I made that screenshot from the front page of The Guardian because that's where I happened to click, but similar shots could be made from many prestigious news sites.
February 22, 2018
What effect does this kind of news coverage have on those who are thinking of becoming the next school shooter?
I made that screenshot from the front page of The Guardian because that's where I happened to click, but similar shots could be made from many prestigious news sites.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
248 comments:
1 – 200 of 248 Newer› Newest»Of course. The media make them infamous. Reminds me of SNL's "The Shooting of Buckwheat". Thanks, Insta-Pundit. http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/john-david-stutts/n9083?snl=1
If the aim of the prospective shooter is to punish those who abused him, and force those who ignored him forever remember his name, these photos of the students do nothing but stoke that fantasy.
"from many prestigious news sites."
Prestige: widespread respect and admiration felt for someone or something on the basis of a perception of their achievements or quality.
No. They are all shills and Prog whores now.
And to answer your question, "I too can be a star!"
Always have a manifesto or video released before?
Gee Ann. I do not know. Your suggestions? Should there be a news blackout? What has gotten into your coffee recently? Unless someone can point out the Soros connections,this seems like a grassroots coalition that deserves to be heard. How do you think Trump Rubio and Loesch did?
I am seeing a lot of push back from teacher friends on Facebook about the suggestion that they be armed or carry concealed weapons-- they wonder where the funding, training and liability protection will come from when they are forced to buy school supplies on their own.
Ban social media entirely and these things would happen way less frequently. That would work better than a semiauto ban.
Do you think the media care? They have but one mission -- help the democrat party win in November.
" Unless someone can point out the Soros connections,this seems like a grassroots coalition that deserves to be heard."
Especially with the scripted questions. and speeches.
BDNYC said...
Ban social media entirely and these things would happen way less frequently. That would work better than a semiauto ban.
OK with a complete abrogation of the 1st amendment, cannot even question the limits of the 2nd.
Exactly. The same with Russians causing distrust in our system. We don't need any help with that. What is the blind spot with the Left and unintended consequences. It's probably the biggest problem with their thinking - that and the whole totalitarian force thing.
Michael K said...
Especially with the scripted questions.
All your talking points are scripted, by the NRA.
For the potential shooter, it certainly looks like blame will be deflected toward the political opponents of the establishment media consensus.
I see it more like a natural disaster, and in a lot of ways it is. Unpreventable, unpredictable, indiscriminate, occasional, and inevitably blamed on one's enemies.
All this hype is tempting the next guy to get a lot of publicity for himself.
Meanwhile, the chick with the buzz cut and the guy a couple of seats over with the poodle on his head will tell you that the whole event was a radical left political rally.
The other question -- given that all these school walk-outs and highly-organized protests all happened at the snap of a finger -- is who is it behind the scenes putting all of this together, and who is spending the money to sow discord in the U.S. political system?
Newsflash -- Russia's involvement in our politics has not stopped.
I see Beloved Comrade is on the job today, sowing discord and advocating Americans give up their civil rights.
Отлично сработано!
"All your talking points are scripted, by the NRA."
Is that what those packages of questions are that are marked "secret?"
You guys are the best membership recruiters that NRA has.
A similar level of carnage happens to "urban youths" on a weekly basis, but appearantly their lives don't matter.
Have any conservatives ever complained about the nonstop wall-to-wall coverage that Fox News gives to murders carried out by illegal aliens, or attacks carried out by Islamist terrorists?
Have they ever said that such nonstop hype might be encouraging wannabe murderers in the future?
Nope.
It's really simple: You hate media hype that is inconvenient to your political goals, and you love media hype that is convenient to your political goals.
That's true of most liberals and most conservatives.
Me, I've always prided myself on my consistency. I absolutely refuse to be a hypocrite. I always apply the same standard across the board. Even when it's inconvenient to my own political views.
And so, I don't think media hype has anything to do with killings. Unless you demand that the media just stop reporting murders altogether, copycat killers will still learn that the murders took place and seek to emulate or outdo those murders.
Reporting and agit-prop are not the same thing.
My youngest is in high school here in SWF and they had a "social media gun scare" yesterday. The school botched their internal processes - they made a general announcement and two minutes later about 15 cop cars showed up. Hilarity ensured.
I think it's safe to say that the kids are all freaked out right now. My kid wants something done but is also smart enough (this comes from his mom) to know that the kids in Tallahassee are pawns and are gonna be disappointed.
-XC
Note how Beloved Comrade has yet to address the substance of the post.
He immediately looks for the most juicy tangent to divert the thread from its intended purpose and manufacture maximum divisiveness.
Отлично сработано!
If anything will sell more guns...
This stuff will not prevent school shootings.
The way to stop proliferation and, maybe, sell the public on a reduction, a buyback of "assault weapons", maybe, is to stop implicitly threatening (politically and culturally) those inclined to buy guns.
The threat sells guns.
sinz52 compares illegal aliens and Muslim terrorists to the 2nd Amendment. That's a winning strategy!
Gee guys. MIchael K and EDH! Love to hear your thoughts on Rubio Loesch and Trump last night/
Should we give $10,000 to each teacher that volunteers to do a concealed carry as Scott Adams has suggested?
Do you agree with Trump that each school probably has 20% of skilled coaches and teachers that would do a concealed carry?
Should we pay for this locally or nationally?
Do we expand background checks or not?
Blogger bagoh20 said...
I see it more like a natural disaster, and in a lot of ways it is. Unpreventable
except in most other civilized countries.
Some of us are fine without security theater, but many just love the stuff. Similarly, there is a market for homeopathy.
Blogger Kevin said...
immediately looks for the most juicy tangent to divert the thread
If you weren't so stupid you would realize that Althouse is trolling you, getting you to proclaim limits to the 1st amendment, thereby undercutting your desire to avoid limits on the 2nd.
"I see it more like a natural disaster, and in a lot of ways it is. Unpreventable, unpredictable, indiscriminate, occasional, and inevitably blamed on one's enemies."
I'm glad the Yellowstone Caldera isn't reading the newspaper.
Should we pay for this locally or nationally?
I would think the first step is to stop calling schools a "gun free zone" and let those teachers and administrators who already own guns and carry them concealed to bring them on campus.
That requires no funding, training, or involvement by the government in any way other than to push those who would interfere out of the way.
It is quite typical of the left to assume that every program must give the same number of trained teachers and guns at every school, and thus federal or state money must be provided and an entire bureaucracy must be created to monitor the program.
When in fact, all we need to do is let people who want to go through the process to carry concealed exercise their civil rights on school grounds.
"except in most other civilized countries."
I think your research has some giant bloody holes in it.
If Beloved Comrade weren't so stupid he'd realize that the 1st and 2nd Amendments already have limits placed upon them.
and inevitably blamed on one's enemies
Like how hurricanes are now touted as a reason to vote Democrat.
The coverage is part of the natural disaster, and just as unpreventable. Now we have another layer here of reaction to the reaction.
Does the Second Amendment really protect assault weapons? Four courts have said no.
@ Robert Payne
My wife teaches at a high school. She also shoots guns. She would conceal-carry for free, if the school would let her. She shoots as good as I do, meaning she probably shoots better than you.
After the Florida incident, my wife and four of her fellow teachers met with the building principal and the district superintendent. All five of them are shooters, two of them ex-military (granted, they both served during the 80's and early 90's, so not exactly recent combat vets). They asked for permission to carry concealed. The principal was opposed, but the super told them he was thinking of allowing it. They'll find out after the next Board meeting whether they will be able to.
Apparently, two of the middle school teachers sent emails asking the same thing.
You'd be surprised how many people of all walks of life (teachers, nurses, realtors, etc) are shooters in their spare time. My wife had never shot a gun until she met me. An hour after I took her to the range the first time, she was online buying custom hearing and eye protection gear for herself. I walked in while she was doing it - she wanted to surprise me - and she looked up from the screen sheepishly and said "Can you take me again once these get here? I asked for 2-day delivery."
(Yes, it was Amazon. No, I didn't use the Althouse portal.)
"I'm glad the Yellowstone Caldera isn't reading the newspaper."
Did you ever consider that's exactly why it hasn't blown yet? Prove me wrong.
Assault weapons -- drink!
If you weren't so stupid you would realize that Althouse is trolling you, getting you to proclaim limits to the 1st amendment, thereby undercutting your desire to avoid limits on the 2nd.
If you weren't so stupid, you'd know she was asking about the implications of free speech rather than demanding its extinction.
You'd realize many news outlets choose not to publish the name or pictures of the shooters for this very reason.
And you'd realize CNN probably knew it would increase the threat but wanted to put on the show nonetheless.
As for Althouse's respect for the 1st, I think she's pretty clearly on record about that.
bagoh20 said...
I think your research has some giant bloody holes in it.
Like your head, apparently. Are you seriously arguing that shooting deaths are more common in Britain, Japan, Australia or most of Europe?
The rate of increase in background checks is telling.
I figure that between the Obama administration and the threat of a Hilary administration, these between them probably sold 75 million firearms.
Thats probably more small arms than are held in the armories of all the worlds militaries. Just to put the numbers in perspective.
I include Hilary because 2016 was the record year for background checks, 27 million. To compare, in 2000 they were @8 million. In 2008, a disruptive year, 12 million.
Stop threatening your own people.
"Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
BDNYC said...
Ban social media entirely and these things would happen way less frequently. That would work better than a semiauto ban.
OK with a complete abrogation of the 1st amendment, cannot even question the limits of the 2nd."
OK with a complete abrogation of the 2nd amendment, cannot even question the limits of the 1st.
I appreciate the fear that students feel as they go to school. Fear that a fellow student (or former student) might shoot them. Fear that they'll get caught in a melee during lunch. Conquering this fear is a worthy life goal. Compare the fear to the fear of nuclear annihilation (my generation) or the fear of dying from disease (my parents' generation). Learn to know what fear should have your attention. How do you minimize risk?
And why limit the students' control to just guns? Why not solicit their input on things like discipline in school, or curriculum? Is there a good reason why these things aren't being decided by kids -- who are most directly impacted by them?
Many people choose not to buy a gun, or speak out on a given topic.
This does not limit the rights of anyone, even themselves.
A shithole country is a country where children go to school and have to participate in active shooter drills.
You’re just wrong, ARM. Our rate of mass killings puts us in between Canada and France on the list countries. Granted knife murders in Great Britain are through the roof, but that’s what happens even one weapon is banned. Motor vehicles are used more often in France for mass killing. But USA stats for murder are at a 30-year low. According to the FBI. You are just mouthing Bloomberg’s faked up anti gun stats. Try using facts. Even school shootings are far less frequent and deadly than in the 1990s.
More guns but less crime, Butterfield!
It's a business deal between the MSM and school shooters.
Shoot and we'll make you famous.
Everybody comes out ahead.
Fear that a fellow student (or former student) might shoot them.
Maybe they should look around and make the outcasts feel a bit more welcome, rather than continuing to sit with the other jocks or cheerleaders to maintain their status within the hive.
Maybe instead of leaving school to march against guns, they might take an hour of class to discuss all the ways they've devised to divide and ostracize their fellow students.
It would probably take more than an hour to list them all, let alone discuss what to do about them.
ARM thinks that millions of Americans who own AR-style guns will give them up because Daddy Govt says so.
We won't. Not gonna happen.
Good luck trying. Hiding them on one's property, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition, is easy. Owners will make it too expensive to search for them all.
Keep this drumbeat up. I know two folks who've joined the NRA recently, one of them after the church shooting in Texas and another after this one. Keep it up and I'll be on that list too.
Limiting news coverage, denying fame to shooters, would inhibit prog propaganda, hence is a non-starter. Fewer public tears and less hand-wringing would limit the soap-opera-women audience, hence is a non-starter. Compared to prog prospects and lower ratings, the greater probability of future shootings is a small price to pay.
Tell the kids to suck it up.
The US makes up less than 5% of the world's population, but holds 31% of global mass shooters.
The sad part is that most of this stuff is scripted. CNN gave students questions to ask politicians. It is all manufactured.
It's been 120 years since the sinking of the USS Maine, and US news organizations are still manufacturing the news to incite violence.
All your talking points are scripted, by the NRA.
You’ve written a lot of stupid things as comments on the Althouse blog, ARM, but this one has to be among your most ignorant, not to mention your most mendacious.
But if you’re going to point to “other civilized countries,” just north of us is a country where publishing the name of a mass murder in the press or media outlets is against the law. If we can contemplate restricting the Second Amendment, it shouldn't bother us to restrict the First at the same time, right?
The US makes up less than 5% of the world's population, but holds 31% of global mass shooters.
And Communist Leaders put them all to shame. Is that mentioned in the link?
What about nuclear attack drills? Were we a shithole country during the Cold War, ARM?
A non-shithole country might have an FBI that was actually concerned about keeping guns away from truly dangerous folks, folks with police interactions and online postings akin to this Nikolas Cruz fellow, rather than trying desperately to cover it's tracks re: the attempted swinging of an election and framing of a political opponent for non-existent collusion with Russia.
Too bad our previous president turned the federal law and justice folks into a banana-republic equivalent to ensure his desired successor would inherit the throne. But hey, it's not like all that stuff distracted the FBI from anything important - what's 17 schoolkids when Felonia Von Pantsuit's administration is at stake??
@ Big Mike 8:22
Got 'im! I'm sure ARM would approve if the enlightened Canadians can do it, right?
In most places people are subjects, not citizens in the American sense, whatever they call themselves. But this is buffered by ancient communities. Mess with one, mess with all. Rights are much more communal than individual.
Spain for instance has had firearms control since the middle ages. But civic and cultural threats are much more limited, there is no feeling of being overwhelmed by greater powers. Partly so because there is no such intense cultural split, especially locally, between the state structure, the media and the schools, and the people. You see that in the very distinct cultures of the regions. Mess with the Catalans or Basques and they will make trouble. But you Americans dont have Catalans or Basques (or Valencians, etc...), you have dispersed racial minorities at best, with only the Mormons having a polity aligned with a culture.
For Americans, most of you, you are mainly alone before the state, and like rattlesnakes you are ready to bite, individually, if trod upon.
Given that, immigration in Europe is creating insecurity. These days, if permitted, and restrictions lifted, you could easily sell guns in Europe on an American scale.
Two problems will not be solved.
The schools are too big. 3000 students in a high school is too big. My grand daughter goes to one such school and her mother is worried. The high school campuses are open, which makes security more difficult but parents would complain if they were closed.
Gun control won't happen. The present laws are not enforced. "Stop and Frisk" was ended by NYC Mayor deBlasio (Wilhelm) even though it had reduced crime considerably.
Student discipline is absent. Ann posted an example yesterday.
Arming teachers would help but is against the religion of too many leftists.
Rate of Mass Shootings Has Tripled Since 2011, Harvard Research Shows
"Are you seriously arguing that shooting deaths are more common in Britain, Japan, Australia or most of Europe?"
They happen, but mass killings by disturbed individuals are not only done with guns.
Paris with guns and explosives, Trucks running through crowds, car bombs, sarin gas, the murder of 77 kids in Norway with a rifle, etc. You will also notice that many of them have larger death counts, last longer, and the assailants often escape.
Is it true there are lots of people using AR-15s to protect their home and family as NRA suggests? Seems like a handgun would be more effective in emergency situation.
If you weren't so stupid you would realize that Althouse is trolling you, getting you to proclaim limits to the 1st amendment, thereby undercutting your desire to avoid limits on the 2nd.
But we do have limits on the 1A and many harsh restrictions on the 2A. What we should do, I modestly propose, is apply the same limits we have now on the 2A to any 1A rights used to discuss the 2A. So any article about gun control should require a background check of the author and a 3-day waiting period before they can publish. Any author convicted of a felony should be barred from writing for publication. In CA the author should have to show ID every time they buy paper or ink cartridges. And any article on guns should be limited to 5 paragraphs. I mean if you can’t “hit the target” (so to speak) in five paragraphs you need more training. Of course, there should be a mandatory (and costly) trading from the local NRA or 2A classes before any writer even attempts to publish about gun matters.
I’m just looking for some common sense pen control here.
Total Enrollment of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School: 2,972
Use as an average age of students: 16. Birth year of 2001.
For 2001, the US ratio of abortions to live births: 320.7 / 1000
For 2972 live births of that year there would then be 953 abortions.
Meaning there were 953 kids missing from that school.
As far as I can tell, there were 14 students killed out of the 17 victims.
Using the numbers above, if the aborted children were alive there would be another 4 children killed.
So abortion saved four lives.
The Germans have a word for this.
Kyzernick said...
What about nuclear attack drills? Were we a shithole country during the Cold War, ARM?
Unbelievable. We are now so afraid of our fellow citizens that they are comparable to a nuclear armed foreign enemy. This is the shithole country that the NRA has created.
Rate of Mass Shootings Has Tripled Since 2011, Harvard Research Shows
Hmmm. Who was President during that time, remind me? Is this another reason the President at the time was a failure?
I agree with Michael K that schools are too big. Warehouse schools beget problems.
Beloved Comrade insinuates that the US is a shithole country! Send that to the DNC, Beloved Comrade -- they don't have anything else to run on this year, might as well be honest about hating this greatest of nations.
outside of major metropolitan areas, there's a pretty good fraction of teachers that actually have concealed carry (I don't know about metros, I think teachers there might be hesitant to let anyone in the administration know they have CCPs); I think teachers there might be hesitant to let anyone in the administration know they). they have to leave it at home when they go to work.
there is a background check already in place; how hard would it be to put a new field in the date a base, a 'no buy' flag with specific criteria for getting flagged and a legal way to get the flag cleared if you find yourself on it?
then we could focus on developing criteria that does not violate 2nd amendment (any more than the current system, which already prohibits some gun buys) instead of 'having a dialog about gun control.' Honestly, I don't think it will solve ANYTHING but (1) it probably should already have been done any way, and (2) it move us out the current loggerhead (albeit to a new one)
Blogger steve uhr said...
Is it true there are lots of people using AR-15s to protect their home and family as NRA suggests? Seems like a handgun would be more effective in emergency situation.
They are just toys, for fanatics. Same in Afghanistan.
Our political reaction to this stuff is like a stone age tribe sacrificing it's members or valuable resources to end a drought. It won't work, the thing will ebb or flow on it's own schedule, but it does make us feel better when we punish ourselves or even better, the tribe member or goat we didn't really like anyway. The scapegoat.
The rate of mass shootings has indeed increased.
But access to firearms is the same in 2011 as today - its as cheap and easy to get them now as then.
So being able to get firearms through purchase is, obviously, not a factor in the increase.
There are many more firearms in public hands now, but that only makes guns easier to get through theft. Mass shooters rarely obtain them this way.
You have to look elsewhere for a cause. This is just a symptom, I think, of the ongoing social breakdown.
For Americans, most of you, you are mainly alone before the state, and like rattlesnakes you are ready to bite, individually, if trod upon.
That's pretty much a recent development.
Two factors have affected this. One is the integration of blacks in the north while their family structure was destroyed by the "Great Society" which included all the worst instincts of leftists.
Second is illegal immigration.
When I was growing up in Chicago, mothers were mostly home and the neighbors kept an eye on the kids.
That is gone. The breakup of civil society by feminism and by inflation, which led to many mothers working, has devastated more than black families.
There has been a lot more moving around so intact neighborhoods are not as common.
Are you seriously arguing that shooting deaths are more common in Britain, Japan, Australia or most of Europe?
A total non sequitur, but I expected no better. Maybe we should emulate Norway and sentence mass murders to only 21 years in prison?
Is it true there are lots of people using AR-15s to protect their home and family as NRA suggests? Seems like a handgun would be more effective in emergency situation.
The police thought this way in Austin, before a guy climbed the clock tower and realized that in an emergency, pistols didn't really have the range. It was residents with long arms that were able to protect people. Since then, now even police use AR-15s and other long arms to protect communities.
But I don't believe the NRA is making the suggestion. Because AR-15s are primarily used for hunting, like all other long arms. And I also don't believe the desire is to only make AR-15s illegal. First of all, AKs are essentially equal if not worse because they use a larger round. Second, protestors often hold signs calling for abolition of the 2nd Amendment.
When I was attending my high school in Atlanta back in the mid-60's we already had a solution for providing armed teachers in the school. All boys in my school, during sophomore and junior years, were required to take Army JROTC. Our instructors were two retired Army NCOs, SGM Gilmore and MSG Donehoo. I had great respect for both men. Each was a decorated combat veteran of WWII and Korea, and MSG Donehoo wore a patch on his left shoulder as one of the "President's Hundred", meaning he had qualified as one fo the top 100 marksmen in the US military.
We had two armories and a gun range in the basement of the school, where the JROTC classrooms were. One armory had about 300 WWII surplus M-1s(firing pins removed), which we used for drill and for disassembly and cleaning exercises. The second armory, located behind a door in the main armory, had about two dozen 22-cal Remington bolt action rifles used for shooting on the range, along with a locker full of thousands of rounds of ammunition. Shooting went on in the range all the time, as different squads and platoons went through their marksmanship instruction. This was during class time. Every afternoon, our rifle team shot up a couple a hundred rounds apiece during practice under MSG Donehoo's guidance. This was all completely normal at the time. Rifle team as a state sanctioned high school sport and our JROTC eam took the state title every year I was there.
I don't there was any of us in school during that time that ever imagined fifty years later we would have the violence we have seen in our schools in recent years. These events have happened due to changes in our society and, in the FL case, total incompetence by the school, school board, local law enforcement, and the FBI. But I can guarantee you if anyone like this FL shooter had ever entered our school our two former Army sergeants, using a couple of the 22s in the armory next to their office, would have made sure he didn't last very long.
"Rate of Mass Shootings Has Tripled Since 2011, Harvard Research Shows"
I wonder how the current rate of gun possession by young men compares to the past. When I was in high school, half the boys had rifles in their cars during hunting season, and no shootings. Clearly access to guns is not the problem variable.
In Afghanistan being armed is a display of status, of manhood, and an implied threat vs people who would mess with you. Which they will, it being a savage place full of would-be bandits.
And a communal duty, for the reason above.
Its not just fanatics that are armed, but everyone.
"Is it true there are lots of people using AR-15s to protect their home and family as NRA suggests? Seems like a handgun would be more effective in emergency situation."
Yes, it is true, and no, handguns aren't necessarily MORE effective. Handguns can be more, less, or equally effective. Deciding which is MORE effective depends on a lot of factors. Some people also have land, a lot or a little, in areas with bears, wolves, and other dangerous animals. For defense against them, a rifle is undeniably superior.
"We are now so afraid of our fellow citizens that they are comparable to a nuclear armed foreign enemy."
Refusing to answer the question as posed, and posturing instead. What a dumbass ARM is.
How many countries use AR-15 in the military?
"They are just toys, for fanatics. Same in Afghanistan."
Spoken like a man-child who cries during Independence Day fireworks.
Big Mike mentions Norway. Guess what, ARM? Norway tops the list of countries with most mass shootings per capita (the only really fair way to compare). The homicide rate is virtually the same among industrialized countries. The method changes.
"Its not just fanatics that are armed, but everyone."
As in Switzerland, a well known land of fanatics.
What effect does this kind of news coverage have on those who are thinking of becoming the next school shooter?
Please believe me when I say I really don't know.
"How many countries use AR-15 in the military?"
None. Some use them for law-enforcement, but none for the military. A version of the AR-15 called the M-16 is used in militaries, but these are distinctive in that some early versions are capable of fully automatic fire, and later versions are capable of 3-round burst fire, where a single trigger press will unleash 3 rounds.
No AR-15 can fire more than one shot per trigger pull, unless illegally modified.
But they sure do look scary. ARM wets his panties just talking about them - 5 pairs so far today, I reckon.
Is it true there are lots of people using AR-15s to protect their home and family as NRA suggests? Seems like a handgun would be more effective in emergency situation.
Friend of mine has an AR-15. Surprising light and easy to use. I'm guessing it could be highly effective in protecting home and family.
"The homicide rate is virtually the same among industrialized countries."
The homicide rate in the US is only high because of inner city violent minorities but it is not allowed to say so in public.
Excluding the black inner city areas would lower the US rate to below Europe.
How do you protect your family?
Someone (maybe a number of someones) could be breaking in the window tonight armed with a gun or knife. Tomorrow will produce a man with a different opinion unless he's armed tonight.
So no one (ARM?) accepts my modest proposal?
Anyway, the more you hit your own people over the head, as CNN did, the more they will resist.
And a large number will do so by hoarding guns.
Its not about hunting or home defense or any distraction of that sort - this is entirely about insecurity with respect to political and cultural threats. A large part of the US public for the last decade has been consciously or unconsciously preparing for civil war.
"Althouse is trolling us"
The DULLEST comment ever.
Reason sacrificed on the altar of emotion.
Here in Chi-Raq, it would be interesting to see the gun laws already on the books enforced.
All that nonsense about using a firearm in a crime being an enhancement to the sentence? We don't do that. It is the first thing tossed out in the plea bargain. And more than 95% of criminal complaints are resolved by plea deals. And if it were enforced, the cry of "a generation of young (black/hispanic) men incarcerated" would amp up to the red zone.
This is genuine emotion used in support of a fake cause.
Blogger bagoh20 said...
I see it more like a natural disaster, and in a lot of ways it is. Unpreventable, unpredictable, indiscriminate, occasional, and inevitably blamed on one's enemies.
2/22/18, 7:42 AM
People occasionally go bad, like dogs or other animals. That is natural disaster. But an institution that makes every effort to avoid dealing with it when it happens is not unpreventable, or unpredictable. Apparently MANY people knew and could have acted but didn't. It is predictable that in Madison there will inevitably be a serious problem from negroes acting badly. If a firearm is involved, the NRA will be blamed.
Note how the Left operates.
They want something - in this case - Gun control
Then they concentrate all their hate and fire upon the key opposition point - The NRA.
Pick a target, freeze it, destroy it.
The Right, doesn't do this. It doesn't do anything. Except defend, feebly.
Blogger Kyzernick said...
No AR-15 can fire more than one shot per trigger pull, unless illegally modified.
2/22/18, 8:41 AM
There is, however, a legal modification that fires on trigger pull AND release. It can empty a clip faster than full auto. It makes NO difference in the relative safety of schools.
We've already figured it out - this encourages other people to become shooters. But the damn media just can't resist making this a circus.
I'd be perfectly happy with limiting privately owned firearms, pistols, and shotguns.
In a perfect world.
But we all know that if we got rid of semi-autos, the Liberals would then demand we get rid of bolt action rifles.
They used to make a fuss about "Saturday Night Specials" - whatever happened to that?
Any author convicted of a felony should be barred from writing for publication.
This has already been practiced, just ask Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. One more Obama restriction on our Constitutional rights!
"Especially with the scripted questions. and speeches."
Why the outrage this time? My guess is because it happened in a fairly liberal part of the state, where the parents were happy to put their kids up to scream and yell for Blumberg and the left. The left here is using those kids as props to get their anti-2nd amdt message out for them.
What must be remembered though is that teenagers, like all the "survivors" who have been screaming their throats out here, are incapable of much in the way of logic, because their brains haven't matured enough yet. They are most of a decade away from full brain maturity. The result is, as anyone who has had teenagers can attest, is that they are operating emotionally. The last thing that we should want in a situation like this is to reach decisions emotionally. To enact laws, that may affect millions of lives, emotionally.
The other factor that will not be mentioned, is the abrogation of any discipline in schools.
Broward’s Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline was announced in early November. Instead of suspensions, students can now be referred to the PROMISE program, where they receive counseling for several days and then return to school. A host of non-violent misdemeanors no longer require an arrest, though officers can sometimes override that if they feel it is necessary (“I wanted to make sure deputies always had discretion,” says Scott Israel, Broward County’s sheriff). The school district’s Office of Minority Male Achievement reviews data to ensure that punishments for minor infractions and racial disparities are on the decline.
Why he was allowed to buy that gun. If you don't look, you don't see any problems. Until they blow up in your face,.
"Is it true there are lots of people using AR-15s to protect their home and family as NRA suggests? Seems like a handgun would be more effective in emergency situation."
What business of that is yours?
I don't understand what you are getting at here. Are you arguing that a public debate about gun control just encourages more shooters and therefore we should discuss it?
Is the second amendment really more important than the first?
"Apparently MANY people knew and could have acted but didn't."
True, in this case, but not most, and even if someone did react and stop him, he would not be stopped forever, even if he was unable to legally get a gun. A legal gun is hardly necessary to kill people. All you need is motivation, the means are everywhere.
The media coverage obviously encourages the next shooter. This is in the interest of the MSM, because every new shooting will keep the gun-control issue in the news. Also, when your business is news, the more of it, the more ad profit. Win-win for them, make money, push gun control.
Amadeus brings up an interesting point. Enforcement. Does anyone think that Chicago enforces the gun laws already existing? No. Why not? Why let these thugs off for illegal possession? Who benefits from keeping the street thugs armed and out of jail? If we had mandatory 5-year sentences for illegally concealing a gun or brandishing the progs would be screaming racism. Progs don’t want the laws evenly enforced. They want to be selective so they can prosecute, with discretion of course, those who annoy them.
In other news:
https://spectator.org/nellie-ohr-woman-in-the-middle/
A host of non-violent misdemeanors no longer require an arrest
What's your point? Even a host of non-violent misdemeanor convictions would not have prevented him from buying the gun. And that's not even mentioning that he could buy such a rifle from a private party or at a gun show with no background check at all, no matter how crazy or felony convictions he had.
"All your talking points are scripted, by the NRA."
Which is plain silly. Putting the thought process of a 70 year old surgeon up against those of teenagers most of a decade away from full brain maturity. One has raised five kids, been in the military both as enlisted and as an officer, authored several books, saved innumerable lives in the ER, etc. And the other tend to melt down when thwarted, whether in their dress, or in their date to the prom.
Are you arguing that a public debate about gun control just encourages more shooters and therefore we should discuss it?
There is a school of thought that publicizing such cases encourages copycats and glorifies the offender.
I don't see how that can be avoided in this case or other mass shooting events.
I do think there is an issue with violent video games that involve shooting friends and acquaintances.
The military in the 1960s went from pure target practice to using pop up targets in a man shape on firing ranges.
Some of this was to adapt to jungle fighting where shorter ranges were the rule.
The other purpose was to help overcome the reluctance of most soldiers to kill opponents.
The video games resemble these range targets.
Saturday night specials are immensely popular and widely available. Concealable pistols are a thing, and best sellers.
You can get a new, functional .380 automatic for $120 or so.
Looking at the question of strategies of revolution, guerilla war, and control of civil populations, the Saturday night special, the small concealable pistol, is more useful than automatic rifles. The strategic point is to make the people ungovernable. This will happen through "midnight" targeted assassinations, or the threat thereof, against government personnel, their families, and government loyalists and snitches.
[ARM:]
The US makes up less than 5% of the world's population, but holds 31% of global mass shooters.
...
Like your head, apparently. Are you seriously arguing that shooting deaths are more common in Britain, Japan, Australia or most of Europe?
What is it with your gun fetish? You give a very firm impression that you don't care about the fact of someone's killing, but only how it happened -- that's what happens when you keep adding that qualifier. Take a look at mass shootings in Australia before and after gun confiscation. Yep, sure enough, they are down.
Mass killings aren't, though.
[Robert Payne: Should we give $10,000 to each teacher that volunteers to do a concealed carry as Scott Adams has suggested?
Do you agree with Trump that each school probably has 20% of skilled coaches and teachers that would do a concealed carry?
Should we pay for this locally or nationally?
Do we expand background checks or not?
Gosh, if only someone had thought about this sort of thing already.
Oh. Wait. Too late. It's been done. And it didn't take $10,000 to find volunteers, either.
[ARM:] OK with a complete abrogation of the 1st amendment, cannot even question the limits of the 2nd.
Let's just say, arguendo, that part of what motivates mass killers is the thought of going out in a blaze of glory, and that motivation is made even worse by the pervasive parading of the grief stricken.
Are you prepared to assert that isn't true?
Because if it is, far more mass killings will be prevented by applying strict government regulation of mass-killing related speech (and who knows where that line would end up getting drawn), then by banning guns with cosmetics that frighten those prone to the vapours.
--
Fun fact: More children under the age of 15 die from drowning than guns. It's true! Look it up at your local CDC!
The move to ban swimming pools will be starting in 3, 2, ... ah, heck, never. Maybe all this brouhaha isn't about the childrens.
What I find even more troubling is the increased incidence of high school students eating Tide pods. I don't know the cause of this strange phenomenon, but I know it must be stopped. Perhaps if the press gave extensive coverage to pod eaters, or maybe if their families were invited to the White House to discuss why their child ate pods, then the incidence of pod eating could be curtailed. I'm not in favor of background checks for Tide pod buyers, but I'd ask everyone to keep an open mind on the subject.
Blogger bagoh20 said...
"Apparently MANY people knew and could have acted but didn't."
True, in this case, but not most, and even if someone did react and stop him, he would not be stopped forever, even if he was unable to legally get a gun. A legal gun is hardly necessary to kill people. All you need is motivation, the means are everywhere.
I agree with you completely Bagoh. I was thinking more of the institutions he interacted with - namely the school system, that in accordance with the best modern authorities apparently kept him mainstreamed, the county sheriff who visited his home 39 times according to one report I saw, and the FBI, who were apparently warned about him a couple of times. The means are always available, with or without firearms. Kids used to take firearms to school and we didn't have mass shootings. The legal firearms disappeared, but the school shootings increased. Tells me that guns aren't the problem.
And that's not even mentioning that he could buy such a rifle from a private party or at a gun show with no background check at all, no matter how crazy or felony convictions he had.
Another lie that won't die. There is no gun show loophole. Every transaction at a gun show must go through a FFL dealer AND include the mandatory background check. The left just lies and lies and lies. Funny how so few are genuflecting to their kneejerk calls for gun banning this time. I guess facts do win out over emotion, except for Freder and AR< of course. And you can forget ever going after private party transfers. It's none of your goddamned business if my father gave me a gun or vice versa. Keep your laws out of my private life.
Our rate of mass killings puts us in between Canada and France on the list countries.
Bullshit. Lott's deceptive statistics (I realize that statement is redundent) include terror attacks to make our level of mass killings by firearms look relatively good.
And if you are talking about mass killings, why are you conveniently ignoring 9/11.
Blogger buwaya said...
Saturday night specials are immensely popular and widely available. Concealable pistols are a thing, and best sellers.
Buwaya, you are awesome, but I don't think you have been to a gun show lately. Saturday night specials went out with polyester leisure suits and bad, bad, Leroy Brown. You can get a reliable pistol for much less than you can a new smart phone. And all the kids have a smart phone.
"And that's not even mentioning that he could buy such a rifle from a private party or at a gun show with no background check at all, no matter how crazy or felony convictions he had."
Let's clarify that, because Freder is implying that there is a "gun show loophole". There isn't. In most states, there is a private party "loophole". If you but a gun at a gun show from other than a private party, they have to have an FFL, and perform a background check. Nothing magical about gun shows - you typically can't do anything more there, or less, than if you bought the gun from the seller anywhere else - people who are in the business of selling guns need to have a FFL, and perform background checks.
Freder still thinks 9/11 was a shooting.
Blogger William said...
What I find even more troubling is the increased incidence of high school students eating Tide pods.
2/22/18, 9:02 AM
Good grief! I thought you were trolling us, William, but I just googled it.
Every transaction at a gun show must go through a FFL dealer AND include the mandatory background check.
You are the one who is lying about this. Only if you are a licensed gun dealer do you have to run a background check. Private sales can and do occur at gun shows.
No Freder. My stats EXCLUDED terror attacks. Rate of *murder* is fairly constant per capita among industrialized nations. The method changes. No matter how you slice it, we are not the "worst" as you lying progs keep saying. And with gun ownership at an all-time high while murders are at a 30-year low I have to ask, what the fuck is wrong with you that you focus on the damn gun?
What part of 30-year downward trend in homicide bothers you?
Robert Payne posted:
"I am seeing a lot of push back from teacher friends on Facebook about the suggestion that they be armed or carry concealed weapons-- they wonder where the funding, training and liability protection will come from when they are forced to buy school supplies on their own"
Stop with the old "teachers are forced to buy their own school supplies" boo-hoo. Too frigging bad. I'm a chef and I've had to supply my own knives and kitchen implements (not to mention chef coats, pants and shoes) at most jobs. Many mechanics have to buy their own tools.
And, of course, chefs and mechanics don't get two months a year off. So spare me about the poor teachers who do this voluntarily.
Freder still thinks 9/11 was a shooting
Mike specifically said "mass killing", not "mass shooting". And again my point is that terror attacks were included in Lott's article to make our stats look better. Deceptive at best.
Only if you are a licensed gun dealer do you have to run a background check. Private sales can and do occur at gun shows.
Prove it. I know the law. That's the burden of being a gun owner. One has to actually FOLLOW the law instead of bullshitting about it. I know you progs go around crowing about the "loophole" but only because you are ignorant. Or evil. Either way you're wrong as usual. Maybe you should google it?
With all that screaming and yelling by the teenaged "survivors", I think that one realistic reform might be to require that people be 21 to purchase any firearms (not just handguns), with the exception of those who have honorable discharges from the military (who had to bear arms in defense of this country for several years of their lives). I would allow a relative to give a long gun to someone under 21, but then make that adult criminally liable for any crimes committed with that gun.
Shooting deaths have been very common in Europe for the last 500 years or so.
I should say that my gun experience is limited to my home state of California which DOES require a FFL and background check. There are some states that do not for private parties at gun shows. But Freder may be interested to know that there has not been a mass shooting where the gun was procured at a gun show.
@Freder - you still haven't made the case of a "gun show loophole".
Mass shooting / mass killing. What does it matter HOW people die Freder? Do you think the kids in the Murray Building were any less dead than the ones in the school shooting?
Hey skipper!
Good point on Flight Deck Officers! Do we pay teachers to do concealed carry or rely upon volunteers?
Do we pay for the training nationally or locally?
What do we do if a school does not have enough volunteers?
Curious about solutions.
I prefer better background checks and realize that gun bans will not work. This is a generational issue and it will be curious to see if attitudes on gun control change over time as they did with gay marriage.
For those gun owners on the site, as Scott Adams says, work on your persuasion skills for the next generation. A photo of Charleton Heston won't do it.
Biggest mass killing in a school happened in 1926 when a school board member dynamited a school killing almost 40 kids and several adults. But that's OK with Freder because it wasn't an evil gun doing the work.
"Private sales can and do occur at gun shows."
Earth to Freder: Crime occurs.
Have you ever bought a gun at a gun show ? Have you ever been to a gun show ?
Re Saturday night specials - Look up Jimenez and Hi-Point and Taurus, etc., also the huge online catalog at Buds Gun Shop.
Heck, even the quality makers are exploding with these. Ruger LCP is their best-seller.
The news media fetishizes mass shootings, turning them into ghoulish displays, wallowing in the raw emotionality and despair of the victims for days after the event. Instead of provoking reasoned debate, this just sows more chaos and division. All of this for ratings and their own personal political agendas. Obviously all of this most likely encourages rather than discourages the next attention seeking deranged lunatic.
I don't believe any of this will change any time soon. There will be more mass shootings. The response will be the same. There's nothing new under the sun.
I don't know what CA does for background checks, but some states that require such for all firearms transactions have discovered, belatedly, that they can't use the federal NICS system that FFLs use.
Found this just now:
"Only six states (California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island) require universal background checks on allfirearm sales at gun shows, including sales by unlicensed dealers. Three more states (Connecticut, Maryland and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows."
Not that I have ever bought a gun at a gun show, but I am glad that I am now an MT, and not a CO resident, as I was until last year. That state is rapidly going leftist wacko. Oh, and I lost all of my guns in a tragic boating accident several years ago.
Marcus:
Your point about chefs and mechanics is well made, but the supplies are part of the expectation. In our society, we have always compensated public employees that have a gun. In North Carolina, police officers have an enhanced pension and can retire at an earlier age than teachers.
The "bring your own" idea is not the paradigm that Teachers bought into when they were hired. They don't supply the books etc.
Fine to change the paradigm, but for it to work, I think you will have to increase pay.
The gun market has expanded enormously over the last decade as I understand it, and there are indeed more young people into it than in the previous decade.
You can infer this to some degree from the enormous increase in the background check statistics. If it was just the old farts buying guns you would not have seen, say, the tripling of background checks since 2005.
Blogger bagoh20 said...
"except in most other civilized countries."
"I think your research has some giant bloody holes in it."
Beloved ARM is a fascist. He doesn't believe anything he posts here.
All the more reason to guard all our rights.
steve uhr said...
"Is it true there are lots of people using AR-15s to protect their home and family as NRA suggests? Seems like a handgun would be more effective in emergency situation."
No. Because we don't trust you to protect our rights.
Freder.
Can you provide proof that Dr. Lotts statistics are bullshit?
I'll wait here.
Up until recently, a news organization _never_ published the name of a rape victim. That policy was entirely voluntary on the part of the media, not government-imposed. Perhaps, in order to not "glorify" mass shooters, the name of the perp should be similarly shielded. But I sorta doubt it, because ratings and agenda.
Guns are very cheap. A functional and adequate weapon can be had for under $200. Even the ammunition for practice is not that expensive, we are talking @$50 annually. A greater obstacle is time and effort, and greater yet is cultural resistance.
I also think American schoolteachers are generally poor material, unlike say Israeli ones. I would worry about gross incompetence, cases of letting stupid children get their hands on teachers gun. This is a huge country with a unified media market, the numbers alone will guarantee a failure somewhere, and one single case will resound far beyond its significance.
One aspect of all this never mentioned is that guns have been excellent hedges against inflation.
I wonder how many collectors are doing this for that reason?
I sold some shotguns that I had had for many years. They sold for ten times what I paid for them.
@steve uhr, a very good question at 8:27. First, I have read — but I cannot find the link — a study that broke out home defense strategies between rifles, shotguns, and handguns. As I recollect, the proportions were relatively evenly split with handguns getting a plurality but long guns are a substantial majority. Sort of like 40-35-25 handguns, rifles, shotguns, but those aren’t the exact figures, just my overall impression. That’s why experts say that the best use of a handgun for home defense is to fight your way to a long gun. If you imagine yourself breaking into a home and finding yourself facing a long gun, you can imagine the intimidation factor.
As to which rifle, single shot and bolt action are only suitable if you can promise that home invaders will only come singly and not in groups. In other words, not at all suitable. So that leaves lever action and semiautomatic. If you go to the Winchester Repeating Arms web page and check the MSRP on a model 1894, you’ll see why — a good AR can be had for about half the cost of a Winchester. Plus the Picatinny rails on an AR lets its owner mount all sorts of goodies and doo-dads, from laser sights to flashlights to telescopic sights and beyond in minutes with no special tools. Changes on lever guns require gunsnithing tools and gunsmithing skills. If you don’t get why that appeals to American men, well ...
I am going to disagree with Leland (sorry). Based on what I have seen in stores and gun shows I think most ARs that are sold are chambered in .223 Remington or the military 5.56 NATO. This is not a cartridge that is suitable for hunting — in fact I believe it’s banned most places, but I could be wrong. So an AR chambered in one of those calibers is probably (with likelihood close to 100%). However Bernie Sanders was lying when he claimed you can’t hunt with an AR because an AR chambered in 6.5 Creedmore or in .30 caliber certainly is suitable for hunting deer and boar.
A complex answer to a question that may have seemed simple.
And with gun ownership at an all-time high while murders are at a 30-year low I have to ask, what the fuck is wrong with you that you focus on the damn gun?
Again, this is deceptive. The percentage of the population that owns guns is most likely dropping (statistics are very hard to come by).
And you can forget ever going after private party transfers. It's none of your goddamned business if my father gave me a gun or vice versa. Keep your laws out of my private life.
So if you want to give or sell your cousin who just did a seven year stint for armed robbery a gun, it is none of my, or the government's, business. Good to know.
"This is not a cartridge that is suitable for hunting — in fact I believe it’s banned most places, but I could be wrong."
It's actually a very good midrange varmint cartridge. Woodchucks, fox and coyote. Some people- much better shots than me- use for deer.
Michael K said...
"One aspect of all this never mentioned is that guns have been excellent hedges against inflation.
I wonder how many collectors are doing this for that reason?
I sold some shotguns that I had had for many years. They sold for ten times what I paid for them."
Back when I had to make hard choices between a new car or another Spanish double the Spanish double usually won.
Ugartechea is sending my daughter through art school.
For "balance", how 'bout some pics of dead school shooters, riddled with return fire? And for extra effect, do what ranchers do with dead vermin: hang the corpse over the top strand of barbed wire.
Buds has the high-quality new Ruger LCP .380 for $186
A box of good quality (made in the Philippines!) 50 rounds of .380 for $11.38
[Robert Payne:] Do we pay teachers to do concealed carry or rely upon volunteers?
Do we pay for the training nationally or locally?
What do we do if a school does not have enough volunteers?
Pilots volunteer; they are not paid extra. Training is funded by the Federal Government; re-qualification is required every two years.
The important point isn't how many volunteers a school might have, only that prospective mass shooters know that armed resistance is possible, and that there is no way of knowing how many, or which school personnel are armed. In the overwhelming majority of these horror shows, the murderer commits suicide upon facing meaningful resistance.
That old saw about when seconds matter, the police will be there in minutes seems particularly apropos here.
I sold some shotguns that I had had for many years. They sold for ten times what I paid for them.
I have a Fox Sterlingworth. Their prices really dropped about 2 years ago, or so. Maybe they've rebounded, I should check.
"The news media fetishizes mass shootings, turning them into ghoulish displays, wallowing in the raw emotionality and despair of the victims for days after the event. Instead of provoking reasoned debate, this just sows more chaos and division. All of this for ratings and their own personal political agendas. Obviously all of this most likely encourages rather than discourages the next attention seeking deranged lunatic."
Think of them as Dem operatives as bylines, and the grieving kids as convenient props to make their progressive talking points. We can't have a reasoned debate here because one side argues emotionally, with almost no facts or logic. An "assault weapons" ban won't work, for a number of reasons, including that they are the most popular types of long guns sold, and they are so popular because they employ modern technology and ergonomics, while allowed guns are limited to > 60 year old technology. Not that different from limiting the 2nd Amdt to muskets because that is all the colonists had. Except that the police and the criminals have modern weaponry. And, because they are so modular, with parts being readily available online. And, because banning such firearms would have no impact on aggregate shooting homicides. How do you even define "assault weapons" with highly modular firearms? (Bayonet lugs are silly, and front hand grips can be added and removed in a minute or two, using the "rails" that are now mostly standard). Etc. We aren't going to have Australian or UK type confiscations or mandatory buy backs, for a number of reasons, including that widespread confiscation would ultimately be quite fatal to those trying to attempt such. Etc. The reality is that most of this country is very safe from gun violence. Most of the gun violence in this country is in lower income, esp heavily Black, urban areas, that most of us avoid at almost any cost. Far, far, less gun violence than during most of the history of this country, despite, or maybe because, there are now probably more guns in the hands of the general public, than there are people, citizens, legal immigrants, and illegals, combined.
Can you provide proof that Dr. Lotts statistics are bullshit?
Yes, the article contains his raw data, and he includes terror attacks in his statistics which skew the numbers for France and Belgium especially. Norway is high because of a single incident that killed a lot of people (and some of the victims there were bomb victims). And of course one mass shooting in a country of 5 million that kills 77 people (which was also an act of domestic terrorism) is going to skew the data.
So if you want to give or sell your cousin who just did a seven year stint for armed robbery a gun, it is none of my, or the government's, business. Good to know.
You just can't argue in good faith can you? Selling a weapon to a felon is, guess what, a felony itself. Try again with less pedantic example please. My cousin is a 5-time champion in the Steel Challenge not a felon. That means the kind of gun control we practice involves hitting the target more than the other guy does. I also used to keep my .357 with me at all times when I taught high school in gang territory for 10 years. My students weren't going to be helpless in the face of an armed intruder. Never had to use it.
Two more thoughts. Anyone who mentions the "gun show loophole" has never bought a gun at a gun show. They run the NCIS check right there on the spot. Of course that applies to modern guns; I did once buy a gun at a gun show without a background check, but that's because it was an antique black powder revolver and cartridges have not been made for it for 60 or 70 years.
Secondly, I forgot one of the key reasons for the popularity of ARs as home defense weapons, and that is the lady of the house. A long gun that nestles nicely into the shoulder of a six foot tall man will be hard for a petite woman to handle. An AR with a telescoping stock can be adjusted for the female member of the household, but converted at a touch for use by the husband.
Also recoil. There is a story that back in the day Army and Marine drill sergeants used to demonstrate how light the recoil from the M-16 was by shooting it while it was pressed against their crotch. Of course drill sergeants' gonads are made of high carbon steel, but still an AR in .223 is a long gun with very low recoil. This is partly due to the shoulder stock being aligned with the barrel, and partly due to the gun's buffer spring.
Despite all of that I don't myself own an AR. I just try to understand why someone else would.
Why exclude terror attacks?
These are part of the social environment, and add to the general risk.
Europe has a higher risk in that category than the US for exactly the sort of social reasons that the US has for gun violence in general, which is the ethnic makeup of the population. Letting in lots of Muslims raises ongoing risk.
US crime statistics show the ethnic element in US risk.
My YMCA in the 60's had a small gun range in the basement where we learned gun safety with 22 rifles. Nobody shot up the Y as I can recall.
Recall that the shooting death of Hadiya Pendleton politicized by Obama in his SOTU speech was murdered by a gangbanger out on probation:
"At the time of the shooting, Ward, the gunman, was on probation. In January 2012, he pleaded guilty to aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, and was sentenced to two years of probation. Less than three months later, he was arrested and charged with breaking into a car. In July 2012, he was arrested for breaking into a different vehicle. In November 2012, he was arrested for misdemeanor trespassing. During his youth, he had also been arrested numerous times on charges ranging from robbery to battery to marijuana possession, and had spent time on juvenile probation.
As of August 28, 2017, the case was awaiting trial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Hadiya_Pendleton
Shorter Freder, terror attacks don't count. If Cruz was a Muslim who shouted "Allahu Akbar" while he was pulling that trigger, he'd be studiously ignoring the massacre.
Have you ever bought a gun at a gun show ? Have you ever been to a gun show ?
Don't own a gun, don't need one. And I live in a city with one of the highest crime and murder rates (some years the highest, but always in the top ten) in the country (New Orleans).
Shorter Freder, terror attacks don't count.
If we are talking about mass killings, then they don't count. Just like gang killings or killings involving another underlying crime don't count. If you don't like it, take it up with the FBI, not me.
steve uhr said...
"Is it true there are lots of people using AR-15s to protect their home and family as NRA suggests? Seems like a handgun would be more effective in emergency situation."
Depends on the situation. A handgun might be optimal when clearing a house. Or fighting your way to your long guns. Against a single intruder trying to enter, I might go with a shotgun. And something like an AR-15 might be optimal for multiple intruders. I would maybe prefer a shotgun over an AR in a heavily urban environment, but most of us wouldn't live in such. In very rural areas, an AR-15 firing .223/5.56 caliber ammunition might be good for close in, but a hunting rifle shooting a more powerful caliber might be better for longer distances. So, it depends.
I don't own a gun either, don't need one and its very inconvenient to use one for amusement here (SF Bay Area). Oddly enough, its easier in Manila, in spite of supposedly stricter gun laws. #1 son took me to ranges there a couple of times.
But I have shot extensively in the past, and owned guns. And I try to keep up. This is a very important, culturally and politically significant subject in this country, far beyond the matter of crime and "gun control" policy. It is part of your constitutional order, uniquely in the world.
You just can't argue in good faith can you? Selling a weapon to a felon is, guess what, a felony itself.
So you believe that there should be limits on private transfers? That's not what you posted earlier.
Your argument is that private sales are none of the government's business. You are the one who lacks good faith. Your statement was that you had the right to transfer a firearm to anyone you wished.
"Even the ammunition for practice is not that expensive, we are talking @$50 annually."
Don't know how you can stay moderately adept at that. I spend maybe $40 A WEEK (200 rounds of 9mm target ammo).
"Buds has the high-quality new Ruger LCP .380 for $186"
The term "Saturday night special" was introduced to refer to cheap pistols, mostly revolvers at the time, that could be bought on the street for $18.
The street hoods now come armed with much better guns.
I even remember when street gangs made their own "zip guns" from car radio antennas and wood stocks. The antenna tube was just the right size to fit a .22 caliber cartridge. A rubber band was often the hammer.
Don't own a gun, don't need one.
No one needs a gun. Until they do. Then they need it badly.
Bet he doesn't have a fire extinguisher in or near his kitchen, either.
The redefinition of "mass killings" to exclude terrorism is absurd, or disingenuously propagandistic, no matter what the FBI says.
Risk is risk.
Freder;
Your statement was that you had the right to transfer a firearm to anyone you wished.
You also have the right, in fact obligation, to go to jail of that turns out to be a felony.
Come on. You aren't this dumb.
If you need to reliably hit a single human being with a magazine (or cylinder) of ammunition at, say, five yards, you don't have to practice much. Thats more or less the requirement. More important is learning safety.
If you want to hit moving humans or a pie plate size target at 50 yards, thats something else.
Bet he doesn't have a fire extinguisher in or near his kitchen, either.
The chance of my having a kitchen fire is much higher than a situation I can conceive where a gun would be useful (especially considering the time, effort and cost it requires to effectively handle a firearm). Hell, look at Bruce, he spends $40 a week on ammo and how many times has he fired a gun in anger.
I guess I'm just not as paranoid as you.
The $18 guns were in the 1960s.
There has been inflation since.
You can certainly get a functional used gun in the US, legally, for $50. Not in California because the vendor has to have a margin for hassle, but I have been to Nevada in the last decade.
You also have the right, in fact obligation, to go to jail of that turns out to be a felony.
Mike wants all private transfers to be beyond the reach of the government. So how are you going to enforce the law if private transfers are none of the government's business? Even if his hypothetical cousin (and it was a hypothetical cousin, I didn't mean to disparage his real cousin) is caught, as long as he keeps his mouth shut about where he got the gun (as is his right under the Fifth Amendment) Mike will never be charged.
So it is kind of ridiculous to say that private transfers should not be subject to any scrutiny but still believe some such transactions are rightfully felonies.
ARM wrote: "All your talking points are scripted, by the NRA."
No Actually, our "talking points are not scripted. They are fueled by common sense, facts and the Second Amendment.
At least half of the assertions made by the left and its mediaswine about firearms and mass shootings are false. Numerous sources document the actual facts, like, say, the actual number of school mass shootings. I have not seen the NRA among them.The other half are mostly short-sighted and silly. Most of them could be rebutted by children although, apparently, not children indoctrinated by the public school system.
I don't know whether news coverage fuels the nuts or not. Probably. It seems more evident that the carnage delivered by Hollywood and video games is likely to produce insensitivity to mass killing as well as a sense of justification.
What I have said over and over is that the argument touting guns for personal protection is unrealistic. For the vast majority of gun owners in the US the risk of loss through crime is so low that owning a gun as "insurance" makes no sense.
The genuine reason they sell so well, and especially why sales have probably tripled in a decade, is due to a very widespread, intense feeling of politico-cultural-social risk.
Its certainly not "crime"; gun sales were flat or falling back in the 1970s-90s when crime rates were very high.
The problem, Freder, is that one part of the US population, that with excessive power, is scaring the daylights out of another part. Who buy guns in response. This is all a matter of cultural perceptions.
The chance of my having a kitchen fire is much higher than a situation I can conceive where a gun would be useful
Perhaps I'm paranoid, perhaps you lack imagination.
Bullshit. Lott's deceptive statistics (I realize that statement is redundent) include terror attacks to make our level of mass killings by firearms look relatively good.
And why wouldn't these count? Are these not people who are looking to kill groups of people?
"What gives cue-ball? I'm lookin' at you thinking 14 in the side pocket!"
Yes, the article contains his raw data, and he includes terror attacks in his statistics which skew the numbers for France and Belgium especially. Norway is high because of a single incident that killed a lot of people (and some of the victims there were bomb victims). And of course one mass shooting in a country of 5 million that kills 77 people (which was also an act of domestic terrorism) is going to skew the data.
You're doing the same thing - tweaking the stats to get the result you want - to exclude what doesn't prove your point. The US has a lot more people than most of the countries were compared against, yet the lefties usually don;t cite incidents per capita because it might hurt their point.
"So how are you going to enforce the law if private transfers are none of the government's business?"
Oh well. It's a waste of time but here goes:
The "cousin' commits a crime with the gun. He is arrested and asked, "where did a felon like you get this gun? "
You know that thing about "honor among thieves?"
You're busted and you can share a jail cell with the "cousin."
" So it is kind of ridiculous to say that private transfers should not be subject to any scrutiny but still believe some such transactions are rightfully felonies"
So you want oversight over what I can do with property that belongs to me?
@Freder - I could just as easily be spending that money at a bar, or for movies. Several times that for one day’s lift ticket at a decent ski area. I enjoy shooting more these days. Somehow therapeutic.
I don’t go through life any more paranoid than you do. But I think that I am realistic. 73 year old Chevy Chase just chased down a truck with three occupants because he mistakenly thought that they had side swiped him, or some such. They hadn’t. He got his ass (actually, his shoulder) kicked. His “assailant” is claiming self-defense - and his two friends corroborate. Duh. He is just lucky he didn’t end up in the hospital, or worse.
Washington Post-ABC News Poll Feb 2018
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2018/02/20/National-Politics/Polling/release_513.xml?tid=a_mcntx
Quote:
Q: (You may have heard about the mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida this week.) Do you think this event could or could not have been prevented by allowing school teachers to carry guns?
A: *** Could have been prevented: 42% ***
--- End quote ---
And teachers have heard the message.
Sheriff offers free CCW class for teachers, 250 sign up in 24 hours
http://www.fox19.com/story/37534330/butler-sheriff-im-going-to-offer-ccw-classes-to-teachers
It's time for Limbaugh to revive KOOKS keep our own kids safe.
Originally formed to protect kids from soccer injuries.
The selling of guns will spike during the next month because of this.
This grass roots movement will also peter out within the same time frame- it is already undoing itself with the over-the-top rhetoric. Banning guns is a foolish idea, but it is one the Left can never give up because the base fervently believes in it. One would start a true civil war if one ever actually got such a ban enacted.
He got his ass (actually, his shoulder) kicked. His “assailant” is claiming self-defense - and his two friends corroborate. Duh. He is just lucky he didn’t end up in the hospital, or worse.
I don't understand the lesson in this story. Who would have been better off if they were armed? Chevy Chase, his assailant, both? Seems to me if there were guns involved somebody might have ended up dead.
“The problem, Freder, is that one part of the US population, that with excessive power, is scaring the daylights out of another part. Who buy guns in response. This is all a matter of cultural perceptions.”
I think that is a good point. I did my part, by buying a gun the day before the election in 2016, expecting Crooked Hillary to win. The problem is the perception that the left figures that they don’t need guns, because they control the police. They want bigger, more intrusive, government, which means imposing their policy preferences at the point of a gun. Further compounding that problem is that the big losers to the left in recent years are working class whites, who have had, since at least the time of Jackson, a Scott’s-Irish descended willingness to fight for what they think is right. And, yes, the gun control fetish of the Democrats has helped move them into the arms of the Republicans. Guns to them means self-reliance, and has for hundreds of years. Isn’t going to change anytime soon.
The "cousin' commits a crime with the gun. He is arrested and asked, "where did a felon like you get this gun? "
Like I said, he doesn't have to say a word, or he can say "I'm not telling you". Apparently you are only familiar with the Second Amendment and not the Fifth.
As Charles Cooke recommended a couple of years ago, if they want to ban guns there is a well defined process to do so. It's going to take a lot of effort and time to do it, so they'd best get started. In the meantime they could work on changing another law that can be done much more quickly: the Gun-Free School Zones Act. Eliminating it will immediately increase the safety of the schools while they fuss around with that tedious and burdensome Constitutional Amendment process.
Or they can continue to caterwaul for the elimination of GUNS now until the November election. Don't forget to engage the youngsters in this activity.
-sw
The problem is the perception that the left figures that they don’t need guns, because they control the police.
I don't know where you found lefties who think they control the police. They, or you, are seriously deluded.
As Charles Cooke recommended a couple of years ago, if they want to ban guns there is a well defined process to do so. It's going to take a lot of effort and time to do it, so they'd best get started.
Yup. And given his hardline gun-grabber stance in the presidential election, I think Tim Kaine should join Dianne Feinstein in pushing that legislation as hard as he can.
My reference to private transfer was gifts from family or friends. Believe it or not Freder many of us deplorables actually share guns with each other. I did not say SELL. I said gift. CA does want in on this now but none of us is complying.
@Freder - the point is that it is just as easy for the left to underestimate danger as the right to overestimate it. Chase seems to have been living in a world of rainbows and unicorns. I wouldn’t force a pickup truck to stop like he did - because they are decently likely to either be armed and/or wanting to kick my butt. Heck, using your vehicle to force another vehicle to stop can sometimes even be legally seen as threatening imminent death or great bodily injury, legally justifying the use of lethal force in self-defense. And, down here in the PHX area, there are a lot of vehicles that I won’t honk at, because road rage is a real thing. Not worth the risk.
I teach in a public high school in Southern California. I'd carry if they let me. I'd take the classes and buy the gun with my own money on my own time too.
Headline at Italy's La Repubblica today (translated): "Trump considers arming teachers"
Consider how that headline is both true, and a completely misrepresentation of the facts. But hey, as long as Trump looks foolish, it's all good.
"Left" is a matter of definitions isn't it? One can "no true Scotsman" forever.
Anyway, where the liberals, to resurrect the term, are the political masters of the police, however defined and at whatever level, they assume they can use them to impose their will. As they can, in normal times, even against public opinion in, say, rural California.
If the constitutional order were to break down it would be interesting to see on which side the police would fall, and more interesting maybe, what the CA National Guard would do.
These groups are disproportionately "deplorable".
@Buwaya...the Bill of Rights was legal structure for the fight for the Land that was coveted by every European Empire as its own loot. And so long as the US Military did its job, the individual rights to own and carry guns were only a fun hobby.
But that is not been true since the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama Presidencies started re-purposing the US Military as a sophisticated occupation force commanded by the World Government.
Then along came Trump. He again wants our Laws enforced, the laws that a say American citizens own this land. And he is winning.
I saw a picture of an Israeli pulling playground duty for a bunch of young kids. She had a World War II vintage M1 carbine sling over her shoulder. The kids did not appear to be traumatized.
“I don't know where you found lefties who think they control the police. They, or you, are seriously deluded.”
Tell that to the Bundys who had the effrontery to run cattle near the solar panels owned by a client of Harry Reid’s oldest son. Or Freddie Gray who died as a result of increased policing at the request of the state attorney (who later prosecuted the six police involved in doing her bidding) whose husband was the city councilman for that district.
Government laws and regulations are enforced, essentially, at the point of government guns. More laws and regulations means more enforcement at gunpoint. Which laws and regulations get enforced is intensely political (which is why Crooked Hillary could get away with blatantly committing hundreds, if not thousands of federal felonies, while her opponents are threatened with prison for maybe not being 100% honest with the FBI). The Democrats are the party of big government, which means that they expect to be able to utilize those government guns to enforce their laws against their political enemies, but don’t expect them enforced against themselves.
Israeli teacher.
“If the constitutional order were to break down it would be interesting to see on which side the police would fall, and more interesting maybe, what the CA National Guard would do.
These groups are disproportionately "deplorable".”
Agreed. And I would suggest that this would include any serious effort to disarm the American populace, as was essentially done in Australia and the UK. I think that such would go exceedingly poorly for those trying to effect such. For most states, the National Guard would not be an issue, because the governor wouldn’t dare utilize them for such. Fastest way to get themselves removed from office, whether through impeachment, or extralegally. But some of the Deep blue states, and esp, as you suggest, CA, would maybe be more problematic. I think that Gov Moonbeam is smart enough to understand this. But his likely successor? From all indications so far, I think much less likely.
As for the police, I am reminded of what happened with CO imposing new gun laws. Most of the sheriffs in the state essentially said that they didn’t have the resources, so the Dems at the state house in Denver, who passed the new gun laws, could just go pound sand. They essentially have prosecutorial discretion on which laws they choose to enforce. As elected officials, they would follow what their constituents wanted, which was to spend their limited resources elsewhere, enforcing laws that those constituents preferred be enforced.
And imagine the federal govts’ problems enforcing any sort of serious disarmament. They can’t use the regular military, thanks to Posse Comitatus, plus the same deplorable problem that CA would have with its National Guard. They can’t depend on State and local police, because they are politically controlled at the state, county, and city level. Plus, again, the deplorable problem. Which leaves federal agents (many also deplorable), and not nearly enough of them to make any meaningful impact.
What is it they say?
Democrats support gun control because their fellow Democrats rob and assault them with guns.
Republicans love guns so they can defend themselves from Democrats.
I am seeing a lot of push back from teacher friends on Facebook about the suggestion that they be armed or carry concealed weapons-- they wonder where the funding, training and liability protection will come from when they are forced to buy school supplies on their own.
2/22/18, 7:31 AM
They wouldn't be forced to do it. There would probably be at least a couple teachers in most schools who would want carry a concealed weapon. Just knowing they might be there might deter some shooters. The point is they know now that schools are "gun free zones" and so virtually every person in there is at their mercy.
I'd carry if they let me. I'd take the classes and buy the gun with my own money on my own time too.
It's now banned. New law that closes exceptions.
Post a Comment