Althouse: "What is the gun community going to do about this tragedy?"

December 17, 2012

"What is the gun community going to do about this tragedy?"

"I dunno. What is the gay community going to do about Penn State?”

305 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 305 of 305

Chip S. said...: Just a member of the Gun Community (however that is defined)

Which is precisely the point that makes this thread such a South Park episode (or, perhaps, a Marx Brothers routine). The meaning of either term is sufficiently elastic as to allow for a wide (or narrow) interpretation.

Everybody's looking for deep meaning where there isn't any. The perceived rhetorical value of using the "gay community" as an analogue to the "gun community" was probably nothing more than the common hard-g monosyllabic first word.

OTOH, South Park is great fun.; 12/17/12, 10:00 PM
bagoh20 said...: "He liked POWER over little BOYS."

So you were close with Sandusky? He explained this to you? Did he ask you to shave?; 12/17/12, 10:03 PM
hombre said...: Palladian wrote: "There is no evidence that Sandusky evinced any attraction to or interest in sexually developed men. That's not homosexuality, that's pedophilia."

Really? Did he molest girls too? Were his male victims prepubescent? If not, you are drawing a line that doesn't exist.; 12/17/12, 10:04 PM
Matt said...: One of Sandusky's victims said that the abuse started when he was 13 and lasted three years. How old does he have to be before he is no longer considered a child? He likely was well into puberty.

This is beside the fact that all his victims were male. In my book, voluntarily having sexual relations with members of the same sex makes one gay. (Or bisexual, if it is both sexes.)

Explain where I am wrong on this.; 12/17/12, 10:09 PM
Mark said...: To be clear: Sandusky had a ton of power and prestige just in being the defensive genius of PSU football. What he wanted in addition was a kind of sex.

The PC formula is that rape is about power. Bullshit. Rape is about a sick kind of sex that involves power and other things that we just won't ever get.; 12/17/12, 10:10 PM
bagoh20 said...: If you think the murderer was displaying regular gun ownership behavior, you're revealing an awful lot about yourself, and it's not pretty nor intelligent.

Or surprising.; 12/17/12, 10:10 PM
Unknown said...: Bagoh nails it.; 12/17/12, 10:14 PM
bagoh20 said...: ""He liked POWER over little BOYS."

The murderer had that defect too, but wasn't particular about the male or female.; 12/17/12, 10:17 PM
bagoh20 said...: "Funny how some folk can't handle that, getting called on their own words and way of thinking";

I know, huh?; 12/17/12, 10:20 PM
bagoh20 said...: Peace, out ~~~~~~~; 12/17/12, 10:21 PM
dvlfish13 said...: "I score excellent myself on the standardized tests"

Well, there you have it.

Incidentally, and I apologize if someone's already brought this up, but I can't help think of the William Burroughs quip:
"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it."
Given that Burroughs was a member of the gay community, a member of the gun community, a pederast and (possibly) a murderer, I figured that his input might be somehow helpful.; 12/17/12, 10:22 PM
Dan said...: "The reason the gun community has to answer for this tragedy is that the policies they advocate are coming under attack and they have to decide whether and how to defend them."

That's so dumb it crosses the line into offensive. I'll defend the policies I advocate just as soon as you show me a) that none of those policies were broken in a mass shooting b) why those policies should be under attack in the first place, when the policies I advocate are explicitly enshrined in the constitution, UNLIKE policies like abortion on demand, or affirmative action, or any of 100 other leftist touchstones that they claim are "constitutional rights".

One policy I personally favor would have cut this tragedy short far sooner than actually happened: all, and I mean ALL, school personnel should have a firearm close enough to get to within 15-30 seconds while on duty. Further, licensed concealed carriers should be encouraged to carry on campus. Have you noticed that virtually ALL of the high-profile mass shootings in recent years have come in "gun-free zones"? And that a disproportionate number of them happen in states and localities with tighter-than-average anti-gun laws?; 12/17/12, 10:33 PM
William said...: Gun control first became a hot button issue after the JFK assasination. With a clever bit of jujitsu, Oswald's pathology became not representative of the pro Casto left but of America's gun culture. Ditto with Sirhan Sirhan. He was not presented as a Palestinian nationalist, but as a sicko with access to guns. America's fault......Over the past two hundred years, the left has routinely managed to get their spin accepted as the official history. I don't think this case will be the exception.; 12/17/12, 10:54 PM
William said...: It is said that the war on drugs, like Prohibition before it, has failed because people want drugs. The people who want guns want them just as badly as the people who want drugs want drugs. Guns are here to stay. The left should be encouraging responsible ownership and, perhaps, limitation on the rate of fire but not confiscation....I do agree with the left on this: more guns equal greater chances of them falling into the hands of miscreants. On the other hand, whenever there is a gun control panic such as now the sale of guns goes through the roof. (I believe the stock of Smith & Wesson is setting new highs.) Calls for gun control parodoxically put more guns into circulation. If any of these guns should fall into the wrong hands, I blame Inga, garage, and AF for the mischief that is caused.; 12/17/12, 11:02 PM
n.n said...: As for changes to gun policies, we need to make firearm ownership and possession a universal right (not just (?) a right recognized and protected by the Constitution). The criminal must believe that there is high initial and continued risk and opportunity cost for their actions. We cannot permit law-abiding citizens to suffer involuntary exploitation, or worse, death, at the hands of a criminal. No individual or cooperative (e.g. government) should enjoy a monopoly of power to determine our fate without cause and due process.; 12/17/12, 11:04 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: When is the syllogism community going to come in here and straighten this out with the fallacies with Latin names community? Huh?

And when is the grammarian community going to do about the abuse delivered by the nomenclature community? Because these are troubling issues that demand immediate discussion and action.; 12/17/12, 11:05 PM
Anonymous said...: According to St. Thomas Aquinas, "All analogies limp." They are not ironclad deductive syllogisms to which everyone must agree. So Reynolds' analogy can be criticized.

Nonetheless, the interpretation that others and I have presented is what Reynolds intended, it's reasonable, and it's not meant to condemn gays.

I'm struck throughout this discussion of the near-total inability of liberals to see the world as conservatives do -- not to agree but simply to understand.; 12/17/12, 11:06 PM
Jim S. said...: I think some of the negative reactions to the comparison are because we are so offended at the very idea of blaming the homosexual community for child rape that we react against it before we process the larger point. One can still argue that the comparison doesn't work -- that the degree of disconnect between guns and spree killings does not parallel the degree of disconnect between homosexual acts and child rape. But that doesn't seem to be the point that most of the objectors are making.

At any rate, it's clearly meant to be a reductio ad absurdum: both comparisons are absurd, so you can't reject only one of them. If you think it invalid to blame the homosexual community for child rape, then you should also think if invalid to blame the gun community for spree killings. Or conversely, if you think it is valid to some extent to blame the gun community for spree killings, then, by the same logic, you should also blame the homosexual community for child rape to the same extent. To only blame one group is inconsistent.; 12/17/12, 11:15 PM
HipsterVacuum said...: A monumental occasion - thanks to the Instapundit mention, the number of blog readers who know what a colossal prick and insufferable moron garage is has grown exponentially.; 12/17/12, 11:25 PM
Jim S. said...: AF gave a reason for why he thinks the comparison is homophobic:

Because the premise of the analogy is that guns -- the defining characteristic of the gun community -- bear the same relationship to killing people as homosexuality -- the defining characteristic of the homosexual community -- does to child rape.

I don't think this is correct. The issue being discussed is not the role of guns in "killing people" but the role of guns in child murder. If we alter his objection thusly, it looks like this:

Because the premise of the analogy is that guns -- the defining characteristic of the gun community -- bear the same relationship to child murder as homosexuality -- the defining characteristic of the homosexual community -- does to child rape.

This still isn't correct because "homosexuality" is an abstraction and "guns" are not. To make the analogy more precise, we could, for example, replace "guns" with "gun ownership", thus making it more abstract. Or we could replace "homosexuality" with "homosexual acts" thus making it less abstract. "Gun ownership" seems much more removed from child murder than "guns" do. On the other hand, "homosexual acts" seems less removed from child rape than just homosexuality, since homosexual acts are sexual acts and rape is sexual acts by force. Anyway, you can substitute either one for AF's equation. I'll take the first.

Because the premise of the analogy is that gun ownership -- the defining characteristic of the gun community -- bears the same relationship to child murder as homosexuality -- the defining characteristic of the homosexual community -- does to child rape.

Now the question is does the comparison still strike you as homophobic. Assuming it did in the first place.; 12/17/12, 11:34 PM
Jim S. said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/17/12, 11:35 PM
AF said...: Jim S.

Guns are inanimate objects. Being gay is a human trait. They aren't analogous. That's the whole problem. Redefining guns as a human trait or homosexuality as a discrete act doesn't make the analogy more precise, it just makes it less honest.; 12/17/12, 11:52 PM
fit2post said...: AF said... "The gun community opposes banning assault weapons, which is about to be reintroduced as a direct result of this tragedy."
I'd like to read the law which would have prevented this. If only we had laws against murdering your mom and stealing her guns, this whole thing couldn't have happened.; 12/17/12, 11:53 PM
Gahrie said...: What is extremely ironic, is that the man being attacked here as homophobic for linking the quote agrees with the gay activists on probably every important issue to the gay community.; 12/17/12, 11:54 PM
Gahrie said...: I'd like to read the law which would have prevented this

How about :" Upon completiton of an approved firearms handling course, certificated school staff may carry a concealed weapon while at work."?; 12/17/12, 11:56 PM
fit2post said...: How about :" Upon completiton of an approved firearms handling course, certificated school staff may carry a concealed weapon while at work."?

Yes. Sensible. This whole thing might well have ended with just the matricide/suicide. Now go tell Barbara Boxer.; 12/18/12, 12:05 AM
JohnGalt_KS said...: To Create any Real Solution, You First Must Accurately Define the Problem

In the next few months or years, there will be many laws proposed and discussed to ban certain types of weapons, number of rounds in a clip and many more restrictions known as Gun Control Laws, but in each of these discussions, the following base set of facts should be stated.

First - What Are Some of the Possible Characteristics of the Future Mass Murder Shooter We Plan to Stop With More Laws

The assumption is we are going to create a new set of laws to prevent or stop a person who is typically an insane and very evil person, who may or may not have identifiable personality disorders, who is willing to lie to everyone, even on FBI background check forms, who is expecting, or even hoping to die at the end of their crime by suicide or by fighting with the police. They are planning to break every law they need to break to commit their crime. They are intent on killing as many innocents as they can, as fast as they can, or as slowly and patiently as they are allowed by the lack of any armed resistance to stop them. Therefore the shooter will pick a location where he believes all the law-abiding victims will be unarmed, a gun free zone, and this shooter will also pick a place where they believe there will be no armed security staff to shoot back to prevent the shooter’s entry.

Typical location they will choose will be a school, mall, office, church, park, entertainment event or trade-show. They have no background problems or issues that would prevent them from buying any weapons being sold, or they plan to steal their weapons from someone, even going as far as shooting their own mother in the face, so they can steal that person’s weapon. In most cases these killers violate 20 to 50 existing laws during the commission of their crime, so what additional law would prevent them from being successful.

Second - What Role Does Becoming Famous Have in the Shooter’s Motivation to Kill As Many Innocent People They Don’t Even Know.

The shooter’s motivation is almost always to become famous with a horrendous crime that will be covered by all the news media with day after day of full 24 hour TV coverage. Small murders of one or two people won’t create this fame. It takes a lot more deaths, as many as possible.

Third - Are We Ready to Consider The Influence of Violence Portrayed in Video Games, TV Shows, Movies and on the Internet

Are we willing to put restrictions on acts of violence in movies, music, on TV, on the internet or in all types of video games to reduce the new numbness children have for violence, death, guns, weapons and killing that are portrayed in these various formats.; 12/18/12, 12:29 AM
JohnGalt_KS said...: Fifth - Do Restrictions on Certain Types of Weapons Guarantee the Shooter Won’t Choose a Different Weapon to Complete Their Mass Shooting

You can buy a pouch for skeet shooting that holds 25 to 50 shotgun shells. You can buy a good new shotgun for shooting ducks for as little as $400. You can take that pump shotgun, load 5 shells, and reload from your pouch as often as necessary. Given this firepower and 50 or 100 shells, you can shoot 100 people quickly and most if not all will die from their wound. So without any new assault weapons, these crimes will be committed with old guns purchased before the ban, or with other approved weapons, like a five-shot pump shotgun and a gun vest with pockets full of easily available shells you can buy at any Walmart. Reducing clip limits will have no real impact unless you can collect all existing clips, including those sold illegally. NOT POSSIBLE. You can buy 50 clips with 10 rounds, fill your pockets and kill many people with a 2 to 3 second clip change. First graders are not going to rush the shooter while they are changing clips.

Sixth - We Must Also Consider Solutions that Reduce the Number of People Shot

Solutions that reduce the number of those killed should also be considered, since in an open society, the elements of deception and surprise may allow the criminal to start shooting, but if the solution can reduce the access to more victims or allow the potential victims access to self-defense weapons to make it harder for the shooter to continue their crime without facing armed resistance.; 12/18/12, 12:31 AM
JohnGalt_KS said...: First Solution - What We Should Do Immediately to Our Schools to Make It Harder for the Shooter to Be As Successful

First Solution - More Control Over School Access and How to Pay for It - Offer to pay for an upgrade all elementary and middle schools to restrict access through doors and windows by replacing all entry doors with steel doors, good electrically controlled locking system, glass should be bullet proof, and if glass is broken out, the entry size prevents a person from going thru the opening. Glass doors can be covered with balistic laminates for a small cost. See more here: http://www.pimall.com/nais/bulletprooffilm.html For a cost of less than $10,000 all exterior glass doors could have been laminated and stopped the shooter's access to the inside of Sandy Hook. If he had been locked outside all those children would be alive today. All classroom doors should be upgraded to metal doors, with narrow, bullet-proof glass and electronic locks that close and lock doors with the push of a button. Buttons are on the walls in rooms, and central buttons controlling all doors at key locations in the school. Hallway buttons are covered by glass, like a fire alarm. Doors can always be opened from the inside to allow teachers and students to flee. All paid for by a new School Safety Tax placed on all firearm sales and ammunition sales, video games that depict violence and movies or TV shows that depict gratuitous violence and shooting. A detailed description of depicted violence that is covered would be developed. The tax would be added to movie tickets and paid for by TV show producers to allow them to include such violence in their show. Normal depicted gun use by criminals, police, military soldiers, hunters and self defense would not be taxed. The tax would be also be applied to shooting things like zombies or stick figures in video games. Gratuitous shooting of human like targets would be covered by the tax. These games give high score awards to the person who kills the most victims….. sense a theme there? The tax might be set at $1 per ticket at the movie or higher if the movie is excessively violent, $10 per video game sold even on the iphone and ipad, $100,000 per TV show produced that included such violence.

In each school deciding to implement this controlled access policy would be voted on by the parents of the children attending this school, and only if they had a 51% parent’s approval would this policy be implemented.; 12/18/12, 12:31 AM
JohnGalt_KS said...: Second Solution - A Trained School Staff Response Team - Each school should ask the staff if they want to volunteer to be part of a trained team to deal with any shooter who gets in the school. Only those teachers who volunteered would be required to participate. Assuming enough staff agrees to participate, the parents would again be asked to vote to approved taking the next step. Once they pass background checks, mental evaluations, then the school staff, including teachers, custodial staff, administrators and secretaries who had volunteered to be part of an emergency response team would undergo extra training, drills and practice to be ready for such events in their facility. If any of these team members including teachers or school staff members wants to volunteer to be an armed defender, they go through extensive background checks, mental evaluations and special training in active shooter defense and tactics. These trained and qualified school staff should then be offered a custom-built electronically controlled gun safe in their room that only allows access when an electrically controlled lock is released by a security code. All of these weapon safes should be hardened, bolted into the floor and wall, and have built-in noise, video and motion detectors to immediately detect any tampering or attempted access by unauthorized person, sounding an alarm in the room, and throughout the building. This would prevent theft or unauthorized access to these emergency weapons. These teachers could be allowed to have immediate access to a handgun and/or a shotgun or both in their in-room safe. All staff training, electronic safe technology and weapons would be offered and installed for free at the school facility. Paid for by a nationwide tax on ammunition and gun sales. In Israel all teachers are trained and issued a military assault rifle, kept in their classroom, to allow them to provide protection for their students.; 12/18/12, 12:31 AM
JohnGalt_KS said...: Third Solution - Reduce the Motivation to Become Famous

A National “Anonymous Perpetrator Law” should be passed to make it possible for the President or a state governor to declare any shooting of more than 3 people to be designated as an event covered by the rules of “Anonymous Perpetrator Laws. This would make it a violation of the law for any news organization, or individual using the internet, to publish the name or photo of the perpetrator of the crime. All that would be allowed in news reports is the age and sex of the alleged or known perpetrators. This of course would not be applied if the perpetrator was still at large, and law enforcement was trying to get the public’s help in catching the criminal shooter or their accomplices. But if the shooter or shooters are under arrest or deceased, they get zero publicity using their name and remain anonymous in news reports. This is because for many of these mentally ill perpetrators, the motivation to commit the crime is PRIMARILY to become famous for their crime after their death. This law would remove this potential “trigger” and hopefully reduce the motivation by mentally depressed individuals. New shows, and especially cable new should review policies about glorifying these events for days on end, which is exactly the publicity the shooter was seeking. A restriction for these designated events on TV and radio would be one 3 minute segment per hour of TV or radio.; 12/18/12, 12:32 AM
JohnGalt_KS said...: Fourth Solution - Ask Professionals to Add “Concern” to the FBI Database on Gun Purchases and Conceal Carry License Applications

Pass a law that requires most professionals to report mental problems and drug problems they feel might create a risk for the person to become a gun owner to a national FBI protected database. Pass a law requiring all those professionals such as law enforcement, physicians, psychiatrists, drug testing firms, drug treatment programs who have information on mental illness issues, or drug or alcohol addiction problems to be required to go to an FBI website database, log-in with secure FBI issued ID access and enter the name, address, SSN if available of the person, and a description of their concerns about the person. These entries would cause the normal FBI background check should be extended to include drug testing and mental interview and evaluation for an extra fee paid by the person to obtain a Conceal Carry license or purchase a firearm. If these evaluations created a concern, the person could be denied the right to own a gun, for fear of harm to themselves, family members or others.; 12/18/12, 12:32 AM
JohnGalt_KS said...: Fifth Solution - Don’t Restrict Licensed Conceal Carry Holders in As Many Public Locations, and Expand the Right of A Licensed Conceal Carry Person to Carry Their Guns in Another State, Similar to a Drivers License.

How do we protect other public areas, like malls, offices, entertainment events? Since a Conceal Carry license requires a law enforcement background check, these licensed gun owners should not be restricted from being armed in these public locations. These citizens at least will provide some personal self defense, and may in fact stop, or disable a shooter slowing down their killing, or cause them to flee, take cover or stop their unabated killing of unarmed citizens. These citizens are typically qualified shooters, and would be held responsible for innocents shot by their bullets, so they would choose to use this option only under the most dire circumstances where no other option is possible, and they would use extreme caution not to hurt other innocents in the line of fire.; 12/18/12, 12:32 AM
JohnGalt_KS said...: We Should Close the Person-to-Person Gun Sale, and Gun Show Sale Loophole

The citizen to citizen private gun sales or gun show parking lot sales should be outlawed. People wanting to sell an existing firearm should be forced to use a licensed FFL, fill out the FBI approved gun-for-sale paperwork and submit their firearm to the selling gun dealer. The Serial Number should be checked against a free national lost and stolen database and the firearm confiscated if is on the lost or stolen list. It could be returned to the original owner, or destroyed if no original owner can be found. The new buyer would go through all the normal background purchase checks required to buy any firearm. Gun shows would, as always, sell new and used guns, requiring full paperwork and FBI background checks. Security guards and video surveillance would patrol the parking lot looking for private transactions as a deterrent to individuals selling in the parking lots of these shows. You will never stop the guns sold in alleyways, but they could be made illegal, and law enforcement stings could be used to catch those who try to avoid the new laws requiring all guns sold through an FFL. Sellers and buyers could be arrested and fined for trying to circumvent the FFL sale requirement. Even if two people agree to a gun sale, they go to the FFL and tell them the sale and price is prearranged between the two people. The FFL completes the transaction, collects appropriate taxes and the buyer and seller pay a nominal paperwork fee of $25 or so for the transfer and background check.

Summary of My Ideas on Improving the Mass Shooter Gun Violence Problem

In summary all the new laws being proposed must be carefully evaluated, and you have to be honest, would they have stopped these mass shootings. Columbine, Sandy Hook Elementary, Aurora Theater, Clackamas Mall, Fort Hood, Detroit Mosque and the Norway shooter! All of the proposed assault weapons bans, and clip bans won’t stop any future shootings because of the mass of existing weapons out in public and available by illegal means.; 12/18/12, 12:33 AM
JohnGalt_KS said...: All Solutions Should Be Back-Tested by Applying Them To Real Prior Shootings.

Apply a basic back-test to any gun laws being proposed. What crimes would they have stopped? If we go on to pass the Assault Weapons Ban or Clip Limit Ban, and only deal with new sales of new weapons or magazines, the existing huge inventory of existing weapons and magazines in the hands of citizens will always be available for those people planning to commit this type of mass murder crime. Especially the reality that all of these crimes could have been committed with a pump or semi-automatic five shot shotgun. With any pump or semi-automatic shotgun the shooter can reload one shell after each time they fire, so there is NEVER an opportunity for victims to “rush the shooter” while they are reloading, because there is ALWAYS a shell in the chamber. In fact in the Aurora theater, the semi-automatic rifle jammed and he killed most of his victims with a shotgun or handgun.

Remember in many of these types of crimes, the criminal steals the guns, so gun checks on new gun sales don’t stop these crime. People under 21 are already breaking the law to possess such guns.

Can Changing How We Handle Mental Illness Be a Significant Solution

In many cases the person who commits these crimes has no history of mental problems severe enough for forced intervention by family or parents. But we should increase our awareness of warning signs and encourage parents to monitor the activities of any child who shows certain tendencies. In these homes weapon should be removed by parents, or locked in a secure safe or safes in the home, where the child is denied access. With today’s technology optional safe wireless security should allow the parents to set a tamper alarm that goes off and warns police if they safe is being tampered with in any way that might signal a theft or attempted access. Disarming this wireless, cellular reporting alarm takes a 5 or 6 digit code and/or thumb print type of authorization. This allows the guns to be locked up with an automatic warning system if unauthorized access occurs. This could be voluntary, or court ordered in any family situation the judge feel warrants the lock-up and control of weapons on the premises.

Remember that some of these crimes, the gunman shot family member to steal their guns. In Norway, where few guns are allowed, the shooter, gained access and killed 77, mostly children.; 12/18/12, 12:34 AM
JohnGalt_KS said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/18/12, 12:34 AM
Ralph L said...: Doesn't change the fact that you and Palladian are just insufferable pricks to the core. And it seems to be a gay male trait
You are what you eat.

Pussy.; 12/18/12, 12:38 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Like it or not, the Sandy Hook tragedy is reigniting a debate over gun control, particularly a ban on assault weapons.

Sorry to go a little OT, but this bears responding to.

The "debate" or conversation, or whatever, is not being spontaneously reignited. It is planned, and deliberate, again, following the adage of never letting a crisis go to waste.

The problem though is that those trying to reignite the discussion, debate, or conversation have already lost it, and did so over the last 20 or so years. Polling has consistently shown that public sentiment has shifted from mild support to relatively little support in this country. The left here, trying to reignite this debate, are fighting yesterday's battle.

Reinstating the Clinton era "assault weapon" ban won't get through the Senate, probably wouldn't even get to the floor, would be DOA in the House, and likely fail in the Courts (ok, maybe not the 2nd Circuit - but it is hard to fathom it surviving the Supreme Court after Heller and progeny).

Making this more egregious, leftists have recently suggested banning all semi-automatic handguns (most sold by normal definitions, and if you include revolvers, almost all), and plastic scary looking guns - primarily AR variants, which apparently constitute almost half (49%) the rifles sold these days.; 12/18/12, 12:42 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: The funny thing about this new "debate" is that the one thing that it is doing, is creating a land office business for gun and ammo manufacturers and stores that sell such. Saturday set a record for how many people tried to buy guns in Colorado, causing the instant check to extend from the usual minute or so to up to eighteen hours. And, I suspect that Colorado was not alone there.

Of course, ever since it appeared that Obama's reelection was at least somewhat probable, gun and ammo sales have been up, with most of the additional buyers expecting just this, that the first big mass shooting after the election would be the trigger the left needed to start grabbing guns again. And, so, no surprise that Obama, Biden, and "Fast and Furious" Holder were meeting to decide what they could do to limit gun ownership absent the legislation that they realistically don't expect to pass.; 12/18/12, 12:50 AM
Unknown said...: JohnGalt_KS
Thanks for your thoughtful posts. Everything you mention should be discussed and evaluated by people with the single agenda of trying to end mass shootings. I hope they will be.; 12/18/12, 1:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Guns are inanimate objects. Being gay is a human trait. They aren't analogous. That's the whole problem. Redefining guns as a human trait or homosexuality as a discrete act doesn't make the analogy more precise, it just makes it less honest.

AF: Oh, bullshit. Wielding weapons is a huge human trait, more so than homosexuality which even lizards and seagulls can manage.

You just don't like the analogy because it doesn't crunch down to a result satisfying your prejudices and you are not honest enough to admit it.; 12/18/12, 1:28 AM
Kirk Parker said...: Inga,

What opinions I might have on the broader subject of homosexuality have really nothing to do with my view that Palladian comes across as an interesting guy and a valuable contributor here.; 12/18/12, 2:26 AM
Kirk Parker said...: Paul,

Many of these are actually bad ideas. They move certain details in a direction you (and I) prefer, but do nothing about the underlying problem of the government doing way too much micromanaging of our lives and thus undermining our own self-responsibility.

Offer a bill to allow teachers, if they get training, to pack a gun.

Instead, offer a bill to repeal all the nonsense restricts that set up "gun-free" zones in the fist place.

Offer a bill to give life sentences to those conspiring to kill anyone at a school or mall.

Why in the world should schools or malls be privileged in this regard? The penalty for conspiracy to murder, whatever we might decide they should be, ought to be independent of venue.

Offer a bill to allow nation wide recognition of any state CCW.

I would like to have nationwide recognition of my WA permit, but is is really worth burning the whole idea of federalism just to get there? (I originally wrote 'like', but on reflection demoted it to 'like'; true love would be nationwide constitutional carry.)

Offer a bill to give jail time to anyone who sees a blog or post threatening to kill people and failing to report it to the police.

Oh yeah, Big Brother is watching you watch people. Ugh.; 12/18/12, 2:26 AM
Craig said...: The obvious solution is to have the gay community resolve the issue of gun control and let the gun lobby deal with pedophiles.; 12/18/12, 2:56 AM
Unknown said...: Glenn Reynolds is an idiot.; 12/18/12, 3:41 AM
Michael said...: Jake Diamond thoughtfully typed. "Glenn Reynolds is an idiot."

JD is a deep thinker and considers himself both smarter and more accomplished than Reynolds. JD is delusional. And a lazy writer and "thinker."; 12/18/12, 4:18 AM
BuddyPC said...: "just as spree shooters are a minuscule percentage of gun-owners. Is that really so hard to grasp?"

FTR, Adam Lanza WAS NOT A GUN OWNER.
He was A THIEF, who went on a shooting spree.; 12/18/12, 5:27 AM
WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...: Cubanbob said..
"Again what do we do in a free society to protect ourselves from the evil and or dangerous crazies without destroying our freedoms in the process?"

The left want to blame all gun owners. So, someone, to make a point, blames all gays for Sandusky's crimes. Absurd!
Yeah. That's the point.

I heard the media reporter say: "no way we are ever going to give a teacher a lesson in shooting and a gun to protect him/herself."
Well - there you go.; 12/18/12, 6:22 AM
damikesc said...: Insta thinks rape = being gay.

garage cannot read, apparently.

You're aware that the issue with PSU was homosexual pedophilia, no?

Obviously, he equated rape with being gay. If you disagree, what is your take?

That it's absurd to tie a large group to the actions of a single individual.; 12/18/12, 6:23 AM
Unknown said...: Jake Diamond thoughtfully typed. "Glenn Reynolds is an idiot."

I did. Thank you for noticing.

For the benefit of slower Althouse lemmings, let me repeat myself:

Glenn Reynolds is an idiot.; 12/18/12, 6:38 AM
Bob said...: JohnGalt_KS

Nicely done. Sadly I suspect you are not a politician; 12/18/12, 6:43 AM
AllenS said...: Jake Diamond said...
Glenn Reynolds is an idiot.

Man, you want stupid? Click on your profile. That's some stupid shit. I'd hesitate calling people an idiot if I were you, but then your profile pretty much says it all. Too embarrassed to provide your picture? I'll bet you look like an idiot. What have you got to hide?; 12/18/12, 6:43 AM
HipsterVacuum said...: Jake, of course, is a powerhouse intellectual. He came up with "lemmings" as an insult all by himself and before the 3rd period bell.; 12/18/12, 6:53 AM
Unknown said...: Man, you want stupid?

No.

With that in mind, please shut up now.

Thank you for your attention.; 12/18/12, 7:14 AM
AllenS said...: Coward.; 12/18/12, 7:23 AM
harrogate said...: If "the comparison is 'community to community,'" as Ann says, then in the spirit of honesty it would follow she would agree the following response would be just as fitting to her "point":

"I dunno. What is the deaf community going to do about Penn State?"

To name but a million possibles. Of course, those wouldn't be true to the quote nor would they be true to Ann's "analogy." Would they?; 12/18/12, 7:28 AM
AllenS said...: harrogate said...
"I dunno. What is the deaf community going to do about Penn State?"

I doubt if they heard about it would be the best response.; 12/18/12, 7:31 AM
harrogate said...: Allen,

That's not bad. Points for comic relief. But not as funny as Insa and now Ann thinking they have a sound analogy here.; 12/18/12, 7:33 AM
Brian Brown said...: AF said...
Professor Althouse, the comparison is absurd, bigoted and offensive any way you cut it. You should be ashamed of yourself for linking to it with approval.

Folks, that is the level of intellectual firepower on the left.

No wonder they spend so much time trying to silence those with whom they disagree.; 12/18/12, 7:36 AM
Brian Brown said...: Jake Diamond said...
Glenn Reynolds is an idiot.

Glenn Reynolds doesn't come here and suggest 60 million Americans own over 220 million firearms.

You do.

Everyone knows who the idiot, you fucking clown.; 12/18/12, 7:38 AM
AllenS said...: harrogate, I case you missed it, and evidently you did, earlier there was this:

Sayyid said...
"Right, because gay people are to raping boys as semiautomatics are to killing people."

You're right, your mischaracterization is in fact a mischaracterization. The analogy you were looking for was perhaps "A homosexual man's penis is to homosexual rape what a semiautomatic is to killing people." Or, as Althouse points out, the other analogy is between the communities.

Common thread between the two: both analogies are improperly assigning blame -- in one case to the object used by an evil person, in the other case to the community the evil person belongs to.

[bold added by me]

Now, does that make sense to you? Somehow I doubt if it does.; 12/18/12, 7:40 AM
harrogate said...: Allen,

It does make sense, but by the same token, if that's the point they want to make, then the point I made also holds.

Because you need it spelled out, apparently, even though others have said it: The problem with the analogy, of course, is that Sandusky is not gay. It would be no more accurate to attach him to the "gay community" than it would to attach him to the "deaf community."; 12/18/12, 7:44 AM
harrogate said...: I think a much more accurate, and interesting analogy would be:

"I dunno know. What's the college sports community gonna do about Penn State"?

For actually, if you go back and tour the discourse, you will see that versions of that question have been asked and are being asked, by people across the political spectrum. Are there ways in which far too much power is accorded sports coaches? Are we encouraged by a range of forces including our own loyalties to specific programs, to look the other way when bad things are happening within the programs?

But neither Insta nor Ann nor you, Allen, seem interested in what would be a good analogy. You are only invested in the battle over defining the terms of the gun debate. I got no problem with thatn investment, by the way. It's the dishonesty you betray in acting on that investment, that stands out like a bad haircut.; 12/18/12, 7:49 AM
AllenS said...: Please, point out my dishonesty.; 12/18/12, 7:53 AM
Brian Brown said...: The problem with the analogy, of course, is that Sandusky is not gay

Sandusky is closer to being gay than the weapons used in this crime are to being "assault weapons"; 12/18/12, 7:55 AM
AllenS said...: If Sandusky wasn't gay, why did he target boys?; 12/18/12, 7:56 AM
harrogate said...: If you read my last comment in good faith you'd see it. Not the least of which elements is that Sandusky is not gay.

But more to the point, the analogy I offered is at least useful for discussion in that it actually holds.

Now, you could reasonably respond to the analogy from more than one ideological perspective. You could say look, no matter how much we regulate these coaches and these programs, we cannot eliminate from this world the sort of evil that Sandusky represents, and it would be a mistake to hamstring a profession populated overwhelmingly by good men and women, in the effotrts to catch another evil outlier.

Or you could say, I think the analogy lines up in terms of policy. In both cases, more regulation/oversight is needed because the stakes are so high and because we honestly believe that we can make a positive difference in both cases without violating constitutional rights.

And so on.

But the "gay community" analogy is not only a bad analogy, it is also offered in bad faith even as it masquerades as a teacher of some sort of rhetorical lesson. In other words, it is pridefully ignorant.; 12/18/12, 7:59 AM
AllenS said...: Oh, bullshit. Now, please point out my dishonesty.; 12/18/12, 8:01 AM
harrogate said...: Maybe you are not dishonest, of course. In some ways it would be nicer if you saw the dumbness of the analogy and saw it as another dishonest stalking horse to deflect from the conversation about guns and violence in this country, but perhaps you really just do not see it. In other words, you seem to reflect the very sort of prideful ignorance spoken to above.

Hmmm. That wouldn't be out of character with your comments generally.; 12/18/12, 8:05 AM
Rusty said...: The problem with the analogy, of course, is that Sandusky is not gay.

He targets little boys.
How is that not gay?

Are any other gay people suggesting he isn't gay?

Would an older woman targeting little girls for sexual satisfaction be gay?

It may be inconvenient to admit he's gay, but he seems to fit.; 12/18/12, 8:41 AM
AllenS said...: Oh, I see dumbness, no doubt about it, and it's you. So, what's up with you, other than an occupation of none?; 12/18/12, 8:54 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Ann's Tuesday morning post seems somewhat appropriate here: "It's an argument with which older, calmer people needle the emotional young." In that one, Justice Scalia chides Princeton students for not understanding his dissents by taking his language too seriously to understand them, when he is using reductio ad adsurdum to make a point (and, implying maybe that they may be able to when they grow up a bit more).; 12/18/12, 8:55 AM
Known Unknown said...: I'm not sure Sandusky is gay.

Pedophilia strikes me as completely divergent from binary hetero/homosexual behavior.

I'm not a psychologist, so this is pure conjecture on my part.

He didn't have easy access to girls, and his role at PSU and Second Mile served as a convenient conduit for his crimes.

More alarm flags would have been raised had he attempted to spend the same time and effort with girls as he did with boys.

Boys were simply easier to get to and control.

In fact, Second Mile was probably created/empowered to facilitate his sickness.; 12/18/12, 9:03 AM
William said...: Thanks to John Galt KS for a reasoned post with many useful suggestions. I think his Third Solution at 12:32 is easily and quickly practicable. I believe that in some countries there is a black out on pre trial publicity on alleged perps. This is done to protect the innocent. Well, we're innocent and a post crime blackout on the criminal may very well protect us. The post hoc coverage doesn't romanticize or glamourize the killers, but in a certain twisted dynamic, the demonization of them has its own allure for potential killers. The best thing really would be a black out.....I don't agree with Galt about the rate of fire. A slower firing mechanism would allow more people to run away. Also it does seem that jammed guns have served to reduce casaulties in past assaults.; 12/18/12, 9:14 AM
Unknown said...: AllenS seems particularly obsessed with reading profiles.

And yes, AllenS is a dumbfuck.; 12/18/12, 9:15 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: From Instapundit: FROM THE CNN SANDY HOOK TIMELINE: “Police and other first responders arrived on scene about 20 minutes after the first calls.” When seconds count, the police are only <strike>minutes</strike> a third of an hour away.

This is, BTW, somewhat typical of mass murders. I remember the Jefferson County (CO) Sheriff being severely criticized for his department's handling of the Columbine shooting, where his deputies didn't enter the school until the SWAT team had arrived and the perimeter secured, according to SOPs. Much longer than the 20 minutes here (despite being in a fairly densely populated suburban area).

This is, in the end, illustrates several of the reasons why the gun grabbers are going to fail again. First, the time that this delay in confronting mass shooters makes any discussion about high capacity magazines moot. With no active shooter opposition, the shooters in these tragedies have sufficient time to change magazines, and would not have been overly inconvenienced by having to use more and smaller magazines.

Secondly, it illustrates why the victims and potential victims, esp. in this sort of environment, would probably be safer if people in the building did have weapons and were proficient (or appeared to be proficient) in their use, in order to confront the shooter(s) much sooner, long before the police arrive, set up their perimeter, etc., and, thereby diminishing the death toll.

Finally, it puts to the question the validity of the communitarian approach to gun violence - depending on armed police to address this sort of situation, when the police are not going to arrive until the death toll is already significant.; 12/18/12, 9:17 AM
Unknown said...: What Brucie's speculative drivel conveniently ignores is that Americans have more guns than any other western nation and we have more gun violence. His prediction that even more guns would reduce gun violence is, to be tactful, asinine.; 12/18/12, 9:28 AM
Anonymous said...: All ya'all need to stop thinking and feeling so much and find a hobby.
As for me, I am going to the target range with my gay buddy.; 12/18/12, 9:56 AM
Anonymous said...: All ya'all need to stop thinking and feeling so much and find a hobby.
As for me, I am going to the target range with my gay buddy.; 12/18/12, 9:58 AM
test said...: EMD said...
I'm not sure Sandusky is gay.

Pedophilia strikes me as completely divergent from binary hetero/homosexual behavior.

Does it matter to the analogy? Doesn't mass child-murder seem divergent from simple gun ownership?; 12/18/12, 10:34 AM
Brian Brown said...: Jake Diamond said...
His prediction that even more guns would reduce gun violence is, to be tactful, asinine.

Of course as a functioning retard you can't square the fact that the total U.S. homicide rate has fallen by over half since 1980 while gun ownership has exploded over that time (for example: an estimated 3.3 million to 3.5 million AR-15's have been sold since 1986.)

But you keep on retardin' retard.; 12/18/12, 10:50 AM
Rusty said...: Apparently, Allen, not following the narrative is being dishonest.

What phx and harrogate want you to agree to is that owning a gun somehow puts you in a group that is somehow mentally deficient. They can't agree to a comparison with the gay community because that would make gayness a mental deficiency.
They can't honestly argue the issue on its merits.; 12/18/12, 11:36 AM
Gospace said...: Chip S. said...

How do transexuals vote, btw?

They're always ready to cross party lines.

Since no one else said it- LoL. Funniest comment on the thread; 12/18/12, 11:59 AM
Unknown said...: you can't square the fact that the total U.S. homicide rate has fallen by over half since 1980 while gun ownership has exploded over that time (for example: an estimated 3.3 million to 3.5 million AR-15's have been sold since 1986.)

Oh hey, Jay the idiot has stumbled into this thread to contribute more of his patented idiocy.

Fact: The percentage of Americans who claim to own guns has dropped dramatically since 1980. From 1977 to 2010, the percentage of American households that reported having any guns in the home dropped more than 40 percent.

Fact: In 1993 the national homicide rate was 9.3 per 100,000 people. The Brady Bill provisions went into effect in 1994, and by 1998 the homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people, a substantial decrease.

Fact: Jay is an innumerate dunce.; 12/18/12, 12:12 PM
Brian Brown said...: Fact: The percentage of Americans who claim to own guns has dropped dramatically since 1980. From 1977 to 2010

HA HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA HA

According to a singular survey which is contradicted by another survey you tried to claim used a different methodology.

Additionally, said survey is contradicted by the sheer volume of gun sales.

Idiot.; 12/18/12, 1:27 PM
Brian Brown said...: Fact: In 1993 the national homicide rate was 9.3 per 100,000 people. The Brady Bill provisions went into effect in 1994, and by 1998 the homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people, a substantial decrease

Fact: The assult weapons ban lapsed in 2004 and you're to fucking retarded to realize homicide rates continued to decline afterwards.

Idiot.; 12/18/12, 1:28 PM
Brian Brown said...: Fact: The percentage of Americans who claim to own guns has dropped dramatically since 1980.

Yet miraculously the number of gun sales & background checks has increased exponentially since 1980.

Don't worry, you have a survey.

Idiot.; 12/18/12, 1:30 PM
Brian Brown said...: Fact: In 1993 the national homicide rate was 9.3 per 100,000 people. The Brady Bill provisions went into effect in 1994, and by 1998 the homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people, a substantial decrease

Fact:

On Oct. 18, the FBI released the final data for 2004. It shows clearly that in the months after the law sunset, crime went down. During 2004 the murder rate nationwide fell by 3 percent, the first drop since 2000, with firearm deaths dropping by 4.4 percent.

The new data show the monthly crime rate for the United States as a whole during 2004, and the monthly murder rate plummeted 14 percent from August through December. By contrast, during the same months in 2003 the murder rate fell only 1 percent.

Fact: 14% is greater than 5.7%

Fact: wittle Jakie yet again wades into a topic to rush to prove what a moron he is.; 12/18/12, 1:36 PM
Gospace said...: Let's check this train of thought.

I believe the government is going to try and confiscate guns.

Someone calls and asks me in a "confidential survey" do I have any guns in the house.

I have guns in the house. I answer "NO, of course not, they're dangerous!"

Some sureveys cannot be trusted. For example, if you asked a random sample of people "Are you a pedophile?" you would find there are none. Yet, they exist.; 12/18/12, 1:38 PM
Baron Zemo said...: I just wish our lame ass Jug Eared Jesus wouldn't always politicize a tragedy.; 12/18/12, 1:49 PM
gerry said...: That's not homosexuality, that's pedophilia.

Your assertion makes the "pedophile priest" scandal a homosexual priest scandal, since the majority of the victims were young men with developed sexual traits (commonly known as teenagers).

I'm glad you brought that up.; 12/18/12, 2:22 PM
gerry said...: Top five gun massacres by an individual

Only one is in the United States.; 12/18/12, 2:26 PM
Known Unknown said...: I don't even know what the hell the "gun community" is anyways.; 12/18/12, 2:47 PM
Unknown said...: Top five gun massacres by an individual. Only one is in the United States.

Relevance?
None.; 12/18/12, 3:11 PM
Unknown said...: According to a singular survey which is contradicted by another survey you tried to claim used a different methodology.

Ah, Jay's stumbled back in to provide more evidence of his stupidity.

FACT: The NORC study is not contradicted by another study. Furthermore, you've presented NO evidence that disputes the NORC data and its conclusion: The percentage of Americans who claim to own guns has dropped dramatically since 1980. From 1977 to 2010, the percentage of American households that reported having any guns in the home dropped more than 40 percent.

FACT: Different surveys generally use different methodologies.

FACT: Jay is a nincompoop.; 12/18/12, 3:17 PM
Unknown said...: Additionally, said survey is contradicted by the sheer volume of gun sales.

No. The mistake you continue to make, again and again, even though it has been explained to you several times, is that a new gun sale does not equal a new gun owner. You see, people can own more than one gun, and as the data show, many people obviously own quite a few guns. So if Jay Fucktard goes and buys a new gun to add to his collection of guns, a new United States gun owner has not been created.

Please try to learn something this time.; 12/18/12, 3:23 PM
Unknown said...: The assult weapons ban lapsed in 2004 and you're to fucking retarded to realize homicide rates continued to decline afterwards.

Someone who doesn't know the difference between "to" and "too" probably should be a little more careful about calling other people "retarded."

But to the point you're trying to make, the relevant fact is that the homicide rate dropped dramatically between 1994 and 2004; it declined relatively slightly between 2004 and 2011.

You see, numbers matter, and being able to understand the magnitude of numbers is an essential skill. Jay lacks that skill.

Yes, it's true, Jay is an idiot.; 12/18/12, 3:53 PM
Unknown said...: The assult weapons ban lapsed in 2004 and you're to fucking retarded to realize homicide rates continued to decline afterwards.

Here are the numbers to which idiot Jay refers:

United States Gun Homicides

2004: 9,385
2005: 10,158
2006: 10,225
2007: 10,129
2008: 9,484
2009: 9,146

So, as anyone with basic numeracy skills can see, although gun homicides have decreased slightly, they initially increased after the Brady Bill provisions expired in 2004.

And yes, Jay is an idiot.; 12/18/12, 4:01 PM
Unknown said...: Yet miraculously the number of gun sales & background checks has increased exponentially since 1980.

Exponentially? Ok, now Jay's proving that he doesn't know what "exponential" means.

Yes, Jay is an idiot, as he proves again and again.; 12/18/12, 4:06 PM
Known Unknown said...: So, as anyone with basic numeracy skills can see, although gun homicides have decreased slightly, they initially increased after the Brady Bill provisions expired in 2004.

So you're saying the long-term effects of the Brady Bill were basically nil?; 12/18/12, 4:08 PM
Unknown said...: Fact: 14% is greater than 5.7%

Yes it is. Unfortunately, you seem completely oblivious to the fact that you are comparing TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

The cited 5.7 is NOT a percentage, doofus. It's the reported NUMBER OF HOMICIDES PER 100,000 PEOPLE.

The cited 14% is a decrease within a year between specified months. In other words, it's a cherry-picked number with no significance in analyzing trends.

So yes, Jay really is stupid enough to try to compare a rate to a percentage.

Conclusion: Jay is a simpleton.; 12/18/12, 4:14 PM
Unknown said...: So you're saying the long-term effects of the Brady Bill were basically nil?

Well, the homicide rate decreased from 9.5 per 100,000 prior to the Brady bill to 5.5 per 100,000 in the year the Brady bill provisions expired. That seems pretty significant to me.; 12/18/12, 4:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Jake & Jay,
The Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Bill are not the same thing. The AWB expired in 2004.

initially increased after the [AWB] provisions expired in 2004.

so your theory is that people waited until the AWB expired before they committed their murder, but then didn't use an assault weapon to do it. Most assault weapons are rifles but the increase in murders by rifle were 39 in 2005 (445) and then a decrease of 9 in 2006 (436).; 12/18/12, 6:39 PM
Xmas said...: I know this thread has kinda played out, but the analogy is very interesting.

You know, that there is a bit of an irrational fear of gun owners in the anti-gun folks.

But, if you think about it, there is also an irrational fear of men supervising children that are not their own. By simple ownership of a penis, I'm looked upon with suspicion when it comes to being alone with children. The idea of a hiring a teenage boy to babysit children is creepy to almost all parents.

Why? Because a small percentage of penis-owners have done terrible things to children.

But, if you read sites like Interested-participant, you know that women are just as terrible when it comes to sexually assaulting children. But stories of female teachers or caregivers assaulting children aren't nearly as publicized as stories of male molestings.; 12/18/12, 9:00 PM
Cool boy said...: You guys out there are performing a great job.shootingtargets7.com; 2/26/13, 4:45 AM