my life. I am a fairly stubborn person.
@Censored bybvbl
What would it have taken for you to pull your gun or to fire?
Satisfying the legal requirements for use of lethal force, ie the reasonable belief that these people have the Ability, Opportunity, and Intent to do harm to me, or someone that I am morally obligated to protect. Believe me, having to fire would be the 2nd worst thing I can think of.
And just so we’re clear here, I do allow myself options between “empty hands” and “lethal force”. It’s a matter of proximity and the level of threat. I took a “Street Encounters” course that was worth every penny, that covered the entire spectrum, from Awareness, Avoidance, Descalation, less-lethal, and lethal force options, taught by active law-enforcement.
@Censored bybvbl
“I’m familiar with the second scenario.”
Good. But you weren’t there, and are in no position to armchair the situation. The two people who were there are glad that I was armed, and are even more thankful that it did not have to go further than it did. I hope you are never placed in that situation, but if you are, you won’t hear me say “maybe you should have/shouldn’t have done X, Y, or Z”. I know better than to blame the victim. “Common Sense” doesn’t apply to evil, degenerate, predatory criminals.
I am damn glad you were armed, Steve. I am glad it didn’t escalate and I feel it didn’t because they were casing you to get the “lay of the land.”
No blaming the victim. Just size up the situation to see if problems can be avoided – ahead of time.
I suppose I could make sure I’m home before sun-down, bar the door. I could move to a better neighborhood, as both happen within a quarter-mile of my front door. Better yet, I could avoid going out all together. I mean, wouldn’t want to be paranoid and go about armed.
Censored, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t armchair it and say you aren’t blaming the victim. You can’t imply that someone who exercises their rights to go about armed is paranoid, and then wag your finger and say “use common sense and avoid all potentially bad situations, even if they become potentially bad through no fault of your own”. I may lack your “wisdom of years” but I have infinitely more training, and awareness of how the mind of a predator works. If two wolves can pop-up on me, and get close enough to where I am reacting, they’d be on you before you even knew they were there. You’d be all “sized up” before you had a chance to do any sizing. And that’s the truth. My friend never even saw the second guy. I did, which is why hand when to holster, and not to the pepper spray or kubaton. Same with the first case too.
Steve is correct. I never saw the second guy, just the first one. I have a fair degree of urban paranoia also…just not the keen awareness that Steve has.
Truthfully, would I have been in a lit parking lot running my mouth if Steve hadn’t been there? Hard to say. Probably not. The fact that it was Steve and the parking lot was lit and my car was right there….made me feel I was not risk taking. Would I have done the same thing at the Mall? No. Starbucks? Yes.
That part I cant remember is if Steve said something to me or if he cut eyes and gave me a look so that I knew what was going on.
@Steve Thomas
I’ll admit to not having any training other than the Judo and Jujutsu (sp.?) that my F.B.I. agent father taught me when I was of middle school age. The main thing he taught me for safety was to size up a situation and to avoid danger to begin with. It’s served me well for 60+ years. He always praised my intuition and ability to tease out details from the surroundings. Some of that skill is gone after a couple bonks on the head – from a car accident and an over-active sister who slammed the tailgate on my head as I was loading plants into my car.
I’ve taken night classes, made plenty of trips into DC galleries on my own, and even walked a mile when my car broke down. I never felt the need for carrying a gun. I don’t go around with that level of fear on a daily basis. My usual preparation when going out consists of trying to remember all 5 things on my to-do list and to make the trip in an expedient order.
I think I would be afraid for myself and others if I were carrying a gun. I would do it if I felt I needed to. I would need lots and lots of training though.
” I never felt the need for carrying a gun. I don’t go around with that level of fear on a daily basis.”
Ok…you’re out and about. It’s 7Pm, and you are running into Harris Teeter so you can get those turkey pot pies that are on sale. Your heads on a swivel…cause that’s the kinda gal you are. Checking your surroundings…checking the expirey date on the milk…and Bam. He’s on you. 20 years old fast (which is pretty damn fast). 20 years old strong (which is pretty damn strong). He’s gonna mug and stomp the old lady, and doesn’t care what grevious bodlily harm means. What do you do..use your Jujitsu on him?
Or you’re out with your grandkids at the park, and a two pit-bulls come rolling up, wanting to use the kids for chew-toys. “Killer” as your grand-daughter and is starting the “death shake”. You gonna yell “HiYa” and summon your inner Mr. Miagi?
Or You are at the local Walmart looking at something on a shelf. It’s the middle of the day, and people are around. A 20 yearold miscreant walks into the walmart, heads to the sporting goods, grabs a tee-ball bat, starts walking around twirling it, and sees you in the frozen food section: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD1-f-pO_uA
You watch that. You tell me that this and the other scenarios I laid out don’t happen. I know they do, and because they did happen. Things like this happen ALL THE TIME. Wanting to protect yourself from things that happen ALL THE TIME, is not paranoid.
I’ve never been in a house fire. Doesn’t mean I don’t have a smoke detector, nor would I call someone who installs a sprinkler system “paranoid or irrational”. All I can afford is a fire-extinguisher…so I have one. I’d love to have a personal security detail too, but I can’t afford one….
Paranoia is an “irrational fear”. Considering what’s going on out in the world, there’s nothing “irrational” about being armed. You are free to choose otherwise, via con Dios.
@Steve Thomas
I don’t waste time anticipating everything that could happen to me. None of those situations has occurred with me. I’m lucky in that my more humorous half does most of the cooking because he likes running around to grocery stores. When my husband, dogs, grand-niece and I walk in the woods, we could be bear bait or – as my grand-niece thinks – hillbilly zombie bait. So far, we’ve survived. And I don’t want to be part of any shoot-out in Walmart (which I enter only about twice a year). A shoot-out generally guarantees that you – innocent or victim – will be involved in a lawsuit that will cost you your savings. Best to just run to the nearest exit. Doesn’t always work as we’ve seen recently. Just as gun laws or involuntary commitments don’t always work. But I’d prefer that option.
Steve, saying stuff like “If you mean to argue that a load of .00 or .000 high-brass buck shot is a “less leathal option” at 200 yards, compared to a .357 magnum or .45 caliber jacketed hollow-point….well I am just going to have to point and laugh at you.” is not the stuff of friendly or informative debate.
There are wide ranges of pellet sizes and materials and the heavier denser material behaves more like a bullet and the less dense less so. You have to at least try to keep the parameters identical unless your objective was to create scenarios that you thought would bamboozle. Furthermore there are newer materials that have yet to be used to create bullets that could change the ballistics to what I desire…ammo designed to fit an urban setting that when used creates less collateral damage and would eventually make guns less useful as a instrument of terror and notoriety without sacrificing usefulness for self defense.
Steve has lived a more dangerous life than most of us. I think it highly likely that many of us could go about our daily business in suburban Northern Virginia without resort to deadly force. It is also highly likely that, given the hilariously lax standards we have about who carries deadly weapons and how they do it, the sheer volume of firearms in circulation has something to do with the fact that we have thousands of gun deaths, homicides and suicides, every year in this country.
I like the idea of severe punishment for deaths or woundings that result from misuse of weapons. However, the trend legislatively has been to make it easier for an itchy trigger finger guy to justify even a mistaken death or injury by saying that he feared for his well-being and to release him from the obligation to retreat from the situation.
I just don’t think that there are many good deterrents that make people think before they pull a trigger. Usually when people shoot other people they are either afraid (fearing their lives), confused, or nuts. We don’t just shoot people for sport. Any of those situations I just mentioned aren’t situations where people have a lot of time to assess pros and cons.
If we could just pay more attention to the nuts end of gun control, its a good place to start.
@Steve Thomas It’s funny, isn’t it, how the gun grabbers don’t ever bother to cite the statistics of the number of law-abiding, concealed-carry-permit holding individuals, with legally-obtained weapons, who are involved in “gun violence.”
As Kelly says, it’s much easier for weak and lazy minds to issue group punishments. Who cares if they don’t work, as long as they make a big splash, and make the grabbers feel big and important, as if they really accomplished anything at all.
My problem with people who identify themselves as gun advocates call almost everyone a gun grabber. It’s all or nothing and I have not heard anything I consider a valid option to cut down on killing sprees.
It’s going to take everyone working together or the grabbers are going to win because Americans are going to get tired of a massacre every week.
It makes more sense to me to figure out a way to put some filters out there so that every psychotic in the world isn’t imitating Ole Cat Scratch Nugent.
@Censored bybvbl
“I don’t waste time anticipating everything that could happen to me. None of those situations has occurred with me.”
Fine. Your choice. Good on’ya. I choose to do otherwise. You have weighed the risks and decided to go one way, I’ve done the same, and chosen another path. Go in peace, and leave me to mine.
@Scout
“Steve has lived a more dangerous life than most of us.” Maybe. Or maybe I’m just more aware of what goes unreported by what passes for media around here. I’m married to someone who works with victims of violent crime. I have close friends in Federal and Local law enforcement.
“It is also highly likely that, given the hilariously lax standards we have about who carries deadly weapons and how they do it, the sheer volume of firearms in circulation has something to do with the fact that we have thousands of gun deaths, homicides and suicides, every year in this country.”
It’s also just as likely that without the 2nd Amendment, and the growth of armed citizenry, we’d have much higher rates of violent crime. Now I am willing to have this debate with you, Scout. I’ve read the studies. I know just how underreported the incidents of lawful defensive gun use are. I do take issue with your suicide assertion. Did suicide exist before the invention of firearms? It did. Does the presence of a firearm increase suicidal tendencies, or is it other external factors? If guns caused suicides, we’d have a large portion of the military and law enforcement offing themselves, as they have a tremendous exposure to firearms. No, Scout, people (almost exclusively males) choose the gun because it is effecient. Woman prefer OD and cutting. This has been studied and the conclusion is men choose guns because they are decisive, and don’t care about a mess. Woman choose pills and cutting because of vanity.
As far as your “Lax Standards” argument, look at Switzerland, or other countries that rely on a militia system for defense. These societies are awash in military grade arms. What disappoints me is that you, and attorney don’t acknowldge the rights and responsibilities in the common law, from which our founders derived our 2nd amendment . These go back to the English Laws of Alfred, who mandated every man keep arms and armor. Now our 2nd amendment doesn’t mandate that each of us go about armed, but it does give us the right to choose to do so. SOme of us actually look at it as a civil responsibility, and our founders, as well as the enlightened men they looked to, thought the same. You might want to read the “Second Amendment Primer” by Les Adams. He’s a lawyer too.
The fact is, only a small portion of us will be the victims of violent crime, but violent crime does happen. You cannot deny it. A small portion of those who carry, will ever have to draw, and fewer will actually have to shoot. It is also true that lions and hyenas will only get a portion of the antelopes and zebras that roam the plains, and wolves and cougars will only get a few of the sheep in the field. Argue all you want, but Wolves, Hyenas, Lions and Cougars do walk on two legs. You can be an antelope or a sheep if you’d like. I prefer to be a warthog, happy to live his life rooting about, doing what warthogs do, and ready and ABLE to turn and face any hyena that chooses to tangle with me. The antelope have nothing to fear from a warthog.
@Emma
“It’s funny, isn’t it, how the gun grabbers don’t ever bother to cite the statistics of the number of law-abiding, concealed-carry-permit holding individuals, with legally-obtained weapons, who are involved in “gun violence.”
It is indeed. If they’d bother to look, which is quite easy today in the “age of the Google Machine” they’d learn that permit revocations for ANY infraction are less than two tenths of 1%. You’d think with “such lax standards” and the gun-onwers “paranoia” the streets would be red with the blood of every person who argued over a parking space, or had a bad day at the office.
The fact is, most “gun violence” is committed by criminals. Too often, the media, politicians, and ignorant citizens (that’s right, I said IGNORANT) focus on what was used, and not on who did the using. Look at our prisions. Here we have a populace who have almost ZERO access to firearms. Do murders happen in prisons? Do violent assaults happen in prisons? How about assaults on authorities, riots, drugs, prostitution…. You can legislate, restrict, control all you want…Criminals will find a way. It is the law-abiding who suffer.
It isn’t as simple as calling everyone who shoots someone a criminal. Some people were criminals before the shooting, other folks because of the shooting. some of it happens because of accident. Some because someone goes off the deep end, and then there are those who shoot in anger. Finally we have the people who shoot in the commission of a crime. The later are the ones I consider criminals. It does no good to lump everyone together. I want to see some prevention, not just punishment. If it gets to that stage, its too late.
@Steve Thomas And I categorically REJECT any notion that I should have to restrict my activities more than is necessary to avoid becoming a victim. So it’s better to just declare entire neighborhoods, shopping centers, etc., completely off limits as a prudent way to deter crime? Seriously? So basically we create playgrounds for criminals while we box ourselves into “safe” enclaves, like our nice little gated communities, and rush around doing things “expediently” so we can avoid trouble.
And what about people who can’t afford to box themselves out of those areas? The gun grabbers would just say screw them, I guess.
@Ed Myers
Ed,
I am done debating someone who knows nothing about the subject they are trying to debate. I know #7 and #8 birdshot exists. I’ve fired literally thousands of rounds of “field loads”. I know that if they were effective at stopping a threat, law enforcement would be using them.
I also know that you believe that even cops shouldn’t have guns, and they should only have tasers, pepper spray, and other “compliance devices”, but no “self-defense tools”. You want our cops disarmed.
Considering that the courts have ruled numerous times that the police do not have a responsibility to protect the individual, only society at large, and considering that you refuse to consider that criminals and evil have existed in the totalitarity of human history, and considering that all of your hairbrained solutions to gun ownership place 100% of the responsibility on the law-abiding citizen, and finally, considering that you have failed to demonstrate even the most elementary understanding of: The use, function, purpose of firearms, human nature, history, common law, constitutional law, natural rights, physics, economics, civil governance, etcetera, etcetera, I have concluded that debating you is one big honkin’ waste of finger-strength.
In otherwords, go on with your life Ed. I pity anyone who would rely on you to ensure their safety. This is the last response to your mindless prattle that I will write…unless you are willing to meet me at Elite Shooting Sports on Balls Ford Road, and will spend 1 hour with me on the range. I will buy the lane, bring the ammo, supply the iron, and if need be, wipe up the tinkle that might be loosed at the sight of a; gun, in the hands of a responsible, lawfully armed citizen. Email Moon and we’ll set it up. Don’t and you are PNG as far as I am concerned.
Totality of human existance..damned phone.
@Moon-howler
“If we could just pay more attention to the nuts end of gun control, its a good place to start.”
Nuts and criminals. I’m all for that.
I don'[t know what to do about thugs other than lock them up. I see no prevention there other than getting them off the streets.
Nuts…we got a lot of work to do. The nuts have more rights than you or I do. Those are the people going on a rampage killing multiple people.
I mentioned suicides, Steve, to be fair and accurate. We have a hideously large number of gun deaths in this country, but I thought it important to include reference to suicides to indicate that roughly a third of our gun deaths are self-inflicted. That’s a problem in itself, but not the problem that is immediately on the table in this time of thousands of gun homicides. However, I have noticed a tendency to lump suicides and homicides together in dealing with the statistics and I thought it appropriate to indicate that a distinction between them can be made, at least for some purposes.
After your rant about southern, Christian, Republican white males being the victims of gun control concerns (#17), I think your biases are shining through on this issue. I’m a gun owner, a CCP holder, and a constitutional conservative (although I have never carried concealed in my life because there is absolutely no reason to, particularly when I live in a state where I can carry openly without licensure). I still think we, as a nation and as a gathering of citizens who like to think of themselves as having some veneer of civilization, are nuts to be as permissive as we are about allowing untrained, unqualified, temperamentally unsuited persons to carry guns around in daily life. I’ve asked you (and others here) why you think that you, being knowledgeable and well-trained, would in any way be disadvantaged by stronger restrictions on gun use and public carriage. I don’t think it is a matter of targeting White Republican Christian Southern Males. I think it is a matter of what kind of culture and civilization we value. The Second Amendment leaves plenty of room for making sure that “well regulated” means something.
How many people buy guns who don’t know diddly jack about them? Lots.
On the subject of suicides…a part of me feels that suicide is a personal right. Certainly we want to keep people from ending their own life but I also feel on some level that stopping someone from suicide is infringing on their personal rights. Don’t mind me….
@Scout
Scout,
You are a sharp guy. You know what incrementalism is. First they came for the X, and I said nothing, because I wasn’t X.
If you want to get technical about what “well regluated” meant at the time it was written, didn’t have anything to do with “regualtion” as we use the term today. “Well Regulated” meant trained and equipped, and “the militia” referred to the entirety of able-bodied adult males, and a readilng of the founders thoughts further defined “militia” as the greater militia, not a “select militia” which was little more than a reserve standing army.
You argue correctly, that none of the currently proposed restrictions would impact me, today. What about tomorrow? What will be proposed tomorrow? You and I agree that when these tragedies are examined (after the shock and emotion wane), we find there was nothing a new law could have done to prevent it, and yet the mantra of “well, we gotta do SOMETHING” persists.
How about this? The next time we have a “lone wolf” missonary of the religion of peace commits an act of “workplace violence” whether they use a firearm, a knife, acid, flamable liquid, box-cutter, explosive, hammer, hatchet, let’s “do something”. Let’s regulate the places of worship, what can and cannot be preached, what and where adherents can wear certain clothes identified with that particular faith. Let’s put up cameras to monitor the comings and goings at the location. Make people fill out a form each and every time they attend parayers Tell these people they need to accept “reasonable” restrictions, as they would foster a perception of increasing security. I mean, even if it won’t stop the “lone wolf” mentally derranged individual from doing what they intend to do, we “gotta do something”, right?
See how they react. See how those organizations who defend the 1st Amendment react. Then you will understand my position.
You identify as a constituional conservative, and I do as well. While I think we agree on much in principle, I think there are some degrees and details where we see things differently.
@Moon-howler
“How many people buy guns who don’t know diddly jack about them? Lots.”
Same could be said about people who buy cars. Anyone can buy a car. We “test” to a very basic level of proficiency before allowing that person to operate in public, but that doesn’t mean they know jack-didly about cars. Cars kill far more people each year than guns do. We don’t blame the car.
I have not heard one person here blame guns. Everyone has blamed people, to my knowledge.
You cant compare things that have nothing in common. Cars do not equal guns. They don’t have the same function or purpose. You might as well compare guns to earthquakes. Earhtquakes don’t kill people. They cause buildings to fall over on people and tsunamis that drown them.
I think people who operate guns should know a little about them. Cars are built to transport people. guns are manufactured to put holes in things using bullets. Just is.
I am already having apolplexy over finding out panhandling is a first amendment right.
I would think you would want all gun handlers to be well informed about the tool they are using. I would also think that you wouldn’t want stupid irresponsible people handling guns. We have more ways to take away rights from stupid drivers than stupid gun owners.
Moon, I am a HUGE advocate for professional training. I alsnightstand ate for those who carry a gun to also carry a tourniquet, some clotting agent, and a pressure dressing. I figure if someone other than a badguy ends up with a hole in them, whether from my or a perps actions I should be able to render aid. But, just because I set a high standard for myself, doesn’t mean it’s right for granny with the gun on her nightstand
Granny should be trained. I have seen people race out and buy a gun as a reaction to some crime, bring it home and have no clue how to use it.
Steve (re “incrementlaism”): I suppose it could be rightly said that any regulation of anything sits somewhere on a scale between nothing and something that would be either illegal or ineffective. But we have mechanisms to deal with that from Congress, state legislatures or elected municipal bodies who impose the regulations and courts to decide if they cross the line in terms of being inconsistent with constitutional protections. We know with certainty that the Second Amendment permits a degree of regulation. The federal courts have recently been quite clear on that. Inevitably, someone somewhere will cross a line and create a constitutional impingement. I have great faith that that will get sorted out in due course.
I’m willing to look at “Well-regulated” from a 1789 perspective if you will look at “arms” from the same point. If either is allowed to change with the times, both are.
And also a comedian, apparently.
@Scout
“I’m willing to look at “Well-regulated” from a 1789 perspective if you will look at “arms” from the same point.”
I am willing to take that challenge; “Arms” in 1789 meant the same thing as “Arms” mean today. It meant “weapons suitable for martial use, in common usage and carriage”. Back then, the farmer and the soldier carried the same brown-bess flintlock musket, the same Scots Claymore sword, the same pistols. If you looked around, you might even find a smooth-bore cannon or two in a barn.
Do I advocate for personal ownership of mortars, rocket launchers, and armored vehicles? No. This works for the Swiss and the Swedes. It’s impractical. Full-auto crew-served weapons? I’m not arguing for these either, but if I had $250K and was willing to fill out the paperwork, I could lawfully own one.
What I’m talking about is the “assault weapons” bans. A semi-automatic AR-15 may look like a select-fire M-16, but the similarities are cosmetic. Banning them because they are “scary” and “black” or magazines above a certain capacity is not only ineffective and has no demonstrable impact on crime, it IS an infringement of the 2A. A bolt-action hunting rifle, long-barrel pump shot-gun, and 6-shot revolver are not “weapons suitable for martial use, in common usage and carriage”, and limiting ownership to these and the application of the “sporting use” suitability test is a violation of the 2A, IMHO, because it this right has nothing to do with sports or duck-hunting.
My point exactly, Steve. “Arms” at that time meant flintlock, single shot muzzle loaders that were not easily carried concealed, as well as long blades. If you’re willing to accept that we can all be original intent types on this issue, I think you have contributed constructively to the current gun debate. If the guy in Colorado had a Brown Bess, he would have done considerably less execution on that particular crowd of innocents. Ditto the fellow in Connecticut at the school. I suspect if we de-regulated carriage of black powder flintlocks of late 18th century design, while forbidding multiple round semi-automatics of types not contemplated by the Founders, the death toll from guns would drop considerably.
@ Cato: You’re too generous. To be perfectly honest, I would describe myself as “occasionally witty.” I don’t really have the intelligence or the extrovert nature to pull off comedy.
What was your point about constitutional philosophy, by the way. You sort of left that hanging.
@Scout
Not sure that I have made your point. The original intent was for the people to possess and carry arms equal to those owned by the state, to ensure the people had the means to resist and replace the state, should it become tyrannical. If you look at those acts cited by the founders as the justification for rebellion against England, you must concede the founders had a pretty low threshold for what constitutes “tyranny”.
Well, then, Steve, I guess pistols are out. I’m not ready to take on the US Army with my Sig and even with you in my foxhole, we’re not going to have any effect on the standing army with sidearms.