“Last time we visited with her in person we talked about prepping and you know, are you ready for what can happen down the line when the economy collapses,” said the gunman’s aunt, Marsha Lanza.Whenever I debate or get involved in discussion with gun lovers, they inevitably bring up needing their guns so that they are ready or prepared to defend themselves for...well, whatever. Most cite the common criminal acts but there are also those, like Lanza, who claim the need to counter future civil unrest or uprising. It seems that some of these folks seem to live a life of paranoia and of being scared to the point where they can't even enjoy a minute of rest without being "prepared." If you're not carrying, you're not "prepared," they'll maintain. Running out to the corner 7-11 means loading up and psyching yourself up to "engage," if need be.
The reporter asked, “Survivalist kind of thing?”
“Yea,” said Marsha Lanza.
Some might argue that this kind of paranoia and fear is a mental illness in and of itself. I think that kind of determination is best left to a professional. But imagine living a life constantly being scared and frightened. It's a life wasted, in my opinion, and you almost feel sorry for these folks.
Almost.
Because if it wasn't for the fact that every now and then one of them goes off the deep end and takes a few Americans with them, they would, indeed, be pitiful...instead of dangerous.
.
29 comments:
"the fact that every now and then one of them goes off the deep end and takes a few Americans with them"
This is the kind of rhetoric that brings any sort of policy discussion to a screeching halt.
Why? Because the exact same can be said about social drinkers. And yet, we don't ban alcohol, we don't ban cars...heck we don't even ban drinking and driving so long as your BAC is below a certain level. And even if you get caught DUI, you'll get your license back in a couple months with full privileges!
So what is the policy calculus that arrived at our current DUI laws, and why should guns (actually less risky, statistically) not be subject to the same analysis? Is it because DUIs only kill one kid at a time, which never makes the national (and sometimes not even local) news?
The answer is simple: a hatred of conservatives. Because, hey, liberals like to drink to and you'll have to pry that chablis glass out of their cold dead hands?
The rhetoric is also divisive for its cherry picking, but hey no surprise from a blogger that thinks all conservatives worship Rush Limbaugh.
It's your side, JM, that is claiming that every mass murderer out there is a nut job. Are you saying that they're cold, calculating geniuses? Dude, you're off the NRA script. Better go back and reread your last newsletter.
I'll put down my chablis glass as soon as you put down your burger...know what I mean, JM?
Sure you do.
.
Rick-
1. My point is not to dispute that they are nut jobs. My point is that life is not risk free. Most people can go out for dinner, have a glass of wine or two, and not kill anyone on the drive home. But there are people with problems, they drink too much and tragedy on the roads ensues. It's just not as spectacular, but it happens and for various reasons, society has chosen to accept the risk and we have fairly minimal restrictions on drinking and driving.
So the question is, why does the left want to ban all guns (or certain guns) based on the acts of a few bad apples, but at the same time, no ban on alcohol, certain kinds of alcohol, cars, or even mixing drinking and driving? If saving lives was paramount, why not ban alcohol? Nobody "needs" alcohol. You can laugh, but the logic is inescapable.
2. As for the burger, I have no idea what you are talking about. Again, in your mind all conservatives are old fat white guys. The reality that a conservative, a member of a minority group, and also a vegetarian in excellent physical condition just doesn't register with you, because then we would be similar to you, and if there were too many similarities, sooner or later you might have to acknowledge us as human beings.
Yes, the logic is inescapable, JM. Like the logic that says that if the 2nd Amendment gives everyone the right to arm themselves, why can't we buy bazookas and Stinger missiles? Logic, right?
BTW, that "logic" is the only card, besides mental illness, that you guys have left to play. I don't blame you for going that route. But it really is lame and way over played by a side that has nothing left to defend mass murders in America.
.
Guns are designed to kill. That's their purpose. Cars, pens, ropes, whatever, those things may kill also but that its not their purpose and intent.
Apples. Oranges.
This is the kind of rhetoric that brings any sort of policy discussion to a screeching halt in my book.
But getting back to Rick's original point: I think there's a blurring of the lines between prpared and paranoia for too many people. Unfortunately, events like this further add to the paranoia for a lot of people. I don't see this as solely a gun control issue as many do. There are so many issues, mental health, education, etc that this brings up. The problem is that instead of engaging in constructive change, people are too busy stockpiling food and weapons because in many ways, it's the easy way to deal with the problem.
And the whole wine/burger thing is pure stupidity (I do't care who started it) and it does nothing but detract from finding any real solutions to this problem. Grow up.
Hopeful, appreciate your thoughts.
The burger comment isn't as it seems and is between me and JM. He gets it.
.
Rick-
Your response is unintelligible and off point. The question is why society allows deaths as a consequence of certain rights but not others. The right to bear arms is an explicit constitutional right. The right to drink and drive is not, yet our DUI are so lax that people die, and you accept this for various reasons.
Hopeful-
You are parroting Rick's inaccurate portrayal of all gun owners as paranoid. Go to Markham park gun range (or any public range) on a Saturday and hang out. You'll meet normal people (most likely your neighbors) from all walks of life. Better yet, read "Shooters" by Abigail Kohn.
Fact is, most gun owners are just normal, every day people. Like most social drinkers. Like social drinkers, gun owners are rarely a problem and deaths caused by lawful gun owners are less than drunk driving deaths. There are now 1 million concealed carry permits issued in Florida.
But you say, guns are only for killing people. Well, that's wrong, but I say the same thing about abortions. Yet you say women have a constitutional right to an abortion, even though you can't actually quote me that text in the constitution. But the 2nd amendment clearly and explicitly provides an individual right to bear arms (Heller case). You can't pick and choose which rights are worth incidental deaths and which aren't based solely on your political affiliation.
JM, Answer the question: If the 2nd Amendment gives everyone the right to arm themselves then why can't I buy a bazooka or a Stinger missile launcher? I mean, I really want to arm myself!
And, no, I never said that all gun owners are paranoid. I think you'll see "some" in there at least once.
And Hopeful never parroted that fictitious position either.
As I suspected, all you have is talking points and when the conversation goes off script, you're lost.
.
The first words of the Second Amendment are "A well regulated militia..."
Some people like to skip that part.
And ignore the hamburger comment, JM. If you're a runner, you can't be the person I thought you were.
.
True dat: a Constitutional right. Enshrined right there behind the First Amendment's protection of freedom of expression. And yet -- the list of things you can't express without penalty, from commercial restrictions to obscenity to physical threats -- is also enshrined in statutes for the protection of the greater citizenry. Seems like a fair and needed trade-off, even as we quibble over details.
This sensible list of restrictions is what gun nuts steadfastly resist (although I just saw a statement that 74% of NRA members approve of a uniform mandatory background check). If an American has a right to own a gun, then somehow he also has the right to own 50 guns, automatic weapons, unlimited ammunition, and a rocket launcher in a pear tree.
Some of us just don't accept that 27 dead people in a suburban school is worth that freedom.
Rick:
"why can't I buy a bazooka or a Stinger missile launcher?"
Because according to Heller, the State can place reasonable restrictions upon your right to bear arms. Although not articulated in Heller, the restrictions likely need to pass a test of strict scrutiny, similar to free speech restrictions. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, but you can post an anti-islam video on youtube even if it means a bunch of adherents to the religion of peace will riot and kill Americans and each other. If you want to talk about why a ban on AR-15s, or semi-auto firearms generally, does not pass strict scrutiny, we can do that. But that's not what you want to do, you just want to demonize conservatives.
Mustang:
Funny I bet you can quote Roe v. Wade by heart but you have not read Heller, or maybe you have and want to just lie about how the Supreme Court has interpreted that language. Short answer: an individual has a constitutional right to bear arms. Your Alinsky-ite tactics are transparent, you cannot fool all of the people all of the time Bobby, so run along and hock your wares on the weak minded, you'll have more success.
JM, you can provide a thoughtful reflection on the situation and ultimately with Rick and his cohorts you are wasting your time. Been down that road before. Bottom line here is that Rick's political ideology are too removed from the center where one is able to find common ground and dialogue. Next time pick a blogger that has not gotten drunk on the kool-aid.
Rick, you know I appreciate your dedication to your local blog, but really stop continuing to alienate your blog from the general public. For Christ's sake I even the Miami New Times is not as skewed as your blog.
Regards
Zed.
Squathole:
1. All guns purchased through dealers are subject to a background check. Personally I would not object to a background check requirement for all transfers, if the check is performed by a dealer as intermediary and his fees are fixed by statute at a reasonable amount. It is not clear to me thought that this so-called "gun show loophole" has ever resulted in any significant deaths.
2. right to own 50 guns
Why does it matter how many guns someone owns? That is like saying you can only run one blog, or read only one newspaper. So long as they are secured, who cares?
3. automatic weapons
Very few Americans own automatic weapons. They cost tens of thousands of dollars in addition to a $200 transfer tax. Since the 80's no new automatic can be transferred to civilians. The handguns 99.99% of Americans rely on (most popular being Glock brand pistols) for self-defense are semi-automatic, not automatic.
4. unlimited ammunition
See #2. Ammunition is heavy and sold in bulk. I shoot competitively and save hundreds of dollars buying thousands of rounds at a time, which may take me a year or two to expend. It's like saying a golfer can only own 3 golf balls. Who cares, as long as its secure. And in these shooting sprees, usually less than 50 rounds (1 $20 box at Walmart) is expended anyway. So even if stolen, so what?
To be more practical, depending on caliber, 1000 rounds will weigh like 5 or 10 lbs. You don't just carry that around.
5. and a rocket launcher in a pear tree.
No American civilians own rocket launchers. FUD in action.
6. "Some of us just don't accept that 27 dead people in a suburban school is worth that freedom."
And some of us don't accept that tens of thousands of dead babies is worth a woman's "freedom" to choose an abortion. But you call me a troglodyte for having that opinion. How many died because of the youtube anti-islam video? Do you accept that as a consequence of free speech? How many die annually because we allow drinking and driving, and have lax penalties for doing so in excess? Why are you so fixated on guns, when if you really cared about saving lives, there is much, much lower hanging fruit? I'll tell you why, you hate conservatives.
"Your Alinsky-ite tactics are transparent, you cannot fool all of the people all of the time Bobby, so run along and hock your wares on the weak minded, you'll have more success."
Paranoid? Who said paranoid!?!
Thank you, Col. Flagg. You're a delight.
Zed....been a while, and by "a while" I mean not long enough. Still out there spending your days trolling, aren't you?
Yeah, I didn't get the memo from The Blogging Bible that says, "Don't share opinions [or at least those that differ from your Republican readers]."
Me and JM were having a very reasonable discussion here before you stuck your nose in it. I was just getting ready to explain to him how walking into a elementary school and killing a couple dozen kids is different from driving drunk. He's having a tough time separating the two.
.
It’s amazing how the reaction to this tragedy in Connecticut ---a senseless and incomprehensible evil-- is a chance for opportunistic political position—to ban guns! Completely ignoring the motivation and root causes of this unspeakable violence. Is it really because the guns are making it happen? Really? Would we feel better if this guy used a bow and arrow or a bomb or some other way to kill? We take away the guns of over 60 million law abiding gun-owners and freakshows like this suddenly go away?
I am a gun owner. I go shoot sporting clays at Markham Park nearly every Saturday. I've gone on a hunt before. I enjoy these activities, games of sport. I own 3 shotguns. I have thought about getting into shooting a rifle. Again, this would be for sport. I do not own a single handgun nor do I have a desire to. I do not own a firearm for "protection", nor do I feel the need to.
Bottom line is this: Guns aren't going away. Anyone who thinks that Obama is going to take their guns away is paranoid and wrong. At the same time, there is a clear and present danger giving access to certain types of guns that fire high velocity rounds with large magazine capabilities. There is no need for such weapons, much like there is no need for a civilian to have a rocket launcher at his or her house. It's excessive. It's dangerous.
The 2nd Amendment was put in place a long time ago, long before arms were capable of doing what they can today. There needs to be reform and there needs to be universal mandatory background checks regardless of the type of arms purchased.
SteveBM-
Ok, let's discuss. What "certain types of guns" are you talking about? And btw., having never owned one or shot one, do you really feel qualified and informed enough to have a strong opinion?
And can we stop with this "rocket launcher" nonsense? No civilians in the US own rocket launchers and no rocket launchers have ever been used in a crime.
JM: I believe that 3 of 4 guns used at Colombine were legally purchased at a gun show, then transferred illegally to the killers/kids. And there's the problem.
I agree that people may have as many guns as they want. Buy the whole set! But I would like these owners to leave a record behind. This, I have read, would reduce the number of illegal traffickers whose resell weapons that end up in the hands of felons such as international drug dealers. Seems reasonable to me.
Personally, I would not call you a troglodyte for your abortion views, which I disagree with. Nor do I hate conservatives, among whom are members of my own family (one of whom handles my investments) and some very close friends. Your reply to me performs exactly the same function as your accusation to Rick: you are generalizing, stereotyping, and falsely labeling.
We could talk about abortion some time if you like. I'd be curious to know your stand on honor killing, capital punishment, and euthanasia. Save war for another time.
JM -
I didn't say I've never shot a rifle. I said I do not own one. I have shot an AR-15, Mini 14, M4A1 (full auto), an MP5 submachine gun (full auto), along with a few others. I'm interested in shooting a 30-O6 for sport. Yes, I feel qualified enough to say that there is no reason for a civilian to own an assault rifle that can fire 30 single fire rounds in under a minute.
Just so you know, I'm nodding in agreements at a few of the comments youve made but you totally lose me when you go off on the "this is because (insert person for firearm control here) hates conservatives" riff.
There is middle ground here that allows Americans to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights but that regulates how they can do so in a reasonable manner.
JM...okay, let me spoon feed you my point.
Somewhere, sometime someone decided that rocket launchers and other heavy armament should not be in the hands of the general population. Because why? Because they are too destructive and can kill too many people, too fast. [Note: I have not handled a rocket launcher but somehow I have gained this knowledge.]
We need to have this same conversation with high-velocity, military style rifles...now. We can negotiate other reasonable restrictions and/or controls that reasonable people [like SteveBM] can agree to...but the military-style, high velocity weaponry comes off the market immediately.
.
"I would like these owners to leave a record behind. This, I have read, would reduce the number of illegal traffickers whose resell weapons that end up in the hands of felons such as international drug dealers."
Our Florida Statutes, 790.335 state:
2. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a law enforcement tool and can become an instrument for profiling, harassing, or abusing law-abiding citizens based on their choice to own a firearm and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Further, such a list, record, or registry has the potential to fall into the wrong hands and become a shopping list for thieves.
3. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a tool for fighting terrorism, but rather is an instrument that can be used as a means to profile innocent citizens and to harass and abuse American citizens based solely on their choice to own firearms and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution.
I strongly agree with paragraph 2 with respect to a shopping list for thieves. Unlike automobile registration, which perhaps serves a purpose, a thief decides to steal a car based on seeing the car itself, not searching DMV records for owners of a particular car. But nobody knows who owns guns just by looking at them (which is why we have concealed but not open carry in Florida). Given wikileaks, etc. I do not trust the government with a list of gun owners.
Also, with respect to the illicit international arms trade, keep in mind the commies produced literally millions of AK-47 automatic rifles and nobody knows what became of them, and nobody cares. The world is awash in these rifles, read "The Gun" by CJ Shivers, also he spoke on booktv.org if you search for that video. So given the market is already flooded with AK-47s, tracing US guns really accomplishes nothing. And Ak-47s are pretty easy to make. Heck, if the mexican cartels are buying and building submarines, it is a simple task to set up a plant to crank out thousands of ak-47s in the jungle somewhere.
But FWIW, NFA items such as silencers, short barreled rifles and shotguns as well as full-auto machine guns are indeed subject to registration requirements with ATF, and the penalties for failing to do so are very serious.
With respect to Columbine, we can say the same thing about kids who somehow got their hands on alcohol. Surely teen drunks have killed more of their peers on the roads than columbine by several multiples. But nobody suggests the answers is to ban alcohol, cars, or absolutely prohibiting drinking and driving. Nobody accuses the wine and beer industry of being merchants of death, even though they are responsible for a lot of it if we are to blame instrumentalities rather than people.
Ok fine, let's talk about this big bad scary black rifle called the AR-15.
1. These massacres take place at close range in crowded environs. SteveBM says part of the problem is "high velocity" ammunition, whatever that means. I assume he means that "rifle" rounds are used instead of "pistol" rounds. But at close range, this makes no significant difference. Whether someone goes on a spree on close range targets with a 9mm handgun or a .223 carbine, you're going to get about the same number of dead bodies. We have no incidents of madmen using AR-15 to massacre people at long range (the purpose of rifle rounds). So right of the bat, SteveBM's "high velocity" concern is meaningless. A "low velocity" bullet is just as deadly at close range. Duh.
2. Next SteveBM says the problem is high capacity magazines. Well, magazines are cheap and with a little practice it takes only 1 second to swap out an empty with a full magazine (go on youtube and you'll see it demonstrated). So you want to ban 50 round magazines? The shooter just carries 5 ten round magazines. Common practice is to drop a not-yet-empty magazine and replenish whenever there is a lull in the fighting. So again, the odds lives will be saved with a magazine capacity limit is slim or none.
Maybe Steve lives in a very safe neighborhood and has lead a very safe life. Not all of us have that luxury. I had the misfortune of living in a state that made firearms ownership neigh impossible. My dwelling was broken into while I was home, and I had to fend off the invader with nothing more than a dumbell. It took the cops 20 minutes to arrive, and I called them while I was confronting the intruder! Now I'm a Floridian, but the homes in my area today in Florida, have an average value of $250-300k, but many have been broken into. One neighbor's house was broken into while he was out and his kids were home!
So Steve, realize that while most gun owners are not paranoid, we are simply not so cavalier about the chances violence will visit us. There is a world west of I95.
Also part of Steve's problem is he sounds like a somewhat skilled shooter. Its easy to forget that not everyone has the skill to be effective with older systems like revolvers,pump action shotguns or bolt-action rifles. The weaker and less skilled the person, the more "entitled" they are to an easy-to-use system with enough firepower to allow them to win the fight.
JM: That statute, which sounds like it was penned by NRA lobbyists, is an excellent statement of the problem, and in fact is cited by the Law Center to Prevent Violence as a reason Florida earns a D- in protecting its citizens from gun-generated violence. http://smartgunlaws.org/registration-of-firearms-policy-summary/.
PS Lsw Center to Prevent Violence, not Prohibit Gun Ownesrhip or Encourage Conservative-Hating.
Squathole-
Gun owners are not idiots, we understand the theory behind such lists. The problem is that the "other side" is willfully oblivious to the minimal utility and dangers of such lists.
Most gun crime in America is gang related. Will lists eliminate gangs? Of course not. Guns used in crimes are almost always stolen. Will lists stop home and auto burglaries? Of course not.
So there is this sort of fantasy that I don't know, the wife of some wealthy doctor is found shot and her body and the gun dumped in the everglades. And the CSI team traces this back to the doctor through a magic list. That is just not the reality of how guns are being used in crimes in America. The reality is that 99% of the time, gang bangers show up dead, there were plenty of witnesses, and in any case the guns were stolen.
Every shooting spree you can think of...was there ever a doubt as to the identity of the shooter, or where he got the guns? So exactly how do registrations prevent crime or stolen guns?
I guess you could make the case, well what about a convicted felon or someone comitted to an insane assylum and later released...how do we know if they had guns at home or not? Well, #1 that's what search warrants are for, and #2, is there any evidence that this is really a problem?
Again, as a constitutional right, restrictions on bearing arms is subject to strict scrutiny like free speech. It is not enough to come up with abstract theoretical reasons why certain restrictions might save a life or two here or there. *There has to be a compelling need for the restriction backed by proof positive it will actually work.*
A list just doesn't get us there even it were to work in theory. And as I write above, I don't think it will work in practice and doesn't solve any problems.
"Most gun crime in America is gang related."
I think this is wrong, although it might be true of homicides. I looked for some statistics, but I can't find a definitive answer.
The article I cited above contains links to findings that show how registering guns prevents crime and assists law enforcement. I'm beginning to suspect we're talking about different things here.
Squathole-
We're not talking about two separate things. The theory is that by registering guns, you make it less likely that someone will illegally transfer a firearm to someone ineligible (e.g. a convicted felon) because the gun can be traced back to the transferor. As I say, that is a nice theory but in reality, illegally possessed guns are acquired through theft, and thus registrations don't solve that problem.
Besides, the police already have means to trace arms dealers the same way they trace drug dealers: under cover agents, stool pigeons, gps tracking, etc.
You can argue the point all day long, but in the end IMO the questionable benefits of such registrations do not outweigh the harms of keeping such lists.
Even columbine, I vaguely recall there were some straw man transfers involved and using traditional law enforcement techniques the responsible parties were identified.
Again, it is a solution in need of problem, and potentially creating more problems than it solves.
JM -
There is no reason for a civilian to own a semi-auto assault rifle capable of firing off 30 rounds in under a minute. Period.
My question for you is this...and I'll make it multiple choice for ya so it's nice and easy to answer:
Last Friday, 20 children and 8 adults were shot dead at an elementary school by a kid using a semi-automatic assault rifle. Do you feel that...
A.) All guns should be deemed illegal for citizens personal use.
B.) Gun reform is necessary to make changes to what citizens are and are not permitted to carry as firearms and that in-depth background checks are a mandatory requirement in all states.
C.) No change is necessary. This won't happen again.
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.