If only we let those grade schoolers arm themselves, this would never happen again.
It's disgusting. Expect more of the same. I'm extremely pessimistic about even this changing our anemic muttering that passes for "dialogue" on gun violence.
If only we let those grade schoolers arm themselves, this would never happen again.
Not the students, the teachers and administrators.
2. "White House spokesman Jay Carney said today is not the day to discuss gun control." (Guardian)
That's funny, because I kinda feel that today is an excellent day to discuss gun control.
Not the students, the teachers and administrators.
So we can't allow teachers to write their own lesson plans or have any say over the curriculum, but they can (should!) be expected to carry guns. Lord help this country.
Yeah, I dunno, I'm gonna have to concur with the White House on this one. In a country where there is something like 1 gun/person already in private hands, what exact method of gun control is going to be useful? Seize privately held guns like in Australia? That's not politically realistic, no matter how many kids get shot. There are already pretty strong gun regulations in many parts of the country. Doesn't seem to make much difference in the amount of mass shootings we see, nor on the overall number of shooting deaths, which is of course much, much larger.
You wanna reduce mass shootings, figure out why the demographic of white, Christian men is so ready to go out and end their lives in a blaze of glory. What social tension is being relieved here?
figure out why the demographic of white, Christian men is so ready to go out and end their lives in a blaze of glory
This will surely be easier than effective gun control.
Two shooters? Bulletproof vests? Who are these terrorists?
3: Tell me you're kidding.
I just dropped off a forgotten item at school, and it was all I could do not to take my daughters home.
Just saw someone on Twitter being smug about homeschooling. Yikes.
it was all I could do not to take my daughters home
A friend just IMed me about her desire to go get her kid out of school.
13: I imagine most parents of elementary school kids had the same thought.
A friend just IMed me about her desire to go get her kid out of school.
This was my first thought upon hearing this news. My second thought was that maybe it's time to move back to my ancestral homeland, where they have sane gun policies. But then I tamped down both of those thoughts and graded a few exams. Now I'm considering becoming one of the first volunteers for that colony on the moon.
Don't you dare pwn me in a time of sorrow, JM!
13, 14
I know I did. But that's just because I feel like a hug.
I'm looking in the world's least rigorous, most casual-googling way at gun laws in Connecticut. It looks like handguns are regulated much more strictly than rifles, for some reason. You con't need a license or permit for rifles or shotguns. What's that about?
In a country where there is something like 1 gun/person already in private hands
This statistic is misleading. The number of households owning guns is going down while the number of guns sold is going up. We have two groups of people in this country, one moving away from gun ownership and the other stockpiling guns. And we see what the group that is stockpiling guns is capable of.
today is not the day to discuss gun control
What should we talk about, then. Obesity? Automotive deaths?
In China, there was a case where someone went around stabbling kids and killed something like 20, so this proves that the U.S. is not uniquely violent, or so cable news tells me.
You con't need a license or permit for rifles or shotguns. What's that about?
Hunting.
Earlier today, Knife-wielding man goes on rampage in school. 22 injuries. No deaths.
20: Nobody died in the China attack.
"Stabbling" is what you do when you stab small people.
Parent of a high-schooler here and I definitely want to go get my kid. And lock him in his room for the rest of his life.
23: Wait, what? You mean cable news has misled me?
22, 23 - I didn't actually know that. It's amazing that someone would bring that up as a pro-gun argument. I fucking hate these assholes.
20
"uniquely violent" is hedging, and wrong. Of course, violence happens in other parts of the world. The US has had something like 32 school shootings since Columbine in 1999. Any other countries out there vying for that record?
I'd say that's pretty uniquely violent.
27: I'm going to quote John Emerson from a Facebook comment: "There's no use trying to talk to members of the church of guns. They have the same 5 or so arguments that they trot out again and again, and they don't listen. School killings are like sacrifices to their God."
8: There are already pretty strong gun regulations in many parts of the country.
That's the key. As long as they are kept uneven, the ill-regulated parts of the country can always act as legal or at least quasi-legal feeder routes for the small arms trade which then branches elsewhere (including Canada BTW).
There's a perfectly simple answer to 8.2 of course: give White, Christian men back the age of unquestioned and unearned privilege, essentially the world of Mad Men, for which they so many are in mourning.
The US has had something like 32 school shootings since Columbine in 1999. Any other countries out there vying for that record?
I'd say that's pretty uniquely violent.
Oh come on. I'm not going to argue that the US isn't uniquely violent (at least as far as developed nations go), but using absolute numbers makes no sense.
8, 15: I'm unconvinced that even state regulations tell us much about the efficacy of nationwide laws, what with the open borders.
I don't get to see my kid until tomorrow. I may need a hug at the meetup.
31
I'm just (clumsily) pointing out that comparing the China stabbings to the Newtown shooting doesn't jibe.
18: That's pretty much everywhere, I think. It's about concealability: to kill someone with a rifle, you have to be walking around in public with a rifle. You could do it, but it'd have to be a plan. With a handgun, you can have it with you all the time for your impulse killing needs.
32: I'm not sure what you mean by this. Which open borders? U.S. national borders? I guess we manage to get a lot of drugs through, but I thought the guns went the other way. Are most American guns imported? I thought we made all the guns. Maybe we focus on larger weapons?
Which open borders? U.S. national borders?
State borders ("unconvinced that even state regulations tell us much about the efficacy of nationwide laws").
Open borders between states. NY's gun laws don't mean much, given that we're not a long drive from states with lax laws, and no one searches your car at the border.
Not hard to conceal a rifle in Connecticut in December. Maybe if everyone else was wearing shorts and flip-flops it would be a challenge.
Is that a rifle in your parka or are you just glad to see me?
I'm just (clumsily) pointing out that comparing the China stabbings to the Newtown shooting doesn't jibe.
Eh, those might be more common than you think. There's 9 or 10 listed here from 2010-2011 and I can think of at least three this year off the top of my head. Not sure what this information is really good for other than telling us crazies are everywhere.
As tragic as this is, I feel exactly the same way I felt last time.
Castock pwned and requiring apo/LB clarification.
Reluctance to confront gun control + reluctance to confront mental illness as a public health issue = horrific scenarios like this. Brace yourself for more as long as that's the status quo.
29: John Emerson is absolutely killing it on facebook.
The time to debate gun control is NEVER. The massacres come fast enough that we can only grieve constantly. If the killings let up, we could talk about gun control, but that's not going to happen.
Seize privately held guns like in Australia?
Today I feel yes. Tokugawa sword hunt. Fuck the constitution, there is no slippery slope. If they want to hold up in their manly castles, pry them from their cold dead fingers, what's left of them after the tanks and drones. Make the country more Democratic and liberal anyway.
What should we talk about, then. Obesity? Automotive deaths?
Chobits! Kawaiiiiiii!
Comity with Bob. After Hungerford, no more automatics; after Dunblane, no more handguns.
You wanna reduce mass shootings, figure out why the demographic of white, Christian men is so ready to go out and end their lives in a blaze of glory. What social tension is being relieved here?
Yeah, also China and Japan. You really wanna know, or you want to gun em down like dogs?
Stress, isolation, social pressures on standards of manly status, mostly economic. White Christian Men? Not many CEO's or CFO's or tenured profs go berserker.
Not France or Sweden or...
Take the stress and competition and sense of embittered failure away. Maybe.
You could have a crack at bringing back the world of relative equality, full employment, etc?
You con't need a license or permit for rifles or shotguns. What's that about?
Long weapons have uses beyond homicide. Also, they stick out.
or tenured profs go berserker
Yeah, but watch out if you deny them tenure.
Okay, can someone explain to me what's supposed to be so frightening about the photo of the AR-15 that's going around? (Leave aside the fact that not all .223 rifles look like that.) I really don't get it... what am I missing?
tenured profs go berserker
I don't know, I've gotten pretty pissed off at PGD from time to time.
52: That it's legal for civilian use? That one was recently used to put holes in 5 year olds?
In light of item 7 on the list Mentioner links, I should amend 32 to say that any failure of state laws aren't informative about the efficacy of national laws. I don't know that I trust the result of that study, though.
It's a funny day in facebookland. Almost everyone is either outraged or somber. But then there are the people who didn't get the memo. They're posting the usual pictures of their lunch or engaging in the usual self promotion: "I'll be hosting this radio show at 3 pm. Tune in!"
Also, I'm not sure what you're asking, Josh. It's a scary looking gun that just killed a bunch of kids.
I think I see the problem; it's not the photo itself that's frightening.
So I guess the shooter killed his mother and decided to take out her elementary school class while he was at it.
Pwned again. Now I'm somber and outraged.
Joey just came home and is having a tantrum because his water bottle leaked and ruined a picture that his friend Millión gave him. I find his lack of perspective soothing.
54, 56: The scary parts of that gun, to me, are the parts that it shares with this one. I'm trying to figure out why adding a scope and a bipod to the front make people say "this is legal for civilian use?". But I'm willing to admit that I'm pretty much a robot on this subject, and clearly out of step with the rest of the commentariat when it comes to gun control.
And 57: Totally disagree.
61: Yes, all guns are scary and bad, as long as they're capable of killing people. What's your deal?
There is almost no problem for which mass murder of schoolchildren is an appropriate solution.
I'm trying to figure out why adding a scope and a bipod to the front make people say "this is legal for civilian use?"
That thing is semi-automatic and looks like it could take a pretty sizable magazine. Seems like a lot more than what you might need for shooting Bambi.
out of step with the rest of the commentariat when it comes to gun control
Oh, I don't know. I'm convinced that gun control laws are pretty much useless at this juncture in American history. But I'm perfectly willing to declare publicly that gun culture is possibly the single dumbest and most obnoxious feature of modern America.
61: You're not quite alone, but yeah.
That thing is semi-automatic and looks like it could take a pretty sizable magazine. Seems like a lot more than what you might need for shooting Bambi.
So's the other one, though!
And
But I'm perfectly willing to declare publicly that gun culture is possibly the single dumbest and most obnoxious feature of modern America.
Absolute, total comity.
61: Well, I think that gun became far scarier for many people because it's associated with this heinous crime. And yes, I suspect that the presence of the scope and bipod adds to the aura of malice already attached, because of its association with this incident, to this gun.
Breaking news rumor: According to Chuck Todd on Twitter, the shooter's mother was a teacher a the school, and the shooter targeted her classroom.
laws useless
The WaPo ran an article last year pointing out that a small number, less than 100, of prolific gun dealers in states that were part of the confederacy (GA,AL,MS,VA if I remember) were the source for a big fraction of guns seized in violent crimes. Starting with these would be one step. Likely wouldn't have helped with today's crime, but it's an easy starting point. Gun shows next.
Buying a gun should not be easier and more anonymous than buying a car.
How disgusting.
I've pretty much given up on gun control as a political issue and even as a crime control issue, but the gun lobby and gun nuts are disgusting (based on fairly limited exposure to them). What I can't get over is why the licensing requirements are so much lower than almost anything else in society, and how gross it is for the guntards, a coinage I'm running with today, to oppose licensing.
Follow up to 70: NYT is reporting the same thing, so I guess it's not just a rumor.
66 is close to my sense of things, too. I think making it harder for violent felons and people with mental health issues to get guns is practical. I'd like to see strict licensing requirements and think they could pass muster constitutionally, but that's less likely to happen. Getting rid of guns entirely doesn't seem practical to me, either constitutionally or logistically.
Fox News is broadcasting the face of some other dude with the same name as the shooter, having picked it off his Facebook page.
I'll sign on to 66 and 72. Also, there is no dumber argument than gun ownership being some sort of bulwark against totalitarianism.
75: oh man, they were showing snippets from the wrong Ryan's FB page. "Shut the fuck up, guys, it's not me." "Seriously you assholes, I was at work-- it's not me."
How about civil liability for weapons manufacturers and distributors when their guns are used in crime? I could get behind that.
And yes, I suspect that the presence of the scope and bipod adds to the aura of malice already attached, because of its association with this incident, to this gun.
Okay, so here's my question: has anyone actually confirmed that the gun the guy used did in fact have those accessories? 'Cause all I've heard is "he had a .223 rifle", which is a giant category and most guns in it don't actually look much like that pic. (This is kind of like the Graeber laptop quote for me, only with much higher emotional stakes for everyone else. So I'll shut up now.)
I wonder if the revival of gun control could come with some magic-of-the-market rejiggering: insurance requirements rather than bans. Any mental trouble or criminal would make you uninsurable. Concealed carrying, not storing securely, or even possessing one within city limits would probably drive up your rates. Inequitable, of course, but kind of slick. (If insurers would ever even offer such policies.)
80: I have no idea, Josh. I'm really not paying attention to the coverage.
Josh or someone, can you explain what this chart means, specifically the two different GSS lines? Does it mean more gun-owners these days have guns more suited to hunting?
I don't really trust either the criminal justice system or the mental health system to classify people as safe and responsible or not.
84: The top line is a superset of the lower one. The lower line is probably trying to capture guns owned for self-defense, the top one is all guns. (It's complicated a bit by the fact that you can use a shotgun for hunting.)
Eleven Facts about Guns and Mass Shootings un the US ...Ezra at WaPo
Some of what I/we think may be wrong. Not stress. Israel and Switzerland are wall-to-wall guns
There is a link to a Kieran Healy study of assaults. By region, by country. Japan dead last
I will link to this again:Order by Accident
$18 to learn how to stomp and control young male assholes, which is largely what the whole fucking system/social technology is about. You won't like it at all, but it works. The kids learn to bow and scrape in kindergarten, and learn very young that there will be no second chance. Fuck up and piss off your elementary teacher, and you will die a janitor.
But whether they like it or not, if you play along, you will also have your grade-school friends at your deathbed.
There's this guy I went to high school with who I was fb friends with for a while until I couldn't deal anymore. Sometimes I look at his page when it is clearly going to be full of wank. Today he's posted a picture from "Second Amendment Tribe":
I AM A PEACEMAKER
I do not seek violence.
I am trained to make peace.
I am not afraid of criminals.
I stand ready to address their threats.
In peace, my strength might give you pause.
In conflict, that strength could save your life.
Everyone is capable of violence.
I choose to train that capacity for once purpose:
To protect the innocent. I am a peacemaker.
I am your neighbor, your friend, your colleague.
I am the Second Amendment Tribe.
Holy shitsnacks, the grandiosity.
magic-of-the-market rejiggering: insurance requirements rather than bans.
I keep hoping that Munich Re will put the brakes on GHG emissions.
Second Amendment Tribe
Guns have become a part of identity politics, and basing your identity around guns is about the most fucked up thing you can possibly do.
I'm sympathetic with Apo when he says that gun control is pretty much useless right now. The real problem isn't the guns, its the gun culture.
I sometimes think that belittling people for getting all macho about their guns might be the most effective tactic available to us.
Honestly, I suspect the single most effective thing we could do to reduce gun violence in this country is to stop glamorizing the military.
belittling people for getting all macho about their guns
And this, absolutely.
85: On the precautionary principle, I'm okay with starting by excluding those identified by said systems. Also, it's practically the only restriction the national public still supports - properly enforcing it would do at least some good. Certainly many people who shouldn't have guns will not be identified by those two systems.
91: Apo, are you talking about OUR TROOPS??!!!???
I sometimes think that belittling people for getting all macho about their guns might be the most effective tactic available to us a good way to get shot.
What amazes me is how the Second Amendment Tribe refuses to own this kind of tragedy. It is the natural outcome of gun fetishization, but there is an absolute refusal to accept any kind of responsibility for it.
They could make the argument "This tragedy is the unfortunate byproduct of a free society. We feel that it is regrettable, but ultimately worthwhile trade-off." I wouldn't agree with that, but its about the best argument for the position that can be made. Instead, when something like this happens, they pull their hands over their ears, shout "LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU", and suggest that the best solution to the problem is further gun fetishization having teachers pack heat in schools.
I always think reading Luke 15-17 will make me feel better after things like this happen, but it just makes me cry.
suggest that the best solution to the problem is having teachers pack heat in schools.
"Those guns didn't kill anyone. One sick man obsessed with violence and firepower killed people. You can't take away my precious Smith & Glock .50 caliber Decimator just because some weirdo obsessed with violence did something awful with it."
Or Luke 18:15-17, if you're a stickler for things like citation accuracy or whatnot.
Smith & Glock .50 caliber Decimator
A gun that only shoots on every tenth trigger pull.
Switzerland doesn't have gun control, but doesn't it have bullet control?
88: I am trained to make peace.
And yet if there was any effort to ensure that Captain Freedom was actually adequately trained he'd cry to the high heavens about infringement of his second amendment rights. The difference between gun-saturated places like Switzerland/Israel and the US is they are actually trained and expected to meet a high standard of competence (and prove it) and don't treat guns like substitute penises.
97: Yup--they should own it. Make 'em own it.
"Parents of America! Rest assured that the innocent children just like your own who die each year do not die senselessly. They are martyrs for our freedom!"
I just read Flip's New Testament verses and then watched PGD's linked video. That was an odd juxtaposition.
Well, I could look for something else.
The Switzerland analogy is ludicrous. First of all, the societies and culture w/r/t this issue are completely different. Second, while you can buy guns, the reason CH has a high rate of gun "ownership" at issue is that citizens (after completing their military service) are required to hold and maintain military-issued rifles. They are highly trained with the weapons and they aren't just held for fun, although there are some shooting clubs and the like. Distribution of ammunition for the military rifles is restricted but even when it was issued you had to have your ammunition inspected to make sure you hadn't put it to improper use. Third, there's a strict licensing regime for gun purchases, and strict limitations on sales to the mentally ill and the like.
But the first point is the most important. There's nothing like the US gun culture in Switzerland. There's also nothing like the general level of social dislocation. Obviously someone could slip through the cracks, snap, and pick up a gun. A school shooting like today's is possible. But the system is much better set up to prevent people slipping through the cracks, society is much more generally cohesive and, is also, despite the availability of guns, much more resistant to the idea of the gun-toting loner as hero.
Or, what Toggles said.
I am so fucking mad about this. If you are a semi-reasonable gun loving dude, today is your day to shut the fuck up, reflect on the sins of your movement compatriots, and be glad that it's not your five year old who was murdered so you could fondle a substitute dick.
They could make the argument "This tragedy is the unfortunate byproduct of a free society. We feel that it is regrettable, but ultimately worthwhile trade-off."
What baffles me is that the people who make that argument are the same ones who support restrictive voter ID laws to combat the non-existent problem of in-person voter fraud. The right to bear arms is inviolable and absolute, but the right to vote? Not so much, evidently.
I'd like to think that the governor of Michigan would be too ashamed to sign this bill right away, but that's just wishful thinking.
Money quote:
Most of the attention on the new bill has focused on provisions allowing hidden handguns in places where they are now forbidden, such as schools, churches and large entertainment venues.
In peace, my strength might give you pause.
In conflict, that strength could save your life.
In peace, you might think I'm an asshole.
In my fantasies, I get to kill a lot of people and you worship me for it.
Very Travis Bickle...
I spent half an hour typing up a bunch of sober thoughtful pieces of social critique and now I am speechless with rage. Never mind. Maybe later.
The gunners seriously, seriously underestimate the number of pre-heroic bystanders who could not themselves be trusted with gun possession for more than about 36 hours. Also, 97 is right, but if I think about it too long it will, you know, puncture my Olympian calm and reserve. It would be pretty fucking satisfying to hear Obama say it. He could begin, "You moral cowards," and go from there.
I initially took you, Flip, to mean Luke 15:17, which seemed unfortunate and depressing since the shooter committed suicide.
Off to get child vaccinated, which at least gives me an excuse to pull her out of daycare early and hug her for the rest of the day.
Obama, courageously refusing to politicize the tragedy .
YT suggestion next to Halford's link: "Girl in a Bikini shooting suppressed sub".
http://www.theonion.com/articles/fuck-everything-nation-reports,30743/
116 made me cry, but I suppose that's pretty easy today
Wow, the article linked in 114 takes the sanctimony to 11.
Some perspective:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
•Heart disease: 599,413
•Cancer: 567,628
•Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
•Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
•Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
•Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
•Diabetes: 68,705
•Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
•Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
•Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909
I am sad about the 27 people who died in the shooting. I am also about 60 times as sad for the 1,642 people who died of heart disease today. Probbly a little less because the 1,642 people probably lost fewer QALYs on average than the 27.
I wish we could do something about all the dying.
And in tandem with 116:
Right To Own Handheld Device That Shoots Deadly Metal Pellets At High Speed Worth All Of This
Benquo, seriously, shut the fuck up, you fucking soulless pathetic weirdo.
Yes, clearly, we should be mourining all heart disease victims all the time. Great fucking analysis you despicable shithead.
I am also about 60 times as sad for the 1,642 people who died of heart disease today.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Believe it or not, people's emotional response to death varies with more factors than simple quantity.
121 makes some good points.
123: 599,413/365=1642
121-124: I guess with bob talking sense, someone had to pick up the trolling baton. He's been sufficiently fed, no?
And now, going home to hug my kid.
Wow, Halford, dial it back a little, brother. I'm starting to fear for your blood pressure.
Which isn't to say you're wrong as such, and Benquo, you'll find that deaths due to lethal decisions by humans register a little differently than deaths by disease. Trying to pretend they're the same will make people understandably hostile, on account of its being both emotionally tone-deaf and plain stupid.
Not just death. What about the unbelievable psychological pain those kids who survived, who were near enough hear, who had friends or siblings there. That shit's going to be with them for the rest of their lives fucking them up when the most traumatic thing most of them would have experienced this December is not getting exactly what they wanted this Christmas/Hanukkah or Andy Serkis' Gollum. Damn.
What a piece of shit as a human being you are, Benquo. Take some time to reflect on the burnt husk of your soul before making the argument that we shouldn't care about the mass murder of children because many more people regularly die of heart disease.
And this has taken away my ability to write a coherent sentence too.
When I turned on the tv this monring - before I'd heard the news - someone was implying that mass shootings will happen increasingly in places where the shooter doesn't think other people will be armed, as if no other factor ever enters the minds of mass shooters. It's possible that at that point the relationship between the shooter and the school wasn't known, but the only honest reporting anyone could have done would have been to tell the guy to just shut the fuck up and get off the news. He might have been a reporter himself; I changed the channel.
130: I'm sorry if it sounded like I was saying that the kids don't matter. They do and should matter, especially to those who knew them, but also a little bit to everyone.
Other people who weren't killed in a highly emotionally salient and newsworthy and shocking way should matter too, though, even we didn't read about them in the news or see photos of their grieving loved ones or hear about their stories.
Given that the children were killed in a way that does arouse emotions, Benquo, can you think of any reason why your audience might not be super receptive to your argument right now?
This isn't some dorm room debate, you pathetic and stupid fuck. Everyone cares about people who die who are close to them. Being horrified by a mass slaughter of children, which is a rare and rarely awful tragedy in a way that a death from heart disease is not, doesn't take a goddamn thing away from concern about other deaths, and is the reaction that human beings who aren't playing at smarter than thou utilitarian fucks on the Internet have.
134: Yes.
I was thinking about the folks upthread who were arguing that this is the perfect time to talk about gun control, like Megan in 6. If it's a good time to talk about gun control, then it's even a better time to talk about stopping or reducing the things that killed even more people today than guns did.
I have nothing against the folks who just want to be sad because a bunch people were killed, but I should have been clearer, or said nothing.
Coincidentally, I just went to a meeting yesterday held by the "Threat Assessment Team" at my place of work. Last year they received two reports from separate departments about an individual exhibiting erratic behavior. Putting information together from different sources, they were able to determine that this person was seriously mentally ill, and had been unable to get his meds, because of problems with the health care bureaucracy. My workplace intervened to get him his meds, and danger was averted.
The threat assessment team were understandably proud of this, as failing to connect the dots is the classic problem in these situations.
137: That sounds like great and constructive work. I wish more people were on top of that sort of thing.
Although I also wish the health care bureaucracy hadn't made it necessary.
If it's a good time to talk about gun control, then it's even a better time to talk about stopping or reducing the things that killed even more people today than guns did.
I can't believe I'm actually responding to this. But no, it's an unusually good time to talk about gun control today because people are upset about gun violence today, because a bunch of kids in school were just murdered with guns. Whereas any old day is an okay day to talk about stopping or reducing the things that killed even more people today than guns did, because those things will still kill just as many people again tomorrow.
Truly, if there's anything we should be talking about today, it's the cost benefit advantages of providing malaria nets. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Benquo, the (obvious) reason to talk about the shooting is that these 27 deaths could have been avoided by better laws, whereas we can't outlaw heart disease.
If it's a good time to talk about gun control, it's an even better day to talk about about childhood obesity.
I was thinking about the folks upthread who were arguing that this is the perfect time to talk about gun control, like Megan in 6. If it's a good time to talk about gun control, then it's even a better time to talk about stopping or reducing the things that killed even more people today than guns did.
Is there anything saliently different about today, heart disease–wise, from yesterday? Or do you think we should talk about heart disease every day? I can think of one respect in which today is different from most other days, massacre of children–wise.
He's on the spectrum, Jerry! The spectrum!
Every month a 9/11 worth of people are killed in auto accidents.
or said nothing
This option is still open.
Ezra Klein finds an expert on guns in Israel and Switzerland
146: Yeah, but 9/11 was more upsetting, so deciding on a response while we were all super upset was a totally reasonable thing to do.
149: Actually, it was the "staying out of your minds for the next five years" that was the bad idea. Being upset on the day was still understandable. So that's a stupid comparison. (There were 9/11 trolls too, like the one theorist I knew who described the event that afternoon as a "fascinating intersection of politics and architecture.")
As a gun owner and someone likely to cite stats about other causes of death vis-a-vis gun control, I feel comfortable telling Benquo to shut the fuck up. This isn't the day.
Hey Smearcase, what does the guy in 88 do for a living?
And what 151 said. Sheesh.
From comments on a friend's post at the other place:
If you are a parent, take this vow with me now. "I ____ will never let my child play a violent video game. I will never let my child see an R-rated movie. I will never indulge my child's desire to "be like their friends" and play Batman, Superman, or any other Superhero, invincible character. I will nurture my child to think for himself, to explore the world of nature instead of the world of war and fear. I will read to my child, love my child and above all LISTEN to my child so my child feels safe, free and able to tell me anything."
Frederic Wertham, call your office.
I've been reasonably persuaded by a good number of anti-gun control arguments, mostly based on futility, though as i said above the failure to impose reasonable licensing is I think a total outrage, and much of the gun culture seems disgusting.
You know what's not a good argument for being against gun control? That many more people die from heart disease.
153: Yikes. We'd better get Benquo over there to notify them about this heart disease threat.
What are the best arguments against gun control? (Genuinely curious.)
Why are LIBERALS twice as concerned about the poor MURDERER who needed more free mental health care (GOVT HANDOUTS) than they are about the INNOCENT CHILDREN who were killed today?!?! TALK ABOUT MISPLACED PRIORITIES. THE CHILDREN ARE THE VICTIMS, NOT THE MURDERERS.
From my FB feed. Currently has thirty-something "likes". I want to strangle someone, but I think instead I'm just going to get very drunk now.
Oh, I don't know. I'm convinced that gun control laws are pretty much useless at this juncture in American history
I've been reasonably persuaded by a good number of anti-gun control arguments, mostly based on futility
Seize privately held guns like in Australia? That's not politically realistic, no matter how many kids get shot.
This is not how one achieves things in politics. Do you think something is worth doing? Then advocate for that. If you can't get it all right now, get something less and then keep moving toward the goal. Something may or may not be politically impossible, but if you say something's politically impossible, then it definitely becomes politically impossible, and not only that, but intermediate goals become more difficult.
Why not fucking seize guns? You're the fucking State, the control of violence is a core competency.
I don't have strongly fleshed out views on gun control and what would work. I mean, I do think that people ought to pass a test showing that they know how to use one before they can buy one, but I'm not sure that restricting access to legal guns will make us less lethally violent as a people.
What does upset me is when people talk about restricting the access of "the mentally ill". If your goal is to prevent suicide, then that makes sense, but most people with mental illnesses are not a danger to others.
There are some restrictions in place. If someone's been committed to a state psychiatric facility in Maine, s/he can't own a gun. I have mixed feelings about this. It means that the person is marked out in some public record as a crazy person.
I think that the risk of deterring people from seeking mental health treatment and the harm from that is much greater than that from these kinds of relatively rare shootings.
My Facebook feed has nothing about guns or gun control.
I think instead I'm just going to get very drunk now.
Word.
We've got people working on heart disease every day. We've got hospitals and research centers and medical schools. We've got people looking for risk factors during examinations and we've got people giving out advice on diet and exercise and we've got regulations aimed at making it easier for people to identify and get access to healthier foods. We've got PE in schools, and Presidential physical fitness promotion programs. Can we do better? Of course, and we've got people trying to do better.
Compared to that, we're doing fuck all about gun violence and we're doing that every day.
164: If I could only get all those claiming #FalseFlag in a room, *I* might stage a mass shooting.
149: WHY ARE ANALOGIES BANNED?
111's mention of Michigan's new concealed carry law gets at what may discomfit me about the nation's concern over mass shootings, horrible though they are: individual shootings are obviously as much of a problem, and have been for a long time.
I hadn't heard until quite recently that there was another stand-your-ground style murder in Florida, of 17-year-old Jordan Davis. Davis's parents are now on a public campaign to repeal FL's stand-your-ground law. Good.
This is to say that while upset and calls to action in the wake of mass shooting sprees are exactly right, so should be the prevalence of more small-scale violence, esp. in racial contexts. I can't help but ask myself, after all, why paranoid and defensive NRA types are so, well, paranoid and defensive. It's not because they want to kill a bunch of schoolchildren.
Such a horrible tragedy. Wine drinking is the only real solution tonight. Poor families. I tear up even thinking about it.
My concealed handgun class tomorrow should be interesting.
As always, I spend most of the class talking about how they shouldn't use their guns and how much trouble they can get in.
I enjoy teaching the class and most of the people appear very responsible.
If I may ask without offending the gun-carrying members of the commentariat: does the gun-carrying community have a sort of self-policing orientation? I recall that will, for example, teaches gun safety classes: is there an active awareness that some gun carriers might be dangers to the community, in their attitude, such that you might narc on them or some such?
I'm doing my best to be delicate; it's obvious that I have no idea how gun-carrying works.
173: I don't know about California but in Alabama the CCW permits were given out at the discretion of each county's sheriff's dept and those had different rules. Some required references and no convictions for felonies or drunk driving, some just wanted $7.50/year, and I assume there were plenty of variations.
There is a "danger to self and others law" in place so one could mention scary behavior if noticed, but the mass shooters don't seem to alert people except retrospectively. Then they're obvious.
174: the CCW permits were given out at the discretion of each county's sheriff's dept
The trend in recent conceal-carry legislation has been to move from "may issue" to "shall issue" -- i.e. the sheriff no longer has any discretion as long as the applicant meets the minimum qualifications. Of course, in the past, in many states, there was an urban/rural divide on this discretion -- most rural sheriffs were happy to issue a permit to anyone who wanted one, where as metro sheriffs would withhold them from everyone except under special circumstances. What this meant in practice, of course, was that it was generally white guys in the exurbs and rural areas who had permits, and if you were a law-abiding black person in the city, you were SOL.
I know when I hear "Alabama sheriff's department," I think "enlightened guardians of public safety."
159: Why not fucking seize guns? You're the fucking State, the control of violence is a core competency.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with a little volume called The Turner Diaries? Believe me, there are lots and lots of people just waiting for that "seize the guns" order to come through. They've been worked into a lather about it over the past 30-40 years, and are primed and ready, as it were.
127: you'll find that deaths due to lethal decisions by humans register a little differently than deaths by disease*
*This offer not valid in Afghanistan & Pakistan
177: they'll start going on spree killings every six months?
I dunno, not my country, but ffs there can hardly be any thing worse than people shooting primary school children.
177: this argument is beside the point, but what the fuck do you think those people are going to do against the United States military? I mean, really, in spring 1865, the governor of Louisiana talked seriously about seceding over the issue of desegregation. But even he, the chief executive of a state with a decent-sized militia at his disposal, realized that taking on the United States armed forces wasn't a winning proposition. So you think a bunch of unwashed shitheads -- even assuming that we're talking about a national network of unwashed shitheads -- is going to war with the US government? Come the fuck on.
Still, it's beside the point, because the US government isn't about to start seizing guns from private citizens -- at least not in my lifetime.
Started reading comments someone left on a friend's Facebook wall, and it's driving me nuts. Some gun owner says "gun control laws are very strict in Chicago; feel safe there?" (Well, yeah, generally.) Follows up by saying that we do need some reforms but that "it can't come from this president". (... I'm starting to think your racism is showing.)
I'm starting form the opinion that "don't politicize the issue" is basically always precisely wrong. Issues are politicized when policies can have an impact-- and that's the whole point of government, and we should always be discussing things where policies can have an impact. To talk negatively about "politicizing" an issue is what people do when they see politics as a game of two sides scoring points, and lose track of the fact that it's not a game at all and the goal is actually to make things happen in the real world.
Our President just went on the tee-vee the other day to claim that he's not going to hassle marihuana smokers anymore, but left himself plenty of room to expand the Drug War. We've got a QUARTER of the world's prisoner population here -- 9.6% of whom reported being sexually assaulted during their most recent incarceration. We've militarized our borders at a cost of many billions of dollars. We produce and sell something like 60% of the world's weapons. We have hundreds of military bases all over the world. We're fighting undeclared wars in several countries. We've been at war a couple hundred times, and barely a year have we existed without firing shots in anger (or for profit). We have secret torture prisons and deals with the torturers of other countries to do our torturing for us when we're too busy. We have enough nuke-u-lar weapons to blow up everything many times over. We have DEA, FBI, FPB, ATF, CIA, DIA, NSA, air marshals, US Marshals, local police, county sheriffs, jailers, state police -- throw a rock and you'll hit someone who's paid to carry a gun and kill people with it. Rap Brown said violence was as American as cherry pie, but he got it backwards. There's nothing more American than violence. We wiped out 95% of the people who lived here and then brought over millions more in bondage to turn the complex ecosystems into a moribund monoculture.
But 27 middle-class people, mostly white, get shot and it's supposed to change something? This is business as usual. This is the state, this is capital.
On the other hand, Huckabee is politicizing the issue in the most dumbassed possible way.
180
177: this argument is beside the point, but what the fuck do you think those people are going to do against the United States military? I mean, really, in spring 1865, the governor of Louisiana talked seriously about seceding over the issue of desegregation. But even he, the chief executive of a state with a decent-sized militia at his disposal, realized that taking on the United States armed forces wasn't a winning proposition. So you think a bunch of unwashed shitheads -- even assuming that we're talking about a national network of unwashed shitheads -- is going to war with the US government? Come the fuck on.
Tell it to the Taliban.
183 was just guessing at a typo. I know nothing of Louisiana history except for All the King's Men.
Which is technically a novel, I think.
180: So let me get this straight, the US military is going to go around rural South Dakota with tanks and helicopters, alighting on people's farm fields and busting into their houses to swipe their hunting rifles and pump shotguns? Waco times 10,000? That's your procedural liberal realism?
An AR-15 is a machine that turns liberals into Bull Connor.
188: yes, a typo. I almost always nineteenth centurify all dates. Occupational hazard.
190: no, it's not, Nat. Like I said, this isn't going to happen. But if it did, my money's on the state making sure that, when it cares to, it maintains its monopoly on violence.
The Boxer Rebellion was fought from 1899 to 1801.
Note: Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but contempt for the NRA. They're fucking fascist white supremacist assholes. But so are the cops, the courts and the military. I don't think sticking daisies in their gun barrels is going to do much to alleviate that, however.
193 to 191 and, obliquely, to 192.
Its impossible to confiscate all the guns, but you could prohibit the manufacture and sale of new ones. Also too, the ammunition that goes with them.
196: Oh, do some fucking research. It's 100 year-old tech, anyone with some metal-working machinery can turn out full-auto weapons and propellent is much less complicated than designer drugs. We've been down this stupid road twice already, it's perhaps time to look at what's stimming the crazies with greater frequency.
And essear, stick with piling your turtles into ever higher piles and leave the thinking about social issues to those capable of handling those.
196: Extremely tight restrictions on ammunition sales and manufacture might have some interesting effects. There is, of course, already a considerable amount of ammunition in private hands, and it's not as though plenty more wouldn't be produced for official use. And too, there are any number of private individuals with the capacity to make or recycle ammunition. Basically you'd have to not only prohibit the sale of ammunition to private people, you'd have to completely prohibit its use as well. So no hunting or target shooting, except maybe under very controlled circumstances. Eventually, yes, you would get to the point where it was pretty hard to accumulate enough ammunition for a good school shooting. I expect by that time most gun fanciers would have shifted their affection to their winged unicorn ponies anyway.
But 27 middle-class people, mostly white, get shot and it's supposed to change something? This is business as usual. This is the state, this is capital.
How the fuck do you know what class these people were?
There are no non-political issues in the public sphere. You want to carry a gun in public? Welcome to the public sphere.
The median income for a household in the town was $90,193, and the median income for a family was $99,192 (these figures had risen to $101,937 and $119,175 respectively as of a 2007 estimate[8]). [...] About 2.2% of families and 3.1% of the population were below the poverty line, including 3.0% of those under age 18 and 3.9% of those age 65 or over.
The racial makeup of the town was 95.14% White, 1.75% Black or African American, 0.14% Native American, 1.40% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 0.64% from other races, and 0.89% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2.36% of the population.
199: Shooter's father and brother are both financial industry people, the father being an executive.
199: How the fuck do you not know how to use Google?
Dude, by parsimon's calculus, these people are all malefactors of great wealth. Now, I'm just saying that the greatest likelihood is that they're mostly middle class, which is totally borne out by the information available. Nothing wrong with being middle class, certainly not the kids fault. But I don't see too many people getting this worked up about the poor kids murdered every day all over the world. In fact, the only people I know who DO get worked up about those murders are my friends in the anarchist scene. They give a shit about people regardless of class or race or creed. Not so your average gun-grabbing liberal.
Or maybe you feel that a slathering of hypocrisy is just the lubricant we need to keep society functioning for the benefit of the greatest number?
Also, guys, it turns out that cottage manufacture of firearms is not a significant factor in the arms industry.
Just keep voting Democrat, stuff your ears with cotton balls to keep out the screams of their victims.
207: Yes, even a pile of turtles knows the difference between artisanal and mass production.
205 --- no that is not what you said; you said (without qualifier) middle class. You don't know that; you don't know what race or creed or class or what ever the fuck else the victims are. So don't come the sanctimonious leftier-than-thou; don't fucking start talking as if you have the right to sit in judgement.
Nat, you're being a ass. The combination of masculine bravado and holier-than-thou, only-the-people-in-my-movement-really-care bullshit doesn't sound like you. Well, maybe the holier-than-thou stuff, but certainly not the masculine bravado. Honestly, I think The Onion got it right: this incident has made everyone feel impotent and enraged in something like equal measure. And knowing that there won't be any serious effort to revive the federal assault weapons ban, or craft any other serious gun control measure, despite the fact that a Democrat is in the White House, is making people despair.
Anyway, I hope you feel better. It's been sad day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten
Cheap & easy, very old tech. Five man-hours per. The artisanal argument can go fuck itself.
Honestly, I sympathize to some extent with Natilo's cynicism about the way we're all supposed to pretend the earth has moved anytime something happens to a roomful of mostly-white schoolchildren, when nowhere near that amount of sympathy is afford the gunning-down of Afghan wedding parties. I remember thinking similar things after the Columbine Massacre. However, progress is not absent (black boys gunned down by white vigilantes now, at least, gain a similar degree of profile), and since we're being all upinyoface and realistic and shit I fugre we may as well face it that this dynamic is going to be very slow to change, and cynical or not, whatever occasion can be used to politicize the living fuck out of guns and gun control should, henceforth, be so used.
The cottage-gun-industry stuff is dubious, it seems to me. And also we may well have to get used to the idea that one of the procedures that "procedural liberalism" may eventually involve will indeed by Waco to the tenth power, or shooting the hell out of nests of wingnut crazies. When a country urgently needs to solve a wide number of problems that a large slice of its political establishment a) programatically won't allow it to solve and b) cannot be counted on to enter into any kind of sane dialogue about, then the chances of violence do in fact go up. (That this will play into wingnut anti-government fantasies is not very relevant, because everything plays into those fantasies: that's how the "conservative movement" built them, so that the fantasies could be adapted to enrage, bilk and exploit their marks no matter what was happening in the real world.)
As soon as there's a problem with mass shooters using homemade rifles, it might be worth paying attention to the arguments of someone who can't even come up with a pseudonym in a forum that doesn't require real names.
Huckabee is politicizing the issue
The gun control revolution will be achieved when Wayne LaPierre is strangled with the guts of Mike Huckabee.
218: o man this is so dumb. Yes, and likewise it only takes 5 man hours to put an iPhone together. It's a meaningless number. We care about the skills needed, the capital investment required, the network of supplier required, etc. It turns out that almost no-one makes guns in the home; when we talk about resistance networks etc we're talking para-state orgs using light engineering shops with skilled labour.
215: 214 is mine. The latest gadget keeps losing the info. Fake Accent, eat shithead.
220: We are not discussing iPhones. We are talking about things well within the reach of the current drug cartels to produce and sell. No one is doing it now, the stupid calls for bans will create that market. It's that fucking simple.
Sorry. One unsigned comment seemed like maybe a mistake but two started to look intentional.
No one is doing it now, the stupid calls for bans will create that market. It's that fucking simple.
So I guess the question is: Are our citizens more properly analogous to Palestinians in Israel or Swedes in Sweden. I'll have to ponder that one.
Oh christ, have the gun nuts now progressed to 'if you ban guns, people will just make their own'? You people are fucking hopeless.
211 is far more gracious and helpful than the response I was writing in my head.
217
... whatever occasion can be used to politicize the living fuck out of guns and gun control should, henceforth, be so used.
Politicizing issues is only a good idea when you have majority support. Otherwise you are just costing your side votes. Actual practicing liberal politicians clearly think gun control is a political loser (at least on a national basis). This would particularly apply to drastic policy changes (like total bans) advocated in some posts in this thread which have no chance of actually being enacted and just antagonize potential voters. Like saying raped women shouldn't be able to get abortions.
204
So you have no fucking clue
Sounded to me like he had quite a few clues.
197 is presumably also Biohazard? It's hard to tell, I'm trapped under a pile of turtles.
I would have guessed this thread would end in a welter of ill-feeling, but I didn't think it would actually swallow itself.
Now, James, President Obama has twice called for "meaningful action." Don't tell me you think that's just rhetoric! I mean, the fact that the Democrats abandoned the issue of gun control some time late in Bill Clinton's first or early in his second term, the fact that the party has made real inroads in the Mountain West and Southwest, regions where the issue is pure poison, the fact that the president has never, to my knowledge at least, campaigned on nor made private remarks suggesting that he'll do anything to curtail the spread of guns, the fact that the courts in recent years have embraced an increasingly expansive interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, meaning that any federal efforts to crack down on the market for firearms is probably doomed regardless, the fact that open borders mean that gun control initiatives at the state level are undercut before they're even passed is totally beside the point. Right?
And the fact that people like me, people who believe deeply in sensible gun laws (I don't care about single shot long guns -- hunt all you want, weirdos -- or hand guns that are licensed and owned by people who have some training in how to use them), have consistently voted for Democrats, politicians who have made it clear that, no matter how many massacres we suffer through, they won't get within shouting distance of this issue, well that doesn't make me, or people like me, culpable in any way, does it? Does it?
The whole thing is a sick fucking mess.
220: We are not discussing iPhones. We are talking about things well within the reach of the current drug cartels to produce and sell. No one is doing it now, the stupid calls for bans will create that market. It's that fucking simple.
It seems to me like countries where gun massacres are currently uncommon have a lot more to fear from this than countries like the US and Paraguay.
182: Anecdotal evidence, but I know exactly one person who saw someone shot right in front of him in a non-military context. It happened on the campus of the University of Chicago. So, no, Chicago doesn't feel especially safe to me.
This friend is also strongly opposed to gun control.
From the article in 171:
Dunn reached into his glove compartment, unholstered his Taurus 9mm gun and fired two rounds into the back seat, and then two more, his lawyer said. As the car with the teens left, he feared they would try to shoot back, so he fired four more shots.
He returned to the hotel, believing no one had been hurt. But the next morning . . .
Is this sort of attitude common? Expecting that no one would be hurt after you fire 8 rounds into the cabin of a car seems very strange to me, as does not filing a police report after allegedly being threatened by a shotgun and then shooting at a car.
Besides Texas, I've lived in two places where it seemed like everyone around me had a gun. In Wisconsin, it was because everyone hunted, and in Indiana it was because I was around a bunch of gun dorks who were competitive shooters. In both of those groups, people were incredible careful about never pointing a gun at a human being, even if the weapon was unloaded and the safety was on, because, guns are really dangerous and accidents happen.
It's hard to imagine any of those folks shooting at someone they thought had a gun, who hadn't started firing at them.
I get the impression that having a casual attitude towards guns, like the shooter in 171, is more common in Texas, but I don't know many gun folks around here, so I don't know if that's fair.
Downsizing today's civilian arms industry into a build-it-at-home cottage industry would still be a huge step forward, in that it would remove the huge financial support that the arms industry uses to build the and expand Americn gun culture.
whenever someone makes a public safety proposal, opponents of the proposal point out that it won't solve the problem in some circumstances, and in some rare set of circumstances make the problem worse. (Airbags won't prevent all traffic deaths, and will actually be worse for very short people in the front seat.) These arguments always get a lot of traction, even when the public safety proposal would a lot of good in the vast majority of circumstances, because people are so drawn to black-and-white thinking. People instinctively think that if something isn't a complete solution, it isn't a solution at all. I hate that.
Is this sort of attitude common? Expecting that no one would be hurt after you fire 8 rounds into the cabin of a car seems very strange to me, as does not filing a police report after allegedly being threatened by a shotgun and then shooting at a car.
Of course it makes no sense, which is why the cops charged him with murder. The NYT seems to have some idiotic fixation on stand your ground laws without bothering to read them. Even in FL it's still illegal to just spray a bunch of rounds into someones car and kill them for no apparent reason.
240 is right, of course.
The "we shouldn't ban guns because then criminals will just manufacture guns" argument is possibly the stupidest one I've seen advanced seriously here in some time, although at least it isn't as insane/disgusting as "but won't anyone think of the pancreatic cancer sufferers."
This piece is really good, I think.
Hey Smearcase, what does the guy in 88 do for a living?
He works in a shoe store, I think.
If everyone thinks gum control is a political loser, only political losers will support gun control.
That's right, we're coming for you, Big Candy.
Gum control: very Emily Litella!
Point being re 229, a significant part of the reason it's seen as a political loser is because Very Serious People agree it's a political loser.
Gay marriage was a total political loser 4-5 years ago.
I don't care about single shot long guns -- hunt all you want, weirdos -- or hand guns that are licensed and owned by people who have some training in how to use them
This is pretty much how I feel.
211: You may find it distasteful, that doesn't mean it's not true. When I look at the FB feeds, or sit in a coffeeshop with my radical friends, we're pretty much always talking about something terrible, whether it's grand jury abuses, or supermassive incarceration, or drone strikes, or environmental degradation. It's sad and lonely and horrible. I'm most emphatically NOT saying we should be glad when these particular chickens come home to roost, but I AM saying we shouldn't act so surprised.
199: But 27 middle-class people, mostly white, get shot and it's supposed to change something? This is business as usual. This is the state, this is capital.
210: 205 --- no that is not what you said; you said (without qualifier) middle class. You don't know that; you don't know what race or creed or class or what ever the fuck else the victims are.
Yeah, so, perhaps my modifier was not in exactly the right place to soothe your desire for ignorance and bullshit to carry the day. But I'm going to state this very simply, so that even you can understand it: These particular killings are newsworthy and traumatic precisely because the victims were mostly white, mostly middle-class, mostly not Muslims or immigrants or queers or any other despised minority. That is the difference between this and a drone strike or this and the ongoing murder toll of the Drug War.
Do you have any fact or evidence or analysis that contradicts that? No, you don't, because your willful ignorance is preventing you from taking even the most basic look at the actual facts of this case.
Um, Natilo? I think the main distinguishing thing here is that the victims are elementary school children. Seven-year-olds are not your class enemies.
I'm pretty sure if 20 black urban kindergarteners were killed it would also have been a big story. Probably with more racist assholes commenting on it, but still.
252: Well, be sure to take any occasion when people wake up for a minute to tell them that they are assholes who care about the wrong things and that your anarchist friends down at the coffeeshop are much smarter and better than they are. That's the way to grow a movement.
You do have to make sure not to hurt anyone's feelings.
Point of information: the previous mass school murder took place in an Amish school, where the kids were very far from middle class (although they were white). It got lots of publicity. It made lots of headlines. When James Huberty opened fire in mcdonalds, killing mostly working class Hispanics, it was the national news story for a week. Mass killings make headlines if they happen in the US, regardless of the race and class of the victims.
Point of information: the previous mass school murder took place in an Amish school, where the kids were very far from middle class (although they were white). It got lots of publicity. It made lots of headlines. When James Huberty opened fire in mcdonalds, killing mostly working class Hispanics, it was the national news story for a week. Mass killings make headlines if they happen in the US, regardless of the race and class of the victims.
Oh hey awesome it seems like people I know know the killer's Dad well and have worked with him for years. Jesus Christ.
252: you think the issue is that the people here and in your facebook feed* can't handle the hard truths? And that you and your buddies are the only ones who actually understand the world's problems and are willing to push for change? If so, that's just about the most juvenile thing I've ever heard. Are all anarchists perpetual thirteen-year-olds?
* I use my facebook feed as a window onto the world, too! And the state of the world is so depressing! It turns out that people only care about cats and scrapbooking and what they had for their last meal and what their kids are up to!
Seems to me that when one feels a contrarian impulse to say things designed to denigrate or wave away the horror people feel about the mass murder of little children, maybe one ought to recheck one's settings.
It turns out that people only care about cats and scrapbooking and what they had for their last meal and what their kids are up to!
And Calming Manatees. These things are very important to me.
I think I love you for introducing me to the calming manatee, Rob. But then I wonder if you and the manatee are actually part of a conspiracy on the part of Big Marine Mammal to keep me docile.
260 -- I think I can say this as well.
In Natilo's defense, there are plenty of people in our society who are not only indifferent to the suffering and deaths of Afghan children killed and injured as "collateral damage," but are actually positive about the benefits of shock, awe, and disproportionate vengeance. I don't see that grousing about them to us serves any purpose, nor acting as if the deaths of these kids are somehow less deserving of horror because of the lack of horror, on some people's part, about those other kids.
It turns out that people only care about cats and scrapbooking and what they had for their last meal and what their kids are up to!
And meeee!!! Don't forget me!!!
197: it's perhaps time to look at what's stimming the crazies with greater frequency
Yeah. It's been observed that adverting to a narrative according to which this guy (this particular shooter, invariably male) is an outlier, with mental health issues, so no, we don't have a systemic problem, is at the very least inadequate as a response. Indeed, it amounts to a waving away.
I have yet to come up with a satisfying theory. It's easy to go to the "gun nuts will be gun nuts, there you go", but clearly there are many gun users who are quite conscientious. I'm not sure how I feel about the view that gun violence is simply glorified in our society, so we should eschew violent videos and movies and such. Really? That's it?
We're a militarized society to a troubling extent, and it's getting worse. I keep thinking I should read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine.
We're (the US) not only internationally militarized, but are increasingly internally so as well. Militarized policing, increased in-country use of independent contractors (see Hurricane Katrina, use of Blackwater staff), the CIA increasingly joined with the Defense Dept.
Then there's the view that a lot of this has to do with income inequality: when you increasingly immiserate the people, they become stressed out, man! It's a war of man against man! (Person against person)
In the UK, nobody has found it necessary to make their own three AKs and eliminate a class of schoolchildren and some kittens since the ban. This is despite the fact that a criminal industry exists re-working deactivated guns for gangsters to use.
I suspect that the lesson here is that if you're holding it together enough to go and find a connection for illegal guns and not give them the impression of being a cop or crazy, even more so to make your own, you're probably not weird enough to commit the crime.
There's an analogy to suicide; a lot of people who try and for some reason are kept from killing themselves don't try again. I mean, if you really want to take a massive overdose of paracetamol in the UK you can go to ten different pharmacies and buy the maximum in each, but the number of people who kill themselves that way still collapsed when the maximum package size was introduced.
262: you should read the piece linked in 242.
I haven't seen the following point made to the "arm the teachers" idiots (one Eugene Volokh)- the guy was wearing body armor, as was the Aurora shooter, as we're several other recent ones, it seems almost as common as the semiautomatic in the standard mass shooting report. So now you're asking marginally trained shooters to not only identify and hit the guy, not wrongly shoot other vigilantes, and not hit innocent bystanders, you also want them to make a head shot, where if they miss the perp will certainly take them out? Good luck with that.
Why does iPhone always autocorrect were to we're? Were is a valid word.
240
Of course it makes no sense, which is why the cops charged him with murder. The NYT seems to have some idiotic fixation on stand your ground laws without bothering to read them. Even in FL it's still illegal to just spray a bunch of rounds into someones car and kill them for no apparent reason.
This is a little simplistic. If the guy isn't carrying a gun he doesn't kill the kid and get charged with murder. To the extent that stand your ground laws encourage people to carry guns (which in my opinion they obviously do) they contribute to shootings like this.
Here's an idea, which currently has zero supporters other than me. (Described it to Gaberdine Bathyscaphe and a friend and neither liked it.) I don't think there's any point proposing gun laws that don't somehow *appease* the gun-nut lobby.
Let's make gun-ownership subject to a federal license, but where the license requires five *co-signers*, just like the co-signers on a loan. If you commit a gun crime, your co-signers are fined (maybe as misdemeanor accomplices to the gun crime) and may never co-sign again. To appease the Gun Nuts, let's say this *replaces* the FBI background check. The only thing the government checks is that your co-signers are real people, with valid co-signer standing, and it gives them a chance to anonymously veto your license.
For your Montana-survivalist gun nut: no barrier at all, five of your gun-nut friends will co-sign. Ditto for a law-abiding hunter; your hunter friends *want* you to own guns and will sign to help you do so. But it might be a nonzero barrier for a career criminal/hoodlum ... either your friends are ineligible, or they know you're a hoodlum and shouldn't casually sign off as accomplices. For Adam Lanza types, it's a huge barrier; it interposes five opportunities for adults *who know him personally* to raise red flags.
And 276 wouldn't work in this case because the guns belonged to Lanza's mother. But it'd have worked for Jared Loughner, Seung-Hui Choi, etc.
They were his mother's guns.
Gun insurance might not be a bad idea. Along the lines of car insurance.
276
... For Adam Lanza types, it's a huge barrier; it interposes five opportunities for adults *who know him personally* to raise red flags.
Except Lanza used his mother's guns.
Let me be the first to mention that he used his mother's guns.
Something something then only mothers will have guns.
All guns should have built-in thumbprint readers such that the gun can only be fired when gripped by the registered owner. And the guns can be remotely electronically disabled by any Obamaphone.
The ATF is letting guns walk into the hands of unstable people so they will commit atrocities to build public support for gun confiscation. Obama watched the massacre live from the White House situation room but refused to mobilize nearby federal agencies. Susan Rice and Eric Holder are black.
i read those false flag conspiracies as implicit admissions that gun control is right.
Sacrificing thousands of kids on the altar of racist rightwing fantasies ...David Atkins at Hullaballoo
But it doesn't take much time reading through conservative websites to see what actually drives the desperate need to own high-priced killing machines. There is a vast, festering paranoia in conservative circles about the "looters" and "parasites" coming to take their hard-earned material possessions in the supposed coming debt-fueled collapse of society. There is continual worry about some dark-skinned assailant attempting to enter their home and potentially steal their property. Radio shock jocks react to stories about carjacking by demanding that more people carry guns in order to litter the streets with more "dead urban thugs." There are large segments of the population that want nothing more than to eliminate subsidies to the poor and then await the desperate masses who will supposedly come to their doorstep with a lead welcome. Ron Paul and Alex Jones' legions of followers have been told to "defend your supplies from those who refused to prepare" for the supposed riots coming when EBT cards are canceled. It's doesn't take much investigation of conservative media consumer attitudes to discover that these sentiments are shockingly widespread.
And hell, here's Digby on how they did it in Australia.
The racism and inequality complicate these things in America.
You will not get rid of the arsenal of bigotry legally. Ain't gonna happen. Nor will you disarm America without a fuckton of people dying. And as AGW or financial collapse comes on, a fuckton of the good guys will die anyway by rightwing bullets, not even counting the kids that die everyday.
Louis Napoleon, Tokugawa sword hunt.
Yes, Bob. They've been like this for years. (Ron "the animals are coming" Paul, especially.) Back before THE CLOSING OF THE BLOGOSPHERE!!, when one used to argue with Michelle Malkin readers, I used to have a rule of thumb that anyone who said "home invasion" when they could say "break and enter" or "burglary" was ipso facto an idiot.
I mean, fucking goddamn, the rightwing warmongering racist Galtians have wall-to-wall assault weapons, and liberals say:"Ain't nothing we can do. Guess we just hope and pray and bury, and maybe talk to the fuckers. Ain't a very dangerous situation. And it doesn't affect our politics. And it will be great as racial minorities start outnumbering the fuckheads."
The violent bear it away.
I used to have a rule of thumb that anyone who said "home invasion" when they could say "break and enter" or "burglary" was ipso facto an idiot.
Great rule of thumb. I'm going to have to remember that one.
These particular killings are newsworthy and traumatic precisely because the victims were mostly white, mostly middle-class, mostly not Muslims or immigrants or queers or any other despised minority.
So you've got some fucking magic ability to tell the sexual orientation of a dead 7 year old? Wow. Fucking hell. This is actually disgusting.
This is an interesting account of how the culture of gun ownership has become weirder over time. It's consistent with my own experience. I've never owned guns or hunted but I spent a fair bit of time around folks in New England for whom hunting and occasional target shooting was just something that everyone did and grew up with. They weren't weirdos and fetishists about it back then (2 decades ago).
Geography is probably relevant in this case. I'm sure the hunting culture in New England was different from that in the South or the mountain West.
The times mega story up now refers to them as "little boy" or "little girl." Is that standard NYT style? Just seemed oddly out of place.
I used to have a rule of thumb that anyone who said "home invasion" when they could say "break and enter" or "burglary" was ipso facto an idiot.
Since I think of the term "home invasion" as including illegally entering without breaking, I'll assume that such people are worried because they know they keep leaving all their doors unlocked. (Although I suspect that definition is wrong.)
291: That's close to the way I remember it. There was a small fringe who worried about the Russians from Cuba sailing up the Mississippi but the evil "black gun" wasn't a big deal. Somewhere along the line the AR, festooned with lights and sights became the thing to have.
I'd pin it on all the relatively recent movies and TV scenes showing SWAT or military close quarter combat scenes, with the helmets, armor, goggles, and all the other cool costume features.
Why don't they just dress up like superheros, or jedi warriors? Its a much more benign expression of the same impulse.
295: That a serious question? Anyone can be the anonymous SWAT guy clearing a room in his fantasy. It's more difficult to really get into being Spiderman while down in Mom's basement room.
287
... I used to have a rule of thumb that anyone who said "home invasion" when they could say "break and enter" or "burglary" was ipso facto an idiot.
As I understand it home invasion is used to refer to cases in which the homeowners (or renters) are taken hostage as part of the crime. So more serious than the usual burgary.
http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/
god, this is what is wrong with your culture, everything for fame and attention! a mother fighting her underage son over dress code, over videogames and turning him herself into a mental ward over such episode, to keep her word is the must and all that, uber alles!
no ds made yet, a sweet looking boy on the picture and she already declares herself a mother of a mass murderer, what kind of bringing up children is that
It wasn't a serious question, but I like the way you put the answer. It confirms my basic belief that people who dress up as Spider-Man are far less ridiculous, and far more heroic, than these man-boys playing soldier dress up.
291: I think that account helps explain what makes that photo of a rifle that Josh asked about upthread scary to those of us who don't spend much time around guns. It's not so much the mechanics as the aesthetics; from the outside, at least, the all-black rifle in the photo I saw going around twitter seems much more likely to be part of the tactical gun culture, even if the gun itself isn't that much different than other .223 rifles.
Not that the tactical culture the author describes is necessarily responsible for mass shootings. A later reader wrote into TPM and talked about how many people just find the tactical stuff safe and fun, and I don't doubt that. Maybe a compromise could be that those sorts of guns stay wherever it is that you have fun with them and aren't stored at home where someone could get to them at any time.
(This is leaving aside what guns Lanza used, as the reports still don't sound like they've been confirmed.)
So you've got some fucking magic ability to tell the sexual orientation of a dead 7 year old? Wow. Fucking hell. This is actually disgusting.
I bet they don't have heart disease.
The letter linked in 291 is informative (for me); see also the related piece by David Atkins at Digby's place. Some will find the latter overblown.
I'm posting this around the blogs but what the hell, I really like this piece by Garry Wills:
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/dec/15/our-moloch/
If we cannot affect the supply side, and, unless others get enthusiastic about raising a ton of money to bribe politicians into the service of gun control and defeat the usual white trash peckerwoods I don't know whether we can, perhaps we ought to look to the demand side: meaning, for the avoidance of doubt, severely restricting the liberties of the young-to-early-middle-aged men most likely to be or become dangerous in the style at issue, and doing so to many more people than deserve it.
Maybe a compromise could be that those sorts of guns stay wherever it is that you have fun with them and aren't stored at home where someone could get to them at any time.
This is something I've never quite understood. Why can't people who just want to have fun shooting guns just RENT them?
One of the kids was named Josephi/ne Gay. I wonder if the FRC site will have it as Josephi/ne homosexual.
306: Umm... really, there are some places in the US where there are wide-open spaces, with no one living nearby, with great backstops, and costing only a few cents in gasoline to reach.
So then one gets to play kick-the-can with a .22 or bigger, using cheap surplus ammo for a few hours for a few bucks, in pretty clean air and sunshine, with some congenial friends. My only regret is not knowing the extent of the hearing damage I was incurring, the rest of it was great fun.
Again I wonder whether gun users who aren't all tactical 'n' shit can pressure the NRA from within the gun using community. Can't the normal amongst you throw out the nutters (Wayne LaPierre)?
I wouldn't be surprised if the NRA is one of those directed-from-the-top "membership" organizations like the Chamber of Commerce.
290: So you've got some magical ability to pretend that this event exists outside of consensus reality? Wow. Fucking hell. This is actually moronic.
I'm not the least bit impressed by your fake-ass crocodile tears and asinine arguments.
But not all gun owners are members of the NRA. Right? If that is correct, then gun owners who take issue with the NRA's pretension to represent the interests and beliefs of (all) gun owners might have an argument with the NRA.
I dunno what the NRA has been doing, I'll have to check. I haven't belonged since some time in the mid-Sixties when their editorials in the magazine started ranting about hippies, beards, and God.
I wouldn't be surprised if the NRA is one of those directed-from-the-top "membership" organizations like the Chamber of Commerce.
I have always assumed that the NRA is directly controlled by the gun manufacturers. The rank and file are just shock troops. The agenda is set by what will create the best market for guns. Its like the for-profit prison lobby working for longer drug sentences.
I dunno what the NRA has been doing, I'll have to check
The rest of us have been noticing what the NRA has been doing for quite a while, Biohazard. A lot of the country thinks that the NRA speaks for all gun owners. Gun owners have an image problem at this point, not just because gun-wielding types are killing people, but because the NRA lobby is stopping any chance at gun control legislation.
Do you understand how lobbying organizations work, parsimon? In the case of the NRA, the organization lobbies for, among other things, an expansive and absolutist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Of course lots of people who own guns don't agree with that position. And it looks like the NRA has 4.3 million members, while there are at least 50 million, and probably considerably more than that, gun owners in the US. But the NRA is no more answerable to gun owners who aren't NRA members than is AIPAC to Jews who hold progressive positions on I/P.
It's not so much the mechanics as the aesthetics; from the outside, at least, the all-black rifle in the photo I saw going around twitter seems much more likely to be part of the tactical gun culture, even if the gun itself isn't that much different than other .223 rifles.
Can I say that I hate this argument. "You only want to ban the .223 XRQ8 Tactical Assault Killmachine because it looks scary. But really it is no different than the .223 TWEM Deerraper, which is a totally acceptable gun with this nice all wood stock with a compass in it."
This is a pretty helpful article, filled with useful links, if you're interested in where the NRA gets its money.
The "Ring of Freedom" sounds like something out of dystopian tween fiction.
I understand how lobbying organizations work, Wafer -- and by the way, stay away from me.
I'm wondering whether all those non-NRA gun owners out there might, I dunno, boycott something, or yell in some manner, such that that NRA becomes embarrassed for itself. This may be totally naive on my part -- I really don't know the gun community -- but such things have been known to have an effect in other realms.
317: Some of the old guns were things of beauty. Especially the duck guns. Apparently nobody ever dropped them in the water because the dogs would go get the birds.
by the way, stay away from me
As far as I know you're on the East Coast, so I think we're good. But if you mean that I should stay out of threads in which you're commenting, I'm afraid I'm not going to make any special effort on your behalf.
I know a guy who spouts Fox News talking points, but professes to never watch Fox News or Glenn Beck or similar outlets. People who hold disreputable opinions will sometimes nonetheless try to disassociate themselves from disreputable sources.
Tell me about someone who spouts ludicrous gun-nut talking points but who professes to be unaware of the influence of the NRA on gun policy, and I'll tell you about a bullshitter.
Or, as parsimon says:
The rest of us have been noticing what the NRA has been doing for quite a while, Biohazard.
323: Football, I don't give an nanofuck about associating or disassociating myself from opinions you or anyone else here finds disreputable. You don't want to hear them, practice some "La La La..."
If you have an issue to discuss, discuss it. If not, fuck off, shithead.
317: Sure, I don't like that argument either. I was trying to respond to it (if that wasn't clear), or at least to the question "why does one photo of a gun generate a different response [for many people*] than another?"
*Including me. I wouldn't want any of them pointed at me, but the more traditional looking rifles don't make me immediately think of SWAT teams or combat even if that's what their primary use is.
Wood makes me think of a forest or other natural environment. A forest makes me think of shooting non-human animals.
If you have an issue to discuss, discuss it.
You bet! I've become really fascinated lately by how people narrate their opinions to themselves.
You have some pretty strong opinions on the subject of gun policy. Yet somehow, you've failed to notice the behavior of the NRA over a period of decades in which that organization's views have been extremely important to gun policy. How does this happen?
I accused you of being a bullshitter, and I apologize for that - but surely you can see that there's some business here that hasn't been explained.
So tell me about your thought process. How is it that, given your interest in these issues, you haven't bothered to acquaint yourself with the work of the NRA over the last four decades?
(Not that "let's talk about mental illness" is an adequate response to how to keep mentally ill people from massacring other people with guns, it's just an interesting side of the story to see.)
Re the whole gun nut culture, I got cable recently for the first time. Not only are there entire channels seemingly devoted to loving exploration of weaponry, there are terrifying reality shows like Doomsday Preppers . That show makes me want to give up on humanity...it's about ordinary people who devote themselves to stockpiling weaponry and supplies for the end of the world. Outwardly (but only outwardly) normal suburban types, a lot of them, but with 24/7 fantasy lives about the collapse of society and kill-or-be-killed confrontations with everyone around them. The show is a runaway hit apparently.
I think we could do more just in a pragmatic sense on gun control than we do (watch these shows and you quickly realize that the fetishization of guns is pushing toward ever more destructive civilian weaponry, everyone wants the biggest baddest gun on the block). But the root of all this is a sickness in the culture. Brings to mind the Canadian gun control discussion in Bowling for Columbine .
330 -- I read somewhere that the mother was a prepper type. No idea if it's true.
Why can't people who just want to have fun shooting guns just RENT them?
What biohazard said, and for the same reason that someone into tricking out a car isn't having the same experience when he goes to the Hertz and rents one. I have two revolvers and a levergun that all shoot .45 Colt. I enjoy doing minor customizations and fine tuning handloads for those guns.
Yet somehow, you've failed to notice the behavior of the NRA over a period of decades in which that organization's views have been extremely important to gun policy. How does this happen?
I haven't noticed in a long time either. I wasn't born yet for their rants in the 60's but they were still saying stupid shit in the mid 90's so I stopped paying attention. Sure, they're probably still doing the same things they always have but I can't remember the last time I bothered to read anything they put out.
VW: but making gun ownership morally/socially problematic unless you actively disassociate yourself from NRA-style tosserishness is a pretty legitimate strategy.
Why can't people who just want to have fun shooting guns just RENT them?
Would you ask a man to RENT his penis?
Actually, I understand this sort of thing quite well. I fetishize possessions, too. So I promise, if anyone switches from fetishizing guns to fetishizing, say, cars, I will belittle their masculinity 99.9% less.
And if you fetishize an actual religious totem, I will heap respect on you.
334
VW: but making gun ownership morally/socially problematic unless you actively disassociate yourself from NRA-style tosserishness is a pretty legitimate strategy.
It might be a legitimate strategy but it hard to see it as being very effective as most people have little idea where the NRA stands specifically anymore than say NARAL. And outside the beltway people don't really care.
I haven't noticed in a long time either.
Yeah, see, that's what I'm having trouble processing. I mean, I lost active interest in gun policy a long time ago, given the hopelessness of it all. But as someone who is generally aware of public policy issues, I'd find it almost impossible not to know the NRA's position on any given matter.
I mean, if you're interested in politics, then you're going to know the nature of the NRA's activity in that sphere. Even if you're a football fan, you're going to run across Wayne LaPierre.
And even if you're not that interested in politics or prominently played news stories, how much do you need to know to stay current? I suppose the NRA has changed a few positions around the edges in the last 40 years, but if you've checked in during the last few decades, you know what's going on.
My friend who spouts Fox News talking points is a high SES guy - he's got a PhD and professes a deep interest in public affairs. He's also something of an elitist who regards certain sorts of people as beneath him. It intrigues me that he's able to agree with the unwashed masses who watch Fox News, but nonetheless professes to be unaware of the positions taken by that network. It seems ... convenient.
I have two revolvers and a levergun that all shoot .45 Colt. I enjoy doing minor customizations and fine tuning handloads for those guns.
People like to do things that, say, spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I'd probably really dig driving a Humvee, and I am annoyed by the new lightbulbs. Sacrifices have to be made sometimes for the greater good.
We know what good gun policy looks like, in a general sort of way. Just as we know what good healthcare policy looks like, broadly speaking. Or good warmaking policy. But good policy inevitably has costs. Defense contractors, health insurers and gun enthusiasts have to make some sacrifices if we're going to have a sensibly run country.
Anyway, I'm sure some reasonable accommodation could be reached on gun policy that would permit you to tinker with guns - if there were sufficient interest in enacting such a policy. There isn't, and I find that a bit sad, but I've gotten acclimatized to it over the years.
337
... But as someone who is generally aware of public policy issues, I'd find it almost impossible not to know the NRA's position on any given matter.
I mean, if you're interested in politics, then you're going to know the nature of the NRA's activity in that sphere. ...
This is silly, I know the NRA speaks for the gun nuts but not much beyond that and I am reasonally well informed.
338
We know what good gun policy looks like, in a general sort of way. ...
We meaning you and your fellow liberals.
I like it when Shearer strikes his "I speak for the common sense of the common man" pose. What man is more in touch with mass opinion than James B. Shearer?
330 -- I read somewhere that the mother was a prepper type. No idea if it's true.
She's a prepper. Wouldn't you like to be a prepper, too?
332: apparently she she was a prepper , or at least this is being reported everywhere. Per the show it's really a pretty sick culture that involves inculcating your entire family with violent paranoia -- not just having some supplies in the basement or bringing your kids to the shooting range occasionally, but waking the kids at midnight to run through drills on how to kill the marauding hordes storming your house.
Quote from recent New Republic article:
As of today, there have been 70 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, leaving 543 people dead (assuming the reports of 27 fatalities from today's shootings are correct.) Seven of those 70 shootings occurred this year. Sixty-eight of those 543 victims were killed this year. If the scenes of horror and heartbreak are now familiar, it's because the past six years have been particularly bloody. Fully 45% of the victims of mass shootings in America over the past three decades were killed since 2007.
Kind of heartening, if only marginally. I'll take whatever I can get.
This is silly, I know the NRA speaks for the gun nuts
This, again, looks exactly like the sort of elitist positioning that I'm describing with my Fox News friend. If you don't know their positions, how can you characterize them as "gun nuts?" And do you really not have a sense of their political influence? Seems surprising.
342: I'm glad I read all the way down and saved myself a pwning.
345
... And do you really not have a sense of their political influence? ...
I know the gun nuts firearms enthusiasts have been winning lately but it seems to me this is more because there are a lot of them rather anything specific to the NRA. There are other pro gun organizations. I am not that interested so I don't keep careful track.
the difference between artisanal and mass production.
Oh great, hipster psychopaths.
Hmmm. Seems to me that a place for storing guns could also have a workshop for tinkering with them if that's really deemed necessary.
I wasn't familiar with the show "Doom Preppers" but it doesn't surprise me: not that such a culture is on the rise nor that the conservative noise-machine has been adept at co-opting it. In an era of rising anxieties, uncertainties and changes, selling people "doomsday preparedness" is a logical confidence scam. (You know what the U.S. really needs? A War on Fraud.)
It doesn't surprise me that "pandemic" leads the list of doomsday fears on their "doomsday dashboard" at NatGeo's site, either; pop culture mirrors this, and the geek semi-ironic version of all this is of course the zombie apocalypse, which likewise has long since begun to progress beyond mere fandom to people actually "zombie-proofing" their homes and buying "anti-zombie" weaponry. And these people get amazingly serious about and defensive of their zombie preparations, and the whole zombie apocalypse scenario -- which, as a key aspect, involves them being part of an elite group of "survivors" and all the rest of society being too slow and stupid to make the cut.
347: it seems to me this is more because there are a lot of them rather anything specific to the NRA
pf is being polite, but bluntly: I don't believe that you believe this.
350
pf is being polite, but bluntly: I don't believe that you believe this
Huh? You think if the NRA went away things would change much? Naturally the NRA would like its members to believe that but I am unconvinced.
I think there are some respects in which you are genuinely dumb, Shearer, but being unable to understand that lobbying organizations play an important role in leveraging numbers of supporters into actual political power? I don't believe that's one of them.
people actually "zombie-proofing" their homes and buying "anti-zombie" weaponry
This is real?! I had no idea.
337
My friend who spouts Fox News talking points is a high SES guy - he's got a PhD and professes a deep interest in public affairs. He's also something of an elitist who regards certain sorts of people as beneath him. It intrigues me that he's able to agree with the unwashed masses who watch Fox News, but nonetheless professes to be unaware of the positions taken by that network. It seems ... convenient.
How familiar are you with the positions taken by MSNBC?
349: the zombie apocalypse, which likewise has long since begun to progress beyond mere fandom to people actually "zombie-proofing" their homes and buying "anti-zombie" weaponry. And these people get amazingly serious about and defensive of their zombie preparations, and the whole zombie apocalypse scenario
What? Really? How have I missed this? I mean, like, what? They're actually serious? Huh?
352
I think there are some respects in which you are genuinely dumb, Shearer, but being unable to understand that lobbying organizations play an important role in leveraging numbers of supporters into actual political power? I don't believe that's one of them.
Sure organizations like the NRA have some power and influence but they also have an interest in exaggerating their importance (and following) both to attract donations and to intimidate their opponents. It doesn't surprise me that there are pro gun people like biohazard and gswift who have tuned the NRA out. Or do you not believe them also?
Lobbying orgs of unusual influence? I don't believe they exist.
Or do you not believe them also?
I'm still debating with myself about explaining, discussing, arguing, or just yelling "Hitler!" and going to the range for some practice.
How familiar are you with the positions taken by MSNBC?
Exactly my point. MSNBC has nothing near the party line that Fox does, but I can still characterize their programming pretty thoroughly. Without consulting the Internet, I believe they've got Scarborough in the morning and Maddow in the evening. They've got some other programming that tilts liberal (Chris Hayes, right?), and they gave Romney a very hard time in the weeks up to the election. I could go on.
I've probably watched an hour of MSNBC programming in the last year, but you just pick this stuff up if you're paying any attention at all.
Mind you, I'm not embarrassed by MSNBC, because I don't feel much of a personal connection to that network. They do some things I agree with and some I don't, and I can talk comfortably about each.
My Fox News friend, however, parrots the Fox party line. (I do watch a lot more Fox than MSNBC, but still not that much.) He'd be very uncomfortable criticizing the network, because - as I said - his actual positions on policy issues match theirs. But he's embarrassed to be associated with such low-class people. So he says he doesn't know anything about them. I bet if you asked him, he'd call the sympathizers of the NRA "gun nuts." But it wouldn't keep him from parroting their positions, and if pressed, I suppose he'd say that he has no idea what the NRA thinks or does.
Bill Bennett brings his A game. Truly, this is going to be a debate that will cover all of its participants in glory. I wish I could find a soundproof hole to crawl into for the next couple of weeks. Is there some good reason that humans can't hibernate?
People like to do things that, say, spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I'd probably really dig driving a Humvee, and I am annoyed by the new lightbulbs. Sacrifices have to be made sometimes for the greater good.
Hey, hands off my single action revolvers and leverguns or the cowboy action shooters of the land will rise as one.
people actually "zombie-proofing" their homes and buying "anti-zombie" weaponry
Heh, Hornady has tongue in cheek marketed to this, basically by taking an A-Max and using neon green polymer and calling it Z-Max.
he's embarrassed to be associated with such low-class people.
I find this pertains less and less. I have distant relatives in the 0.1% who consort with congressmen and have Central Park views, and they don't hesitate to cite Fox News for their positions on climate change. It's not just for the marks anymore -- or there's less shame in being a mark.
355: No, that's not a serious movement, it's tongue-in-cheek. Even the CDC is pushing "Zombie Preparedness" as going down better than "Shit Happens, be ready to deal with it".
There definitely are real "Preppers" though, going well beyond what's usually advised for riding out earthquakes and so on. However, given the aftermath of Sandy, I'm not sure the standard advice is anywhere close to adequate even if one doesn't have fight off hordes of "those people".
355: No, that's not a serious movement, it's tongue-in-cheek. Even the CDC is pushing "Zombie Preparedness" as going down better than "Shit Happens, be ready to deal with it".
There definitely are real "Preppers" though, going well beyond what's usually advised for riding out earthquakes and so on. However, given the aftermath of Sandy, I'm not sure the standard advice is anywhere close to adequate even if one doesn't have fight off hordes of "those people".
We meaning you and your fellow liberals.
My top 10 priorities of sensible gun policy are:
1 through 9: The minimization of criminal violence.
10: Accommodating for hobbyists.
My priorities and those of the NRA are somewhat different - they'd put the hobbyists higher, and add something about the ability of citizens to take arms against the government - but we're coming from pretty much the same place, me and the NRA.
As Von points out, Big Bill Bennett also thinks violence minimization is an important part of gun policy.
The problem is, Bennett and other NRA-types propose solutions that either match the stupid things we already do, or explore new frontiers in stupidity. I don't believe, James, that liberals are the only ones thinking sensibly about this matter, but if they are, that's not their fault.
Does the standard advice -- which I'm assuming is distinct from the advice the so-called preppers would give (Make sure you stock up on LL Bean turtlenecks and button-downs from Lands End!) -- include having a gun? I'm actually totally serious, by the way. I mean, we have a battery-operated radio, a couple very good flashlights, some waterproof matches and candles, an inadequate first-aid kit, and some bottled water that I always forget to swap out as frequently as I probably should. We don't have any freeze-dried food, which we probably should, nor any serious survival gear. We also don't have a good family plan about where to meet if we're separated or something. But then again, we're planning for a bad storm or a serious earthquake, not the onset of ravening hordes, the Mayan apocalypse, or the End Days.
You should always have two inadequate first aid kits.
Hey, hands off my single action revolvers and leverguns or the cowboy action shooters of the land will rise as one.
But gswift, did you feel like you were suffering when the assault weapons ban was in place from 1994 to '04?
Reviewing this thread, it looks like I agree 200% with everything Von Wafer has written.
353, 355: I give you Missouri's own Zombie Squad.
371: The turtles are just using you.
My new theory is that the best disaster preparedness tactic is to have good relationships with your neighbors. If you have close kin within walking distance, even better. The more serious the breakdown of physical and social infrastructure, the more you need to work together to replace it.
This is, of course, the exact opposite of what the doomsday preppers are doing, what with their fantasies of fighting off hoards of people coming for their supplies. And since people decide whether to band together or turn on each other based on what they expect other people to do, the doomsday preppers are actually setting all of us up for tragedy.
The assault weapons ban didn't affect me one bit but as legislation it was kind of half assed. Look at the criteria. So if I have an M4 style rifle but with a fixed stock and no pistol grip it's totally legal? That's not much of a ban.
375: I don't know from guns. When the details of Sen. Feinstein's new assault weapons ban bill come out, maybe you could take a look and say whether it's half-assed in a similar way? It would help for those who don't know about this stuff. You're a professional, as well.
374.1: this is quite obviously true in the case of any real extended breakdown of social order. It's the reason why the Mormons will take over the shattered remnants of any post-apocalypse America. They're the largest, most well organized team out there and teams beat individuals every time.
Some of the more intelligent prepper types do talk about this and recommend building networks with your neighbors and trying to convert them to the lifestyle. Presumably the people who have bought in before societal collapse will band together to watch everyone else starve. It's a pretty fundamental and insurmountable problem though, since it's hard to build real community by bonding around the idea of huddling in your castle watching everyone else die.
373: are you calling me a turtle and essear a sock puppet?
Oh good, Joe Lieberman is calling for a commission on violence. We're heading straight from tragedy to parody, I guess. Like I said, someone point me to a dry cave provisioned with the right nuts and berries. I'll see you all when this over.
360
Exactly my point. MSNBC has nothing near the party line that Fox does ...
According to Kevin Drum this is outdated:
... Which network was the most extreme, though? Anyone who thinks that MSNBC hasn't yet become fully Foxified might be surprised at the answer, but Pew found that in the final week MSNBC aired precisely zero stories that were either positive about Romney or negative about Obama. Welcome to the 21st century news bubble.
You'll want to keep a gun with you in the cave in case someone comes for your nuts and berries.
It's the reason why the Mormons will take over the shattered remnants of any post-apocalypse America.
Or, y'know, the union local on one of those fuck-off huge bits of waterworks that supply New York City or LA.
why spend so much time pretending to be hopeless if you're not trying to talk yourself into learned helplessness?
368
Does the standard advice -- which I'm assuming is distinct from the advice the so-called preppers would give (Make sure you stock up on LL Bean turtlenecks and button-downs from Lands End!) -- include having a gun? ...
No.
I don't know from guns.
To simplify with pictures, with those criteria this is the difference between illegal and legal. And now I'm off to freeze at work.
367
My top 10 priorities of sensible gun policy are:
1 through 9: The minimization of criminal violence.
10: Accommodating for hobbyists.
Goals are easy. You also need some sort of plan for getting there.
The most conservative Republican guy at my (admittedly very liberal) church went off this morning about how he'd been wrong about guns his entire life and we need to end this scourge now. He grew up hunting in Alabama. So I took that as a good sign. Maybe we can change things, even if gradually.
As someone I know pointed out on Facebook, Reagan (and the right-libertarian movement generally) was also responsible for ending care to the mentally ill, so we can put both prongs of the tragedy squarely on those bastards.
You'll want to keep a gun with you in the cave in case someone comes for your nuts and berries.
They say they don't need money! The think they know what's best. They're making a fool of us. They ought to be more careful. They're setting a bad example.
And as things fell apart, nobody paid much attention.
As someone I know pointed out on Facebook, Reagan (and the right-libertarian movement generally) was also responsible for ending care to the mentally ill,
I thought that de-institutionalization was driven by many factors, including progressive outrage at the poor conditions at insane asylums (as I think they were still called) and the fact that institutional long term mental health care is incredibly expensive if you aren't going to simply lock a bunch of schizophrenics in a white cell.
386
As someone I know pointed out on Facebook, Reagan (and the right-libertarian movement generally) was also responsible for ending care to the mentally ill, so we can put both prongs of the tragedy squarely on those bastards.
You don't think the ACLU had anything to do with it?
There was kind of a made in hell hippie/right libertarian Reagan consensus, in which hippies argued for more freedom for the mentally ill and the right libertarians agreed and then refused to pay for anything, so we ended up with lots of people free to exist without any means of support or treatment.
391
... so we ended up with lots of people free to exist without any means of support or treatment.
According to this essay (by a gun nut) if you are sane enough enough to know you need help you can get it but the courts have made it very difficult to treat people who don't know they need it.
The main issue for the mentally ill was that deinstitutionalization (which generally made good sense) was not accompanied by the funding and care that deinstitutionalization required, due to Reagan's failure to fund a Carter-era law whose name I'm forgetting.
Personally, I am not particularly civil-libertarian when it comes to mental health issues and would generally support some lessening of the procedural bars on involuntary commitment. But that's really a trivial issue compared to the main one, which is a lack of care and a lack of funding for care.
388: nobody paid much attention.
You've got to put "Opinionated" in front of your name if you want to get any attention.
368: The official standard advice doesn't mention guns. The authorities will have everything under control quite quickly, as they did after Katrina and Sandy.
Anecdata from the DE says there were plenty visible carried by the people outside her apartment building after the Northridge 'quake. She, on the other hand, had a manual can-opener and knew how to cook over a camp stove so got plenty of protection.
How close are you to a zoo containing large predators? How close to bear and mountain lion country? How fast can you limp?
372: I'm having Fifties flashbacks to earnest conversations and articles about bomb shelters, sharing, guns, and community rebuilding. There was a bit of a revival after the Cuban Missile Crisis, then it mostly died down until fairly recently.
The official standard advice doesn't mention guns.
Excellent. I once nearly mountain biked into a bear. And, while doing the same activity (though on a different occasion), I once saw a mountain lion on a ridge. The former was startling but not scary. The latter was pretty terrifying. Black bears don't, as a general rule, frighten me. Lions, though, freeze my blood. Anyway, all of this was pre limp. Now I'm the part of the herd that should probably be thinned.
Man, I hope none of these turtles can bite.
398: Yeah, I'm too fuckin' old to run & gun my way across the country to relative safety with my Southern family. I'll just go to the roof with the non-ugly scoped rifle and collect long pig for the pot.
Things fall apart. It's scientific.
Sure organizations like the NRA have some power and influence but they also have an interest in exaggerating their importance (and following) both to attract donations and to intimidate their opponents. It doesn't surprise me that there are pro gun people like biohazard and gswift who have tuned the NRA out. Or do you not believe them also?
Well the NRA doesn't really help pro-gun people like Biohazard and Gswift, who only want to own one gun and don't want to murder anyone. That sort of thing doesn't require any lobbying. The NRA is really beneficial to people who want to own a hundred guns and/or murder people.
402
... Biohazard and Gswift, who only want to own one gun ...
gswift in 333
... I have two revolvers and a levergun that all shoot .45 Colt. I enjoy doing minor customizations and fine tuning handloads for those guns.
As soon as I wrote that I knew I should have said "one or two".
But then I would be wrong, because it's actually three! You win again, nitpicking.
405: There goes the argument for banning ARs.
405: I'm trying to decide whether to wait and find out if the numbers are correct, as I don't want to dial anyone who is not associated with them because their number was listed incorrectly. These other fuckers, though? They could use some bothering. Something so wrong with them. Do two bothers make a right?
355: It's like, remember the Church of the Sub-Genius and how it began as this sort of extended kidding-on-the-square ironic piss-taking about religion? There are people who get far enough into things like this that they seem to lose sight of the fact that it was originally supposed to be a joke. For zombie apocalypse enthusiasts, even the most obnoxious still tend to fall into the category of genuine apocalypse anxiety mixed with absurdly outsized geekish devotion to the artistic and scientific merits of World War Z or whatever; but the first instances of its bleeding over into an excuse (tongue-in-cheek or not) for heavy investment in actual doom-prepping have started to occur.
I have linked before a local business that seems to be doing very well supplying the hipster anti-zombie crowd. And I'll be joking all week about the coming end of the world. Oh shit, it's really happening. I wish I'd . . . 'had another beer,' my friend helpfully fills in.
It's quite something to think of the people who actually believe in this stuff -- I heard on NPR last week that suicide chatter is up quite a bit among younger teens. It's a big world, and there's no shortage of people several burritos short of a platter, in one way or another.
I'm concerned that, one day, all the loons who devote their lives to 'prepping' may decide that teh collapse of society isn't happening fast enough, and will take it upon themselves to do what they can to hasten it.
I could probably be talked into buying this for a friend.
410 We need to start prepping for the preppers.
But then I would be wrong, because it's actually three!
Closer to ten. There's another couple revolvers in .357, a couple .22's that belonged to my grandfather, some work related guns like a shotgun and the Glock, and one of these for off duty carry.
So, in his speech last night, Obama used the word "shooting" and the word "violence", but not the word "gun."
Fuck that guy.
Closer to ten. There's another couple revolvers in .357, a couple .22's that belonged to my grandfather, some work related guns like a shotgun and the Glock, and one of these for off duty carry.
It would be a better world if you had none of these, and spent your spare time working on a classic car or tying fishing flies or something.
414 is harsh. That wasn't a political rally.
Yeah, it is harsh. But I'm frustrated. It doesn't help that I'm expecting a thoroughly underwhelming policy response from this tragedy, and the White House has done nothing - either before or after the event - to disabuse me of that notion.
I also don't expect much. Some legislation targeting the mentally ill, maybe some magazine capacity limits, (I'm kicking myself for not putting in writing my prediction that Yglesias would propose a tax to solve this). But that really wasn't the right forum, and I was surprised he put forth as much of a call to action as he did.
