If it weren't for the context, the irony could almost be funny.

[conuly]

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

http://gawker.com/5970497/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

Comments

[marveen.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but it's the truth. Some truths may hurt, but that doesn't make them any less true.

A. The bad guys will get ahold of guns. Smuggled guns, guns it is illegal for them to own (or in some cases, even be in the same room with), homemade "zip" guns whipped up from plumbing supplies, guns it is illegal to import, stolen guns, looted guns, even guns the shooter murders his own mother to obtain (cf. sandy hook).

B. The only thing that fights guns firing AT YOU is guns firing back. Singing, chanting, shouting, logic, quoting (the law/the bible/shakespeare), sweet reason, most everything else fails (cf. standard police procedure). Sometimes, granted, all it takes is the THREAT of guns firing back (cf. clackamas).

C. Finally, no amount of legislation, wishing, hoping, public disapprobation, ranting, raving, or public displays of pathologic hoplophobia will make guns suddenly cease to exist. (Cf. point A, above.)

I'll close by saying I, too, disagree with the NRA's proposal to put a police officer in every school. It won't work, it's expensive, and it's one of those notorious compromises the NRA is (in)famous for.

Would you like to discuss "gun free zones" as well?

[conuly]

So why is it that gun crime is lower in places with severe restrictions on gun ownership? Shouldn't the rates be the same if laws are essentially meaningless no matter where you go?

[marveen.livejournal.com]

Lower? Where?

Doesn't Chicago have one of the highest gun homicide rates in the nation? Doesn't Chicago also have one of the most restrictive sets of gun laws in the country?

Secondly, I will cite a study from Harvard School of Law; you can find it here: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Oddly enough, the rates are lower where more people own guns. Funny that (see point B, above).

[conuly]

Japan and the UK, perhaps?

[conuly]

I have to say, that link does not seem like a particularly unbiased source. Not because of the conclusion the author comes to, but because of the language choices used. I'm not qualified to judge the authors sources or conclusions, but I have trouble trusting a source that may have come to the conclusion before even looking at the data. The conclusion may be right, but how could I tell?

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

A. Yes, it is true that SOME 'bad guys' will get hold of SOME guns no matter what. Your list is redundant, however, because really there are only four ways to obtain a gun: buy it legally, buy it illegally, steal it or make it yourself. If buying guns legally is more difficult and more expensive, there will be a lot fewer guns around to be stolen or legally sold. And yes, it is possible to build your own black-powder rifle by hand, or assemble a 'zip gun' (which may take your hand off when fired), but nobody is likely to go on any psycho shooter spree with either of those, because they're slow, inaccurate and of very limited range.

B. Nobody disputes that the only thing stopping guns firing AT YOU is guns firing back. The argument about singing, chanting, logic etc. is a straw-man argument, because nobody has ever suggested that any of those tactics would work against guns firing AT YOU. The point is to stop those guns before they are firing AT YOU through application of the Rule of Law, which is what civilized societies do instead of defaulting immediately to the use of force.

C. Another straw-man argument. Why are you so vehemently refuting ridiculous notions that nobody is even espousing? Do you truly believe that ANYBODY thinks guns are going to "suddenly cease to exist", or cease to exist ever?

Hello, explosives aren't ever going to cease to exist either. It's a lot easier to make a bomb than it is to make a zip gun, and there's no way to stop anyone from making one, because the ingredients and components can be very inexpensively obtained at any hardware and garden store. So? Because of that, should we just shrug our shoulders and allow people to freely buy as much C-4 as they want, no questions asked?

BTW, please note I'm not anti-gun, particularly if the gun owner uses his gun to fill the meat freezer full of venison every Fall. I am, however, anti-crime, anti-stupidity, and anti-selfish entitlement. Therefore I would like legislation to limit as much crime and stupidity as possible, and I don't have a lot of patience for the selfishly-entitled who continually try to block that legislation because oh no, nobody's going to make them register their precious collection of assault rifles. Obviously, crime, stupidity and selfish entitlement are never going to "cease to exist" , either suddenly or gradually, but that is not a justification for either ignoring them or enabling them.

"Gun-free zones" were a moronic idea from the start. Obviously, criminals and psychos are not going to say "Oooh, this is a gun-free zone; I'd better go somewhere else to commit mass murder". So we are probably in agreement on that point.

Would you care to discuss SSRIs (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=1&gs_ri=hp&gs_mss=SSRI%20sc&cp=11&gs_id=10&xhr=t&q=SSRI%20school%20shootings&pf=p&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&oq=SSRI+school&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.cGE&fp=a4c147812de756a9&bpcl=40096503&biw=1024&bih=555)?

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

What that one commenter said: "Ok, so post armed guards in every school, movie theatre, mall and grocery store. What's next? Armed guards in libraries, churches, bars and restaurants, office buildings, dry cleaners, gas stations, virtually every place normal people go on a daily basis? Is that really more effective than an assault weapons ban, heavy taxation on guns and ammo, federal registration and stricter gun prosecution?"

I would add to that, firearms licenses - just like drivers' licenses, with learners' permits issued at 16 after the passing of a written test, and a required safety class for those under 21; a hands-on safety test before getting a license, and provisional licenses with restrictions for those under 21. Medical restrictions, just like with drivers' licenses, such as 12 months free of psychiatric medication. Registration AND insurance required on all firearms, just like motor vehicles.

It ain't rocket science, sheesh - we do it for automobiles, because cars kill people even though that isn't the purpose for which they were designed; why would we not do it for firearms, which are designed to kill? Can you picture how it'd be if we had a National Racing Association always lobbying Congress to disallow 'car control', the same way the NRA does about gun control? Suppose 'car control' was disallowed, but the Highway Patrol was tripled; would that help?

Sure, the 'bad guys' will always get hold of guns illegally, the same way they'll always get hold of cars illegally. Does that mean that there's no point in making it less easy for them? If liability insurance was required on firearms, and the insurance rates were based on safety-and-security criteria, wouldn't there be a lot less theft, not to mention a lot fewer civilian citizens owning guns in the first place?

Yes, Adam Lanza murdered his own mother to obtain her guns. Why did this woman have all these weapons of war in her house in the first place? Why were they accessible to her emotionally-disturbed, psychoactively-drugged, violent-game-addicted young son? From the little information available about her, she sounds very much like the kind of person who ought never to have guns at all - unfortunately, a lot of those are the ones who most want to have them.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

....hmmmm.... I'm guessing that some may quibble with my saying that cars kill people, and the grounds that it's people who kill people really, and the cars are just accessories. Of course, it's a lot harder to accidentally crush a person dead in a split-second without a car, unless one falls on them from a great height. One might just as well say that falling objects don't kill people; gravity kills people.

[conuly]

Tangenting, we got notes home from the NYC DoE saying that they're reviewing security procedures in the wake of this tragedy. I feel like sending a note back saying that if they really are concerned about student safety they should encourage parents in places like Staten Island to either not drive their kids or, if they must, to obey basic traffic laws. There are many people driving around who, really, have no business behind the wheel of a car.

God, I'd like to see some decent enforcement of these various laws. Most of the ones people break are two, three points on the license and I looked it up. They'd be safe off the street, and with more respect for the rest of us.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Oh, for sure - parents don't even think that their own careless driving is far more likely to kill their kids than any school shooter

If it were up to me, I'd have all drivers re-take the written test every two years, and re-take the road test every four years. The law can change enough in two years that people need to brush up on it, and having to take a test would ensure that they did so. As for the road test, a person's driving ability can change a lot in four years, even if their eyesight doesn't change, but it might be impossible to tell that without actually driving with them.

Of course I'd want the same tests - the written every two years, practical test every four - for licensed owners and users of firearms. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, right? It wouldn't prevent all crime, but it would prevent some - particularly gun theft - and it would prevent a lot of accidents