Sorry Amy, but your premise is faulty.

Nobody thinks that tighter gun laws will "stop the violence."

The objective is to diminish it.

It's funny to listen to people say that because people in cities w/strict gun laws have to drive to neighboring areas to obtain guns there is more gun violence in that city.

Yet in many States/cities there are many shops selling guns and not as much violence. Guess if they moved the gun shops closer there would be less violence?

Or is it a people/gang problem.

(Hint: I grew up near areas where thugs stole their neighbor's SSI checks that came in the mail at that time and experienced much drug-related problems (many break-ins, gun crime, etc.) from nearby gov't housing.

I never had a problem w/anyone not doing drugs (alcohol, anger, PTSD, bikers, etc.) presumably because I was not in the bars, parties, gatherings where those people (and the neighborhood pirates) 'let their hair down' and got into trouble.)

https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/OEMS/Files_page/symposium/2010Presentations/LMGT-732.pdf

The narrative of the left is if we had more gun control and were welcoming to the Muslims we would have no terrorism or shootings. But France and California have strict gun control laws and are very welcoming to Muslims.

Main problems with gun control laws is, those who know the least about guns are the ones pushing laws. It's like people making driving laws who have never driven a car or been on a road, they only know the rhetoric.

Another problem with gun control laws is, guns are old, well known, and simple technology. Making meth is new, less well known and complicated in comparison. Yet Meth labs pop up.

The gun grabbers want to gut the 2nd amendment, and confiscate weapons. But they lack the testicular fortitude to come out and say that.

And that still won't stop a motivated bad guy from obtaining a firearm, as per your Paris example, or the earlier train shooting. I'm sure that a smuggler will cheerfully bring a firearm across the border for a fee.

Also, any person with a good grasp of chemistry can make an explosive or incendiary device. Maybe the smart people will advocate banning chemistry learning?

Another problem with gun control laws is, guns are old, well known, and simple technology.

Once they see people milling out their own firearms as push back, there will be a call to confiscate or severely license metal working equipment.

So, knowledge of chemistry or metal working will become forbidden, and allowed to a handful of duly authorized "priests".

You know, they told me that if I vote for Mitt Romney, we'd be taken back to the dark ages, and they were right!

gun control stops law-abiding people from having the means to defend themselves in such situations.

If they are law-abiding, and can pass background and safety/proficiency tests, then they can have one.

Why anyone would want someone to own a gun if they can't pass muster is beyond me. The idea of making it easy for a lunatic to buy a gun is baffling.

My theory is this- I respect the fact that the constitution protects our right to keep and bear arms. I am also aware, however, that I'm surrounded by idiots and assholes. People that I wouldn't trust my children with for a minute. People that have anger control issues. I don't want these people armed.

I also believe that "Gun control" as it is commonly applied is stupid. The guns are out there. They are always going to be available to those that want them. Most of the gun control legislation that is out there just makes it harder for people like your father to obtain weapons, and does little to curb random gun violence perpetrated by criminals who could care less about the illegality of their weapon, and almost nothing to curb non-random violence (like many of the mass shootings we have seen) perpetrated by determined people with outside support and black market access.

I don't think "caused based investigation" can be the best answer. I think this leads us further down the path towards a complete surveillance state, followed closely by a totalitarian state. Nor will this, as you stated, stop everything.

Something needs to be done, though, and the solution is obviously going to be complicated and imperfect. You start with smarter gun regulation. Ownership of a weapon that is capable of easily killing multiple people on a whim should come with onerous and mandatory stipulations and requirements. Exhaustive background checks done by security professionals (paid for by the potential gun owner), not just computerized. Any violent crime convictions? Denied. Anyone in your household convicted of a violent crime? Denied. Mandatory pre-ownership interviews. Limit the number of weapons a person can possess. Mandatory yearly registration, in person at a law-enforcement facility. Stiff penalties for not reporting lost or stolen weapons. Stiff penalties for lost or stolen weapons that were lost or stolen as a result of gross negligence. Harsher punishments for illegal possession. Downright draconian punishment for possession of firearms (legal or illegal) while committing a violent crime. Outlaw the resale of weapons. Limit the sale of ammunition to registered gun owners only. Pay people to turn in semi-auto weapons.

If we implemented this years ago, would all of the mass shootings been stopped? No. Would many of them? Yes. Sandy Hook might not have happened if the mother was barred from obtaining weapons because her psycho son would have had access to them. Virginia Tech might not have happened. Columbine. All "maybes" of course, but as a society we need to draw a line in the sand that represents the point at which we realize that we can't have all the nice toys we're used to.

Obviously, a lot of people are going to be butt-hurt about these solutions, as nothing should be allowed to be grandfathered in. My opinion, however, is that we should stop looking at gun ownership as a inherent right, but as a right coupled with a societal responsibility.

"If they are law-abiding, and can pass background and safety/proficiency tests, then they can have one."

Who makes the decision on what constitutes a "pass" on "background" and "safety/proficiency tests"?

And what other constitutional rights do you want to make subject to background checks?

To expand on Dwight Brown's point: There are a lot of things that people can do or have that are dangerous. Are we going to make everyone subject to yearly psych evaluation by the government? Of course, that would never lead to tyranny, would it? (Joe Stalin is laughing in his grave now.) Consider: By far the most effective methods of preventing recidivism is to subject convicted criminals to personality-altering psychiatric and drug treatments. They won't commit more crimes if you turn them into zombies. Who wants the government to have the power to do that? Not me.

Here's a challenge to you gun-grabbers: Act on your convictions and introduce a bill into Congress to repeal the Second Amendment. Until you do that, you're all fascists.

Logarific wrote:

"Ownership of a weapon that is capable of easily killing multiple people on a whim should come with onerous and mandatory stipulations and requirements. Exhaustive background checks done by security professionals (paid for by the potential gun owner), not just computerized. Any violent crime convictions? Denied. Anyone in your household convicted of a violent crime? Denied. Mandatory pre-ownership interviews. Limit the number of weapons a person can possess. Mandatory yearly registration, in person at a law-enforcement facility. Stiff penalties for not reporting lost or stolen weapons. Stiff penalties for lost or stolen weapons that were lost or stolen as a result of gross negligence."

Might this have "worked"? Maybe, maybe not. But let's assume (JFTSOA) that it would.

There are possibly 150 million firearms in the US that meet the description of 'capable of easily killing multiple people on a whim'. Of these, perhaps 10 or 20 a year are used for these kinds of horrible events. In a nation of 330 million people.

So what you're telling me is that you plan to apply these sorts of restrictions to 150 million people, repeatedly, in order to prevent 10 or 20 mis-uses a year?

This is insane, illiberal, undemocratic and tyrannical. Let me explain, by example, why this is.

Every year, 11,000 people a year in the US die as a result of alcohol-related traffic accidents. Figures from the CDC. Let's not quibble about exact definitions, let's just accept that it's right in that order. A national tragedy, and it's completely preventable.

You start with smarter alcohol regulation. Ownership of alcohol should come with onerous and mandatory stipulations and requirements. Exhaustive background checks done by security professionals (paid for by the potential alcohol buyer), not just computerized. Any driving convictions? Denied. Anyone in your household have a driving conviction? Denied. Mandatory pre-purchase interviews. Limit the amount of alcohol a person can possess. Mandatory yearly registration for a permit to purchase alcohol, in person at a law-enforcement facility. Stiff penalties for not reporting lost or stolen alcohol. Stiff penalties for lost or stolen alcohol that was lost or stolen as a result of gross negligence.

But it's not Prohibition - oh, no. It's just 'smarter alcohol regulation'.

Would you argue for such restrictions on alcohol, to be applied equally to all citizens?

What you describe is the effective banning of private ownership of firearms achieved by simply overwhelming law-abiding, non-violent citizens (who are 99.9999% of firearms owners) with a burden of regulation so onerous, intrusive and costly that it becomes impossible for most people to comply with. And your solution is (whether you intended it so or not) inherently hugely prejudiced against lower-income folks, who simply can't afford to pay for your security checks, or take days off work to go to your interviews. You are effectively proposing to make the lawful ownership of firearms possible only for the wealthy and leisured classes. And - since you banned the sale of existing arms - 99% of citizens will have little choice but to turn over their property to the state. It's simply confiscation by another name.

And, of course, your proposals will have precisely zero impact on crime, since criminals already acquire and possess firearms illegally and will continue to do so. Experiences all across Europe show that, despite laws and regulations at least as restrictive as what you describe, criminals and terrorists have no problem at all getting hold of all the guns they want. Just a few weeks ago, an illegal factory was busted in the UK that was making semi-automatic handguns from scratch for use by criminals.

Now, instead of your poorly-thought-through ideas, let's start with some facts.

Americans have never owned more firearms, both in gross numbers and per-head, than they do today. And the last 30 years have seen historic changes in the laws in most states, making it easier than it has ever been for law-abiding citizens to buy, possess and carry firearms. Prior attempts to ban 'assault weapons' have had precisely zero effect on crime committed with such weapons. And, for all that, the firearms homicide rate in the US has been steadily declining for the last 30 years, to the point where it is now 1/2 of what it was in 1985.

Correlation is not causation - I certainly wouldn't argue that this 'proves' that more guns always = less crime. But, by the same token, it also calls into serious question the basis of your proposal, which is that less guns always = less crime.

People who want to somehow wave a magic wand and 'remove' firearms from society by schemes such as this always overlook (or perhaps fail to understand) that firearms crime (like most other crime) is not a hardware problem, it's a people problem. If there were any other product (like, oh, I don't know, maybe alcohol?) which was used without issue by hundreds of millions of people, but which was also associated with a number of deaths of innocent citizens at the hands of criminals, nobody in their right mind would suggest regulating that product away from the hundreds of millions of people who use it without problems. This would rightly be seen as irrational tyranny. But there's something about firearms which makes logical people lose their minds and blithely suggest 'solutions' which, for any other product, they would reject out of hand.

llater,

llamas

No one has been able to explain to me how keeping ME from owning guns is going to make ME safer... because it's not.

I don't want these people armed. ~ Posted by: logarific at December 3, 2015 9:13 AM

You mean you don't want them armed with guns. They can be "armed" by simply picking up a length of pipe or a kitchen knife.

(paid for by the potential gun owner) ~ Posted by: logarific at December 3, 2015 9:13 AM

So, poor people don't need to defend themselves? Or enjoy hunting?

...capable of easily killing multiple people on a whim.... ~ Posted by: logarific at December 3, 2015 9:13 AM

No firearm is "capable of easily killing multiple people on a whim." Firearms don't have whims.

And any firearm can kill multiple people. Even a flintlock musket can be reloaded and fired multiple times. The British Land Pattern Musket (the "Brown Bess") could be fired 3-4 times per minute by an experienced user.

If we implemented this years ago, would all of the mass shootings been stopped? No. Would many of them? Yes. ~ Posted by: logarific at December 3, 2015 9:13 AM

Supposition unsupported by evidence. Just because it was fairly easy for those shooters to acquire weapons under current law does not mean it would have been impossible for them to acquire weapons under the theorized law.

My opinion, however, is that we should stop looking at gun ownership as a inherent right, but as a right coupled with a societal responsibility. ~ Posted by: logarific at December 3, 2015 9:13 AM

All the gun owners I know view gun ownership as a responsibility as well as a right. I think you'll find most do.

In Colonial America gun ownership was required by British law - as individual colonists were considered a part of the militia. A "well-regulated" militia in those days meant one familiar with its weapons and able to use them proficiently when called upon to defend crown property.

Our founding fathers expanded on that idea and enabled gun ownership by the citizenry to act as a check against government over-reach and tyranny.

But it's not Prohibition - oh, no. It's just 'smarter alcohol regulation'.

Along those lines, we should also have "smarter free speech regulation". Makes sense, if my words can drive someone to violence. Right?

Of course, the yearly stats on how many murders are committed by long guns is pretty illuminating. About 350 each by rifles or shotguns, or about 700 total.

Sadly, more people are murdered by blunt force trauma from fists and feet. That's about 800. So, maybe we ought to have "smarter feet and fist regulation"?

Turk: "The idea of making it easy for a lunatic to buy a gun is baffling."

Agreed; but, the idea that anyone thinks gun control laws don't hurt law-abiding citizens is baffling.

Do you even read the news, Turk?

It is rare that you read about a criminal being prosecuted for breaking a gun law; no, they are prosecuted for the actual crimes they have committed.

In the news, it is always an otherwise law-abiding citizen running into some gun law that they have inadvertently, without harmful intent, broken. Just how does that make our society safer?

As for keeping guns (and other weapons) away from lunatics; how about keeping lunatics away from the public?

The terrorists used guns that were purchased outside of France - likley in Slovakia which legally sells guns to foriegners. There is also a stronghold of underground illegal weapons dealers in the Balkans following the unrest in the 90's.

llamas,

I love it when people trot out alcohol as some sort of equivalent to firearms. One is a weapon, one is a beverage. One can lower inhibitions and impair physical abilities and judgement, the other is a tool that's purpose is to harm whatever is on the other end of the barrel. The prime difference between the two things is that you can't use alcohol to kill a couple dozen schoolkids and teachers. You can just make them wet.

Yet, experience and common sense has driven society to regulate the production, distribution and consumption of alcohol. Despite your intention of appealing to my inner alcoholic, you can surely agree that such regulations have proven to be necessary and somewhat effective. After all, you don't think drinking and driving should be allowed? You don't think that repeat offenders should be allowed a license to drive, do you? Maybe selling alcohol to a super trustworthy 12 year old is ok with you, llamas. You see my point. Regulation of alcohol is required by a civilized society.

So too is the regulation of the manufacture, distribution and ownership of firearms. Again, we can agree that regulation is needed to a certain degree. Certain people should not be allowed to own or possess a firearm. Certain firearms are inherently too dangerous to allow any joe blow to keep in his trunk- a fully automatic Uzi for instance.

The question, then, is not a matter of DO you regulate, but HOW and to what extent. This is what we are debating. Making silly equivalencies and lumping firearms with "any other product" gets in the way of real debate and real progress.

"Correlation is not causation - I certainly wouldn't argue that this 'proves' that more guns always = less crime. But, by the same token, it also calls into serious question the basis of your proposal, which is that less guns always = less crime."

If you wouldn't try to argue more guns = less crime, why do you try to argue it? Just curious. And I don't recall ever stating less = less. But maybe (just maybe), less guns = less gun violence. I'd rather see if that's the case than the opposite- everyone having a sidearm. As I said- I'm surrounded by assholes.

Also, arguing that more gun regulation would be somehow discriminatory to people with lower income is absolutely fantastic. A permit is required to go fishing in my state. Some people can't afford the fee. Is that discriminatory? There's been times in my life that I couldn't afford to re-register my car. Was I discriminated against? I should contact the ACLU. I wonder what else you would that argument for?

Also also, note that I never said terrorist attacks like yesterday, Paris, etc. would be prevented by stricter gun control. The firearms are out there to be obtained no matter what, and terrorists will get them where they want the to be. When I see things like yesterday and the planned parenthood shooting, I blame ideologies (religious in these cases), not firearms. I am saying, however, that certain instances that I believe are becoming more commonplace as our society moves forward (the Columbines/VT/Sandy Hooks) can be made more difficult to achieve if firearms were not as easy to obtain. The events yesterday (wrongly) sparked the debate again, and I figured to jump in.

When was the last time you used alcohol to defend yourself?

logarific - I love it when people trot out sematic arguments to try and avoid the point.

Alcohol and firearms are entirely equivalent for the purposes of this comparison. They are both things. Just things. Both are used by countless millions of people, every day, in entirely harmless ways that have no negative consequences at all. Both are also used - very infrequently, in proportion to their overall use - in ways which cause thousands of deaths and injuries of innocent people. The negative uses of both products are entirely voluntary - nobody forces a person to shoot another person, it is a choice, freely made. Nobody forces anyone to get drunk and then drive down the road and wipe out a minivan full of children, it is a choice, freely made. For the purposes of this comparison, in nature and effect, the two things are identical.

You wrote:

'The prime difference between the two things is that you can't use alcohol to kill a couple dozen schoolkids and teachers.'

Well, 11,000 people a year in the US would beg to differ, since they were killed by people who used alcohol and then killed them as a direct result of that use. Is it somehow not-so-bad if the deaths only occur one or two at a time?

One point you miss (or deliberately hide) in your comparison of the regulation of alcohol vs the regulation of firearms is that virtually-all of your restrictions of alcohol use are based upon prior bad acts. No, repeat DUI offenders should not have a driver's license. But your proposal for firearms regulation involves placing huge, onerous and costly regulatory burdens on citizens who have never done a wrong thing in their lives, and never will. A good comparison would be a requirement that a person report to the police station and take a breathalyzer - at their own expense - before being allowed to drive - just in case.

Of course there should be regulation of firearms ownership. There already is. But that regulation should have the goal of preventing crime with the least infringement possible on the liberties of citizens. Your proposal, as I laid out, is little more than mass confiscation under another name.

You wrote:

' . . .arguing that more gun regulation would be somehow discriminatory to people with lower income is absolutely fantastic. '

Fantastic - maybe. But also true. Yes, state fees for fishing licenses and auto registration also discriminate against people with lower incomes. Guess what? I'm against those fees, too.

I'm glad you at least recognize that the proposal you put forth would not (it would seem, don't yet know all the facts, etc, etc) have been effective in preventing yesterday's events. Would that you would realize that it would not have prevented most other events of the kind you describe (Columbine / VT / Sandy Hook etc). You make the classic 'post hoc' error of assuming that, if a person went on a murderous rampage with a firearm, that somehow, it was the presence of the firearm that caused the murderous rampage, and if only he had not been 'able to get hold of it so easily', there would have been no massacre. This belies the fact that most events of this type involves a fair amount of prior planning. You should take the time and Google the details of the worst school massacre ever to occur in the US, which involved not a single firearm of any type whatever. The deranged and defective people who do these things, want to do these things - the means matter little. If you ban the bad, nasty firearms that you have assigned some sort of totemic power to cause massacres, massacres will go right on happening - only the means will change. Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 people using farm chemicals and diesel fuel. The problem is not things - the problem is people.

llater,

llamas

Conan-
You're coming awfully close to the old "guns don't kill people" thing. Come on now. Sure, a nuke doesn't have whims, but we sure as shit should be concerned with who has one, and what their whims are. Splitting grammatical hairs might be your thing, but it's not mine.

I'm not nifty with commenting, so pardon the following copy and paste jobs:

you say "You mean you don't want them armed with guns. They can be "armed" by simply picking up a length of pipe or a kitchen knife."
Absolutely true. If you can't see the difference between a gun and some pipe or a kitchen knife, I don't know what I can do with you. Hard to accidentally kill someone with a pipe or a knife. Also, harder to purposefully kill a room full of innocents with a pipe or a knife. Threats can't be totally eliminated, but they can be prioritized and mitigated.

you say "Supposition unsupported by evidence. Just because it was fairly easy for those shooters to acquire weapons under current law does not mean it would have been impossible for them to acquire weapons under the theorized law."

Also absolutely true. Also not relevant. If I was in a court of law, I might be forced to change my "yes" to a "maybe". We will never know how many (or any at all) Sandy Hooks (for example) have been prevented by the current regulations. We will never be able to prove that additional regulations prevented another Sandy Hook. All you can do is recognize that a)a problem exists that current regulations do not satisfactorily prevent, and b)certain steps can be taken to better control the problem.

Do you think mass murder is a not a problem? Do you not see that while violent crime a a whole has gone down substantially, this TYPE of violent crime has only increased? I'm open to solutions, if you're willing to offer.

The terrorists used guns that were purchased outside of France - likley in Slovakia which legally sells guns to foriegners.

Guns are gettable.

And if somebody can't get guns, they can blow a bunch of people up with a recipe from The Anarchist's Cookbook - or Uncle Google.

The alcohol restriction comparison was perfect.

Sure, a nuke doesn't have whims, but we sure as shit should be concerned with who has one, and what their whims are. Splitting grammatical hairs might be your thing, but it's not mine

Well technically given the demographics all we really have to do is outlaw gun ownership to people who are not white

Pretty soon, we'll be talking about common sense two-liter control because used Pepsi bottles can hold gasoline.
We can thank whatever or whomever we usually thank that nobody in the San Bernardino Center, Sandy Hook school, VaTech, was armed or something unfortunate might have happened.
The VaTech guy was so many bubbles off the level that he radiated such menace that some women simply didn't go to class. But, iirc, he'd never been in the mental health system. No reason he shouldn't have had a gun legally, and no reason to think he wasn't sharp enough to get one illegally. Take that last to the bank as regards future shooters. Either we need bigger Gun Free Zone signs, or we allow legal carriers to carry wherever they wish.

llamas- we're using a lot of words to come around to the same point. Regulation is needed, both of alcohol and of firearms. Despite all of the "things are just things" stuff, we still end up there, don't we. No need to convince me that guns are, for the purposes of regulation, the equivalent of any other thing. Thankfully rational people know that this is not the case, and regulate certain things more than others!

You say: "You make the classic 'post hoc' error of assuming that, if a person went on a murderous rampage with a firearm, that somehow, it was the presence of the firearm that caused the murderous rampage..."

I made no such assumption or statement. Where did you get this from? The presence of firearms do not CAUSE these massacres. They make them possible. See the difference?

And if somebody can't get guns, they can blow a bunch of people up with a recipe from The Anarchist's Cookbook

Having actually looked at a copy of the AC, I can say please by all means use the AC to create your device.

The formulations will work, but for the most part unless you know what your doing the results will be more dangerous to the cook than to the intended victim.

And if you know what you're doing, you don't need the AC and you'll cook something that's relatively safe to handle and will work on the intended victim(s).

I've obviously take the role of liberal gun control pussy for the purposes of this conversation, but believe me when I say that is not how I see myself at all. I voted for Ron Paul for crissakes.

I'll stand behind my suggestions for gun control in my previous post, but recognize that I'm not writing legislation here, and I wouldn't expect some of those things to be implemented.

Actually, the #1 thing that I think would help the Sandy Hooks, VT's, Columbines etc. is armed PROFESSIONALS on-site, vigilant. Plenty of qualified vets out there. Mandate security lockdown technology and security monitoring on all primary and secondary schools. Fund it by taking 1% of the federal defense budget or whatever. Couple that with increased funding for mental health care (free of charge) and outreach.

logarific
Obvious guards go down first. That's why open carry isn't such a good idea.
In most states, CCL, CHL, whatever, licensing requires a substantial class on the tactics of self-defense. Such as, if you hear angry voices, go the other way since it's not your business and inserting yourself into it and having to shoot somebody is going to get you prosecuted.
And how to shoot. And the legal issues.
You need to keep current at the range on your own dime.
They're probably good enough.
I'm a vet. Qualified with every weapon in the rifle battalion except the heavy mortar. I'd still need to go through licensing and background check.
In addition to those of the staff who are licensed, there are always vendors (for the pop machine, so forth) parents, so forth. If they're licensed, having to leave their weapon in their vehicle, parked off the school property, isn't such a hot idea.
Problem with mental health care is that it's not like fixing a broken ankle. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. See Lanza, Holmes, Loughner. And some of the guys who need it bad won't show up. Free or not.

The problem with helping the mentally ill, is they have no insight. They do not think they are mentally ill and don't think they need help. That's part of the illness. Even people forcibly locked into mental hospitals by the court, have the right to refuse medication. Courts can order meds under some circumstances, but then once they're released they go right off them. Unless you're going to incarcerate them for good (I'm not really against that, asylums can be good places for some people, deinstitutionalizing a fair percentage of the mentally ill simply didn't work) or have someone follow them 24/7, or come up with, say, injectable meds that can last a year, then we're really limited with what can be done. I'm all for going back to the asylum model, and family being able to-with proof through a court-get relatives committed. Some people simply aren't safe to live free.

Mental health needs massive overhauling. It won't happen. Hell, progressives don't even like locking murderers away from society, they'll never allow for the mentally ill to be "locked up", even though many are happier/healthier/better cared for when they are.

We had "Black Codes" to keep those damn "freed" blacks from owning guns so what's to stop a gun "Hater" from making it impossible to own a gun (you know by requiring a gun safety course but not allowing one in the area via zoning).

Or better yet, only those approved Billie Bob Sheriff can get a license.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/gun-control-was-historically-about-represssing-blacks.html

Perhaps the shrink/crat interviewing you figures that your desire to have a gun means you're nuts and shouldn't be allowed to have one.
Going around with a relation whose son had terrible mental health issues and eventually killed himself in jail. She figures that her son had a right to mental health. Problem was, he figured everybody else was crazy. She's just about right there with forcible treatment for people who might be sicker if left untreated, against the individual's wishes. I can see her position, given her son's history. Still, it's scary that a 'crat who's behind on his numbers for the month gets to tell who's nuts.

"Mandate security lockdown technology and security monitoring on all primary and secondary schools."

Wow. A national lockdown and armed guards everywhere is the solution of "logarific"? This solution is tailor-made for the snowflakes at school today, unable to cope with anything, including free speech. Sounds like the handle was picked to convey unearned credit for wisdom, to wit:

"My opinion, however, is that we should stop looking at gun ownership as a inherent right, but as a right coupled with a societal responsibility."

This is so unbelievably specious I can't believe someone offered it seriously. Firearms possession is already a right attended by responsibility, in that there are penalties galore for anyone who uses one improperly!

-----

Meanwhile, today, someone else named Achmed has plans to kill a few folk in a gun-free zone, where he will be guaranteed easy shooting of fat, slothful Americans.

Where's the answer to that one? Why, it's being uttered by dozens of sheriffs nationwide: "Got a permit? Carry your piece, because the police cannot protect you."

The emphasis is mine, because it's true, and it always has been true. Situations like that in San Berdoo, just proved it again. And you are not disarming the crooks and killers first. Maybe that ought to be printed out somewhere where it is easy to see.

If you can't see the difference between a gun and some pipe or a kitchen knife, I don't know what I can do with you. Hard to accidentally kill someone with a pipe or a knife. Also, harder to purposefully kill a room full of innocents with a pipe or a knife.

It's actually not really harder to hurt, maim, or kill a room full of innocents with a knife.

Mass knifings are more common in Asia than in the US.

In 2013, 14 people were injured in a knife attack at Lone Star College's Cy-Fair campus.

According to the Houston Chronicle:

In 2008, a man killed seven people and wounded at least a dozen others during a mass stabbing in a crowded Tokyo shopping center.

...Chuck Joyner, a retired FBI agent who specializes in issues involving the use of force. He said a stabbing rampage can involve a large number of victims. Shootings involve gunfire, often loud enough to alert other potential victims to a threat, Joyner said. But because there is little to indicate danger during a stabbing in public places, potential victims may not even know the attack is occurring right away. "They are not going to readily know how to react to that," Joyner suggested. He noted that it could take several moments for someone to piece together that a stabbing is occurring and by that time, the suspect could have attacked even more victims. "In a sense, that could be more lethal," he said.

I guess "armed" can cover a whole lot of dangerous weapons, not just guns.

And, logarific, if you think people can't be hurt in a mass attack with a knife, I don't know what I can do with you. Oh, and bite me, you condescending prick.

Do you not see that while violent crime a a whole has gone down substantially, this TYPE of violent crime has only increased? I'm open to solutions, if you're willing to offer. ~ Posted by: logarific at December 3, 2015 12:59 PM

And on what un-cited statistics do you base that assumption?

According to the Washington Post:

This decline in gun violence is part of an overall decline in violent crime. According to the FBI's data, the national rate of violent crime has decreased 49 percent since its apex in 1991.

In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 — a total of 11,208 firearm homicides. The number of victims of crimes involving guns that did not result in death (such as robberies) declined even more precipitously, from 725 per 100,000 people in 1993 to 175 in 2013.

Firearms do remain weapon of choice in homicides, with 70 percent of murders involving guns. No idea how much of that is gang violence (i.e., shootouts) and how much is premeditated murder.

And other factors may be in play in the decline in gun deaths as well, including advances in medical treatments that keep gunshot victims alive. However, the decline in gun crimes includes those that did not result in death, so things like medical advances don't explain everything.

While mass shootings may be on the rise, Forbes points out that "researchers say that with mass murderers, there are typically red flags in hindsight, which could have been identified through comprehensive screening and led to early interventions." Mental illness is a major factor in mass shootings. Perhaps if gun control advocates would apply their zeal about banning guns toward helping to develop a comprehensive program to identify and intervene with potential shooters they'd actually do more to prevent mass shootings.

The massive publicity doesn't help either. “Treating mass killings as a kind of epidemic or contagion largely frees us from having to understand the particular causes of each act,” Ari Schulman writes at the Wall Street Journal. “Instead, we can focus on disrupting the spread.”

But, logarific, you keep focusing like Johnny One-Note on guns as the absolute and only cause of the problem. 'cause, you know, guns.

Discussing gun control is useless.

EVERYONE agrees the First Amendment is sacred, right?

So why are the campus administrators even coddling their snowflakes?

If the First is open to discussion I will not tolerate any change to the Second. I know how and have written regs/rules to accomplish and prevent specific actions. It's very very easy.

Kitchen knives are the flavor of the day in Israel. Fortunately, many Israelis are armed or the death rate would be higher.
Pretty much any of the heavier garden tools would be useful for mass killing of any group except adult men.
A crowbar,for example.
It's not a tool problem. It's a people problem. Thing is, fixing people is hard so we pretend that the easier issue--guns--is the most important. It would be unfortunate to have to think that the most important issue is that issue we cannot control. Nobody wants to think of themselves as not having some control over circumstances.

Conan:
"Oh, and bite me, you condescending prick."

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but... They are unlikely to hurt very many other people in the area because they can simply run away instead of ducking for cover followed by getting shot in the back.

you say: "And on what un-cited statistics do you base that assumption?"

Try this: https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

It's not hard to find stats to back up almost any position. Recall that I'm talking about a specific kind of gun violence, not gun violence in general. Mass shootings- Sandy Hook, VT, Columbine ad nauseam. You even agreed to this in your next point. This type of mass murder is becoming more and more common, shockingly despite skyrocketing gun ownership.

you say: "Perhaps if gun control advocates would apply their zeal about banning guns toward helping to develop a comprehensive program to identify and intervene with potential shooters they'd actually do more to prevent mass shootings."

100% true, and it applies both ways. If gun control opponents advocated for more strenuous ownership screenings (as I outlined yesterday), maybe we can keep firearms out of the hands of potential shooters. But you can't, can you? That would be another step towards disarmament.

you say "It's actually not really harder to hurt, maim, or kill a room full of innocents with a knife."

That's great!!! Then you wouldn't be opposed to banning CCP's in favor of just carrying a knife for protection. Nearly as effective, after all.

Do you know why we don't see as many mass knife attacks in the USA as they apparently have in Asia? Despite the universal availability of knives here? Because firearms are vastly more effective.

Thank you for the lively debate, Conan.

About, "something needs to be done": the primary obstacles to the actual solution are twofold.

One, the public wants desperately to be cared for by "someone else". This need is even inherent in their language, which seeks to displace blame from people to things at every opportunity.
Two, public officials owe their very livelihood to the idea that this public must be cared for in every way.

This has led to the absurdity of a peace-sign-wearing Birkenstock fan, frantic that Ann Coulter might be on the school grounds, calling for a civilian SWAT team to kill a thug with automatic weapons - if only someone else pays their (minimum) wage.

Times like this, it's a good time to quote Uncle Jeff.

Radwaste:

you say "Wow. A national lockdown and armed guards everywhere is the solution of "logarific"? This solution is tailor-made for the snowflakes at school today, unable to cope with anything, including free speech..."

Yes, the precious "snowflakes" at Sandy Hook were obviously coddled and unable to cope. If only those 8 year olds had been weapons trained! I can't tell if you're an actual monster, or just an asshole pretending to be a monster.

Do you even know what I'm talking about? Primary and secondary education = elementary and high schools. When I say "mandatory lockdown technology", I'm referring to technology that enables teachers and admins to secure their classrooms from outside intrusion. Preferably at the touch of a button. If you oppose this because you believe that the snowflakes shouldn't be allowed that protection, I welcome you to state your case.

"That's great!!! Then you wouldn't be opposed to banning CCP's in favor of just carrying a knife for protection. Nearly as effective, after all."

Another expression of such complete naiveté as to beg the question: Why is this man advancing this argument?

Earnest young fellow, the knife is NOT an effective defensive weapon because it requires contact with the aggressor.

If you had even read the cover on any serious manual on fighting with knives - or, more effectively, spoken to someone trained in the subject - you would know that.

Or perhaps you do - but that doesn't advance your purpose.

(For the audience: often, the winner of a knife fight is seriously injured.)

I feel abject pity for those family members of yours who might be influenced by your absence of reasoning. Smaller, lighter and less aggressive than the typical thug, like other Americans, they will be persuaded to be ideal victims: confused about the real work of self-defense and lacking any tools.

The man advances an absurd argument to highlight the absurdity of stating that a knife is as an effective weapon as a semi-auto in a mass murder. Unless you are a trained knife-fighter evidently. I'll just educate myself by talking to a trained knife fighter. I can't throw a rock around my office without hitting one!

That's great!!! Then you wouldn't be opposed to banning CCP's in favor of just carrying a knife for protection. Nearly as effective, after all. ~ Posted by: logarific at December 4, 2015 7:42 AM

As radwaste stated, the knife, as a defensive weapon requires proximity (actually, contact). As an offensive weapon for a mass attack, per FBI agent Chuck Joyner (quoted earlier), it is silent and, due to its silence, can afford the attacker more time in a crowded environment.

"Nearly as effective," is not "just as effective." Requiring proximity, knives are effective mass killing weapons only in a crowded environment.

Guns are also preferred because they generate publicity. Media coverage and beating someone else's body count are often goals of mass killers.

The Newton, CT killer wanted to outdo the Norwegian killer's record-making mark of 77 dead. He chose a school because it would be easy to achieve a high body count among an unarmed population.

"These killers might well be mentally ill, but many of them are also calculating and highly logical. Though many plan to die in the attacks (75 percent of mass shootings end with the shooter’s death), they typically feel unappreciated and want to be remembered by others. They use mass killing to force people to notice their existence."

"A perfect example is the Virginia Tech killer, who compared himself to the Columbine killers. He hoped that if he could massacre more people than they had, he could achieve even more media coverage."

==============================

If gun control opponents advocated for more strenuous ownership screenings (as I outlined yesterday), maybe we can keep firearms out of the hands of potential shooters. But you can't, can you? That would be another step towards disarmament. ~ Posted by: logarific at December 4, 2015 7:42 AM

Disarmament is the stated goal of several gun control advocate groups, so yes, 2nd Amendment advocates are very wary of calls for "more strenuous screenings." "First they came for..." slippery slopes and all.

The solution to curbing mass shootings lies in the people, not in the tools. We need to stop giving them publicity and do a better job for the mentally ill (mental illness is cited in almost all mass shootings).

As I've posted many times, we've turned the mental illness problem over to the police and then wonder why the police shoot or arrest so many mentally ill people. They're not equipped or trained as social workers.

Adding layers of bureaucratic red tape to gun purchases doesn't identity the potential shooters as much as discourage casual purchasers. Most statistics show that household gun ownership is down, but gun ownership is up, meaning that people who own guns are buying more of them.

Besides, in this country, you're not guilty until you've actually shot someone (innocent until proven guilty and all). So, identifying a potential shooters means nothing unless you can show that they're now an active danger to the public. And even then, under out current system, we don't have the resources to do much more than have the police watch them 24/7 (which violates a Constitutional amendment or two) or arrest them for a minor infraction and watch them walk free in less than an hour - all of this ties up police resources that could be used to prevent or investigate real crimes.

Or we could implement some version of stop-and-frisk to allow the police to identify and investigate people acting suspiciously. However, do that and you end up with Al Sharpton calling you racist and comparing you to the Nazis.

So, the precious snowflakes, unwilling to face the truth, convince themselves that banning guns will prevent mass shootings. It won't. This will require a real debate (not pontifications in the media and on Web sites) about civil liberties vs. security and require both sides to recognize the other side's concerns as real and to lay off the mocking and condescension (in other words, stop reflexively calling the NRA evil). And, yes, gun ownership, is a civil liberty.

"Also, harder to purposefully kill a room full of innocents with a pipe or a knife."

"China suffered one of its deadliest ever acts of terror, according to authorities, when more than 10 knife-wielding men killed at least 29 people and injured over 130 in a brutal assault at a train station in southwest China's Kunming city Saturday night."

"I can't tell if you're an actual monster, or just an asshole pretending to be a monster."

Your pretense at outrage just illustrates that you have no history on this blog - again raising the question as to your purpose.

You had no idea that gun possession is a right conferring responsibilities, you had no idea that contact with an aggressor is the #1 thing to avoid in defensive action... and your reaction to recent events is to lock others away. Make the law-abiding do things due to criminal action? Check!

Are you ignorant, a Democrat, or am I being redundant?

I am properly offended that no one seems to realize the public has bought into the idea of fear. Where I once went to band practice at my high school - near Kennedy Space Center, not in Redneckistan - with a shotgun in the back window of my truck, I would be the object of SWAT action for talking about it today.

The man advances an absurd argument to highlight the absurdity of stating that a knife is as an effective weapon as a semi-auto in a mass murder. Unless you are a trained knife-fighter evidently. I can't throw a rock around my office without hitting one! ~ Posted by: logarific at December 4, 2015 8:31 AM

"The man" advancing that point is a retired FBI agent and a specialist in the use of force. And he didn't say "as effective, " he said "In a sense, that could be more lethal" referring to the fact that a knife is silent and does not alert potential victims the way a gun does. And, I've been careful to limit my arguments about the efficacy of the knife as a weapon of mass murder to "crowded environments" (as has "the man").

So, go ahead and throw a rock around your office. Just don't kill anyone with it. I'd hate to see you inadvertently rebut your own argument.

Knives, axes, crowbars, hammers, all are what might be called "dual use technologies". They are, however, invisible in the sense that nobody knows who has them and if authority does know, you have a legitimate use for it, like a pressure cooker.
In a crowded situation, other than with a group of adult men, you could do a hell of a lot of damage before you got tired.
Thing is, more and more women are carrying.

Radwaste-
you say "Your pretense at outrage just illustrates that you have no history on this blog - again raising the question as to your purpose."

True, I don't have any context by which to judge your comments as serious or not based on your history on this site. If that's your way to back out of your statement, good on you. As to your questioning my purpose... I'm the director of the National Combat Knife Association. It's my job to convince people that firearms are bad, knives are good. Caught me.

I'm the director of the National Combat Knife Association. It's my job to convince people that firearms are bad, knives are good. Caught me. ~ Posted by: logarific at December 4, 2015 12:47 PM

Firearms aren't necessarily bad and knives good - as if it were a zero-sum game - they're different tools for different jobs. Advocating for one does not rule out the other as a useful tool to have on you.

If you're depending upon either one for self-defense, a decent level of training would be invaluable.

"National Combat Knife Association"

Did not come up in Google. Most groups have some sort of web site.

Most groups have some sort of web site. ~ Posted by: Bob in Texas at December 4, 2015 4:16 PM

Maybe NRA hackers took it down - since it's his job to convince people that "firearms are bad, knives are good."

" . . . firearms are bad, knives are good"

Yea, that firearm did a real messy job at cutting up the banana that I wanted on my morning cereal.

Remember the Mohammaed cartoon event in Texas? Too bad this place in San Berdoo didn't have armed guards.

"I'm the director of the National Combat Knife Association. It's my job to convince people that firearms are bad, knives are good. Caught me."

Yep. Troll.

Meanwhile...

Don't miss the references.

For what it's worth, this reminds me of how, once hospital security measures tightened up big-time to stop newborn babies from being kidnapped*, attacks, kidnappings and murders at the homes of newborns (or pregnant women) went way up. The pregnant Bronx murder victim Angelikque Sutton was the latest I heard of and she was on the cover of the New York Daily News:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=Angelikque+Sutton&oq=Angelikque+Sutton&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i53.1694.1694.0.1989.1.1.0.0.0.0.111.111.0j1.1.0...0.0...1ac.1.jVQqRAZgevk&gws_rd=ssl

Get this - her murderer was her childhood friend! From what I hear, it's pretty unusual for a friend to commit THAT type of murder.

The search also turned up a long article in the Guardian about "fetal abductions."

*And yet, somehow, IIRC, it's now typically an OUTSIDER who manages to get a baby all the way out of the hospital parking lot, not a nurse as it sometimes used to be.

I'm not a troll, Radwaste. Just a guy with a sense of humor who enjoys blogs written by smart, busty redheads.

Three people stabbed in London tube station. Use of a gun and just one more person injured and it would have qualified as a mass shooting.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2015/12/06/three-stabbed-in-terrorist-incident-in-london-tube-station-n2089536

Good thing knives are not effective weapons for mass attacks.

Yes, good thing. Someone might have died, otherwise.

Yes, good thing. Someone might have died, otherwise. ~ Posted by: logarific at December 7, 2015 12:29 PM

As if knives cannot kill.

All it takes for an incident to be called a "mass shooting" is for 4 or more people to be wounded or killed. So, anti-gun activists include gang shootings, police shootouts, and other acts of violence in their counts as "mass shootings," further misleading the public. That's how they turned 4 mass shootings into 355.

There is no naming standard for mass stabbings, so the anti-gun crowd can claim there were none on a comparable scale and pretend guns are the only viable weapons for mass violence.