In case you missed it, this is what was going on Christmas Eve morning in upstate New York.Police investigating the ambush Monday in upstate New York in which two firefighters were killed said Tuesday that they had found what appeared to be human remains at the gunman's home. Authorities said they believed the remains were those of the gunman's 67-year-old sister, who lived with him.No doubt the NRA, if they even take the time to address this latest carnage, will profile Spengler [pictured above right] as another nutjob because that's what some gun owners apparently morph into when they use their guns to do exactly what they were designed to do.
William Spengler, 62, opened fire on the volunteer firefighters as they responded to a blaze in Webster just before 6 a.m. ET Monday in a small cluster of homes near Lake Ontario, police said. The firefighters — Michael Chiapperini, 43, a lieutenant with the Webster police, and Tomasz Kaczowka, 19 — were shot dead, and Spengler killed himself as seven houses burned around him.
Earlier, police said Spengler had left a three-page typewritten note saying he wanted to burn down the neighborhood and "do what I like doing best, killing people."
[...]
Although Spengler couldn't legally own firearms as a convicted felon, police said he was armed with a Smith & Wesson .38 revolver, a 12-gauge pump shotgun and a Bushmaster .223 caliber rifle.
It's also interesting to note that the Bushmaster was the same rifle used in the Newtown school massacre. That's the same Bushmaster company who was running this ad at the time of the Newtown shooting...
One obvious solution is to place an armed guard on every fire truck in America.
Or every corner.
Don't even laugh.
**************
Related, this is pretty damn spot on...
The one thing all mass shooters have in common is guns. That's it. Mental illness, abusive childhoods, collapsed relationships, setbacks at school or work, and every other form of stress or trauma take place in every nation in the world, but of all the developed democracies only in the United States do we have more than 10,000 gun-related deaths each year. Every other developed democracy has some form of effective gun control. The United States doesn't. Those looking for other explanations have reasons for looking for other explanations. People in the other developed democracies watch the same movies and play the same video games, but they don't shoot each other at anything even approaching the rate that Americans do. It's about guns. When that silicon chip inside the head of people in other developed democracies gets switched to overload, they can't just go grab a gun and start shooting. People in the United States can.
************
Ronald Reagan, Gun Control Advocate...
Republicans in California eagerly supported increased gun control. Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan said he didn’t “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”
.
16 comments:
So if this is the rhetoric you believe (the DK opinion that we can and should ignore the Constitution), why stop at banning so-called "assault weapons?" Why not ban all semi-automatic firearms? Why not ban all firearms?
"Effective gun control" is now against the Constitution, JM? I already know that your kind consider talking about gun control a deportable offense...but no one is talking about losing our well-regulated militia comprised of folks who lose a bearing every now, break down and take a few Americans or a couple dozen school children with them.
Be assured, those people will always be around and protected thanks to the NRA, the legislators they feed and people like you who support and applaud Wayne LaPierre.
.
The Heller case confirmed the individual’s right to own a gun under the 2nd amendment. This is from Justice Scalia’s opinion, siding with the majority:
"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."
Seems clear enough. Makes me wonder why an organization dedicated to promoting firearms safety would have any trouble with any of it. And yet.
Rick & Squathole-
I have never written that all laws regulating arms are unconstitutional, nor do I believe that to be the case. You seem to make assumptions about my beliefs which are false, for reasons unknown, but I suspect you rely too heavily on false stereotypes.
Rick you linked to an article in DK which flat out rejects the 2A, and rejects the legitimacy and wisdom of Heller. I am trying to determine what, if any, respect Rick and his readers have for the 2A, or if they would repeal it? Or do they respect it, but have ideas about how to regulate it?
All I keep hearing is "common sense," how can you oppose "common sense" over and over and over. I saw this same nonsense go on with vaccines/autism just a few years ago, and in some cases persisting today. Well it was "common sense" to millions of Americans and the mass media a few years ago that vaccines were causing autism. Parents would reject what their pediatricians were telling them, on the theory that they just want their fees or have all been duped or in the pocket of big Pharma. I think it's documented that some kids did get sick and some diseases made or are making a comeback because of this. In the meantime, how much time, money and effort was diverted from mitigating the *real* causes of autism?The world is sometimes more complicated than "common sense."
Don't see the parallels? It's "common sense" that banning "assault weapons" will save lives. Don't trust what anyone with a gun says otherwise, because all they care about is their toys and in any case they've been duped by the evil NRA.
You say you want a "discussion" about gun policy. So discussion means no gun owners at the table? Only gun owners who accept Diane Feinstein as the ultimate arbiter of "common sense?"
Please re-read and honestly answer my questions above. Regardless of the constitutionality, would you support a ban on all civilian firearms ownership? If not, which firearms are allowed and for which civilians? Why?
Why it is necessary to ban semi-automatic rifles (ala Feinstein), but not semi-automatic pistols or all handguns and rifles? Shotguns? Why do non-gun folks think one is more or less deadly than the other? Or why if one is OK, the other isn't? I realize that AR-15s have been the weapon of choice in recent massacres, but why are non-gun types assuming that insane people made the best choices (i.e. the most 'dangerous' weapons) and formulating policy around the choices of the insane? Especially when historically, state and federal laws governing handguns have always been more restrictive than rifles...why the sudden concern about rifles? Just all seems very knee-jerk and poorly thought out, at least to me.
Or you can just keep throwing around terms like "their kind" or "their ilk", at the end of the day it is your blog.
P.S. Squathole: "M-16 rifles and the like" The M-16 and it's variants are full auto "machine guns". There are other rifle-style "machine guns" used by US, Nato and Comblock forces, most popular being the AK-variants, the FN-FAL and many others. I think when they said "and the like" they mean full auto machine guns. Machine guns fire an unlimited number of rounds with a single trigger pull.
The AR-15 by contrast is not full auto. It is semi-auto, conceptually the same as say a Glock pistol (probably the most commonly owned pistol in America today), both requiring a conscious, distinct and separate trigger pull to fire each round. Although mechanical function is different, this is true for revolvers as well (except that firing one revolver round will not also chamber and prepare the next for firing, but that is arguably just semantics). AR-15 may look cosmetically like an M-16, but it's a different animal altogether.
PSS Rick-As to deporting anyone, again you seem to have a hard time staying on topic, and putting words in my mouth. I do not believe even advocating for repeal of 2A is treasonous or grounds for deportation. I would point out that Great Britain banned Michael "Savage" Wiener (controversial yet highly popular former US radio host) from entering their island paradise. So although I have not bothered to, I would consider spitefully signing the Piers Morgan petition just to send a political message to the British that free speech (even offensive speech) is a human right. I would not sign it if I thought there would be any chance of him actually being deported. I suspect most of those who signed the petition fully realize there will be no deportation, but simply want to make a point.
Rick you linked to an article in DK which flat out rejects the 2A...
*buzzer*
No, it does not, but feel free to prove me wrong.
You say you want a "discussion" about gun policy.
*buzzer*
Actually, I said I didn't want trolls. A "discussion" is nice, but not necessary.
Please re-read and honestly answer my questions above.
No.
Why do non-gun folks think one is more or less deadly than the other?
*buzzer*
Stupid question that stereotypes all non-gun folks.
I need another beer.
.
1. Article refers to framers of the constitution as slave-owners, which is irrelevant to guns unless one is making the argument that the framers got a lot of stuff wrong which we can ignore and can/should change. Quotes: "the original intent of the framers of the Constitution ultimately is irrelevant...We have to define what sort of nation we want based on modern values and modern realities not on the values and realities of ... profoundly flawed men who lived more than two centuries ago. "
You said the article was spot on.
2. "Why do non-gun folks think one is more or less deadly than the other?"
You so politely call it a stupid question, and a stereotype. But Feinstein is a non-gun sort of gal, so why is she only calling for a ban on "assault weapons," which under the prior AWB excluded semi-automatic pistols like the Glock? Is it because she actually respects the rights of Americans to own something more than a revolver? Or does she think no civilians should own any guns at all, but simply doesn't think she can get anything more than a ban on "assault rifles" or high capacity magazines through Congress?
Because I haven't seen her say "Glock-like pistols should be banned, but we can't get that through..." so it is fair to assume she doesn't see them to be as much of a problem as "assault rifles." I'm just asking why? If you don't know, just say so. But again, your blog, and if you think *buzzer* is civil then buzz, buzz to your heart's content.
JM...the article mentions "effective gun control" a number of times. You ignore it. I can't help it.
"Why is a .22 less deadly than an M-16?" is a stupid ass question posed by someone who is being stupid. Especially when their screen name includes "marksman."
Deal with it and come back when you're through getting your jollies by hearing yourself talk.
.
1. Apparently we disagree on the DK author's view of the 2A. I've made my case and your readers can describe for themselves. As to "effective" gun control, that is just a spin on "common sense" gun control, which I addressed above.
2. "Why is a .22 less deadly than an M-16?" is a stupid ass question posed by someone who is being stupid.
To borrow your *buzz*, indeed that is an uninformed question, but I have never asked it. I'm not sure if you imagine I say things I don't, or simply rely on false stereotypes of what you think all gun owners think.
The Texas Tech massacre, for example, was perpetrated with a Glock 9mm pistol, 36 dead. 9mm pistols also used at Columbine, and probably others. So it is not a stupid question to ask why, especially when these massacres take place in close quarters, a Glock-style semi-automatic 9mm pistol is not as much a problem as an "assault rifle" like the AR-15, especially when the former can be concealed.
So again, it begs the question of whether Glocks are not being targeted:
a) because Feinstein and others would like to but don't think it would pass,
b) because they actually respect the right of Americans to own 9mm Glock pistols, but see something different with "assault rifles."
Why it is necessary to ban semi-automatic rifles (ala Feinstein), but not semi-automatic pistols or all handguns and rifles? Shotguns? Why do non-gun folks think one is more or less deadly than the other?
In other words, "Why do non-gun folks think one (.22) is more or less deadly than the other (M-16)?"
It's a stupid ass question. See the question mark? See the stupid?
Jeebus, dude. You're broad brushing "non-gun folks" as being ignorant by "asking" a question that is obviously stupid and I'm calling you on it.
.
JM, above: "I have never written that all laws regulating arms are unconstitutional, nor do I believe that to be the case."
Splendid. Now tell us which gun-regulating laws you approve of and why. Maybe just maybe we'll make some progress here, although I rather doubt it.
Personally, I lack both the expertise and the interest to slice-and-dice the selection of automatic and semi-automatic weapons that need to be the hell off the streets of American cities for the safety and well-being of the population. My intent in quoting Justice Scalia's remarks was only to demonstrate that you imbecile gun nuts take extreme positions unsanctioned by the identical legal findings that support your general position. This is loosely referred to as "psychopathic behavior." You can Google it when you stop foaming.
Rick- Are you dyslexic or innumerate? Only such a disease would explain your inability to read 9mm Glock and keep using .22, when I never have.
Squat-
1. "Now tell us which gun-regulating laws you approve of and why." Existing or proposed? There is a long list of existing laws I agree with. Subject to various other conditions that would have to be a part of it, as far as proposed laws, I'm open minded about subjecting all transfers to background checks, and certain mental health patients being added to the database. I'm puzzled as to why you feel you need to ask me "why" when supposedly all gun control laws are "common sense," right?
2. "I lack both the expertise and the interest" ...then why do you (seemingly) attack others, simply because they do? Or point out that what people like Feinstein propose won't work? You sound like the parents who denied their babies vaccines because they were so sure the vaccines would cause autism, and attacked doctors who say otherwise. Or a global warming denier, take your pick. You admit you don't really understand the subject, but feel justified in calling those that do "imbeciles?" Who is "foaming" here my friend?
3. Justice Scalia's remarks... See my 5:19 comments. Long story short, an AR-15 does not function like an M16, it just looks like one. I think Scalia meant machine guns, as this was also the term used in the majority of Heller. Scalia knows guns, and if he meant AR-15 he would have said AR-15, not M16. But I understand an argument can be made that he and the rest of the court might think an AR-15 is "like" and M16. I'm just telling you I don't think so.
Frankly Squat, I will be the intellectually honest one and tell you that Heller doesn't explicitly say anything about what is or is not constitutionally allowed except "handguns" are allowed, and Heller explicitly left "reasonable" restrictions up to future cases. However, SCOTUS case law has a long history of defining the standards to determine "reasonable" as applied to the Bill of Rights, and it is not a "common sense" standard. Typically it requires proof that a proposed restriction will actually work. I advised you to google "strict scrutiny" before, apparently you couldn't be bothered.
But take whatever side you want. Just like valuable time was lost with autism and global warming, valuable time will be lost while people who admit they don't understand guns chase phantoms instead of getting on with reforming mental health.
I give up.
Bye.
.
JM: I'd be happy to let this gabfest fade into deserved oblivion save for your self-congratulatory "intellectually honest" howler.
One need not know chapter and verse to recognize the lunacy of Westboro Baptist Church and label it as such. Try, if you can, to apply that reasoning to the distinctions between different kinds of weaponry. The imbeciles I deride are the tin-foil-hatted crazies who have screamed for 4 years that the Muslim socialist is taking their guns away, and find any suggestion of regulation, registration, or limitation an assault on their god-given American rights.
You strike me as rather tone-deaf when it comes to dissecting arguments. My point had nothing to do with Scalia's casual mention of a specific weapon, but rather his iteration of SCOTUS's interpretation via a vis regulation of weapons. I'm confident this was obvious to everybody but yourself, especially because that paragraph has received prominent attention from advocates on all sides.
And for the record, I followed your suggestion and Googled "strict scrutiny," only to find something I already knew: turns out what puzzled me in your original reference was your poor expression of the concept. Seems like your emphasis in these exchanges is on quantity, not clarity. Perhaps you should draw a breath and take better aim.
That's it -- I'm done with this here although I may revisit elsewhere; you're welcome to follow me -- so the last word (and word and word and word and word) is yours.
Question for both sides that got lost in the last great debate on this topic...
A few weeks ago 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
B.
Easy.
.
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.