Yikes. No good advice off the top of my head, though I'm pretty sure that this:

Do I contact Pat directly about the blog and emails

is precisely the wrong strategy.

The best I can think of it to keep passing this stuff on to HR and make it the company's problem. I wouldn't think it's a good idea to give any sort of personal response or reaction that would make our presidential friend any more of a target than they already are.

I don't really think HR is going to be of much help in this situation either. Lindsay Beyerstein was recommending that people just forward to the FBI their nuttier death-threat emails; apparently they have an online reporting service.

My sense on this stuff is you want to respond not at all. No contact, delete the comments so no one responds to them, nothing that Pat could possibly interpret as feedback.

passing this stuff on to HR and make it the company's problem

He was fired months ago, though. It isn't clear to me what responsibility the company has in this situation (but IANALawyer).

Also hire dsquared to beat Pat up.

LizardBreath nails it.

A few initial thoughts with the usual caveats about IANA professional in any of these matters and am just some guy on the internet:

(1) Do not contact Pat directly.

(2) What's your feeling on Work finding out about your personal blog? If you don't care, yes, tell HR and also talk to your corporate/local security people if you have them at your workplace. If you do care, how's your relationship with your immediate boss; are you able to talk to her/him in private such that they (a) won't ask to see your blog and (b) will talk to HR and/or security on your behalf, keeping it confidential?

(3) As alarmist as this sounds, have you considered going to the police? You say you verified Pat's ID via the magic of the intertubes; was this done in a way you can comfortably describe to the cops? If so, I think you should think about filing a report that this Pat is harassing you.

(4) Is your relationship to your co-workers such that you can ask them on the proverbial DL if similar things are happening to them outside the realm of the corporate network? Are they getting email at home? Do they have blogs and, if so, are they seeing comments? If the answers are yes and yes/yes, I think going to corporate and/or the boss and/or HR and/or the police becomes a more urgent matter.

(5) I had a co-worker who was fired from LastJob after an extended period of unpleasantness; immediately he was phoning and emailing direct threats to our managers. My boss had to have a security guard on hand from the door to our office all the way down to the parking lot and to the door of her car. Filing reports with the police and having the corporate lawyers put their elbows into him got it stopped pretty quickly. There's nothing wrong with being scared of what this person might do and that means there's nothing wrong with doing something about it. Whatever avenue you take I urge you not to simply sit on it. Whether that means dropping an anonymous description of the harassment into your boss' interoffice mail or whether that means being big and loud about it to make sure someone notices, or anything on the wide gamut between, do something.

3: They're not going to make Pat less deranged, but they might refocus his/her aggression back on the company/HR dept. Also, companies have lawyers who can seek TROs, etc., and are perhaps likelier to err on the side of caution after what happened yesterday. It's not a great solution, but it's relatively easy and possibly more useful than ignoring the problem and hoping it will go away.

They say widespread gun ownership might have prevented yesterday's tragedy; maybe buying a gun would be a good idea.

I also don't know what I'm talking about at all, but I'd start worrying if Pat is making threats. "You're an evil so-and-so" I'd ignore in the hopes that if you're boring enough, s/he'll go away. "I'm going to dismember you" on the other hand, I'd go to the cops with.

5: Chances are the company's lawyers will also be uncertain what the company's exposure might be and therefore view it as something the company needs to worry about.

1) Don't contact Pat. At best, it's a nasty confrontation. At worst... aw, who knows, but really, if you're worried that someone is threatening you, forward it to the FBI tip thing JM mentioned, or your local police.
2) If it's known that you blog, it might not be a bad idea to ask your co-workers if they've been on the receiving end of any anonymous harassment.
3) I don't know if you can save the comments but then delete them; it's probably not good to have them sit out there and get replied to if Pat is unstable.

I think 12 is right.

Or you could reply to Pat with threatening emails of your own, but disguise them so they look like they're coming from Labs' email address. You know, as a practical joke.

Make sure to cc: his provost.

What's HR's responsibility? I mean, sure Pat no longer works there but now that this is escalating don't they have a responsibility to notify the authorities or something to protect their current workers? I'd think it better that HR handle it so nobody who works at your company is personally exposed and because the collective case is surely better than the case for any one of you.

Am I the only one who thinks sending one email to Pat saying "stop it or I take legal action" might not be a bad idea?

Even if so, I have two words for you: "restraining order".

Yeah. I don't know if HR has any responsibility, but it still makes sense to contact them to coordinate, so someone's seeing all the emails/whatever.

I am a petty, evil person: I read Becks' wise advice and thought 'if HR gets around to it after applying extra eyeliner.'

Would it be sensible to try to get your IT folks to filter out mail from Pat?

The thing about a restraining order is that it does jack shit against a crazy person. After they burn your house down, you can get them arrested for arson and contempt of court -- whoopee! They may be some use in domestic violence cases, because they lend credibility to a victim asking the police for help before the attacker has done anything violent in a particular interaction, but I don't think one would make the reader any safer here.

20: The idea is to get them to dump it in legal's lap, then go back to applying eyeliner.

I'm not seeing an employer wanting to get involved in communications between ex-employees and current employees off-site.

I agree generally with LB. I might also take a vacation from the blog -- posting nothing new for 2 weeks, say, deleting any comments from Pat. Then it really looks like a dead venue for communication.

Restraining order for nasty comments on blogs?

The death threats are entirely different. Those should be sent to HR, if it's people who all work in the company receiving them and they're in fact threats—and HR should be encouraged to contact the police or FBI. That is within their job description, no question.

IAAL, and I think the company could well be on the hook, but you should probably put them on notice by informing them of the problem.

That would put it in the realm of negligence rather than strict liability.

If Pat's just trolling, devowel.

24: Ex-employee who was fired, when company is the nexus between the ex-employee and the people he/she is harrassing and is on notice of the harrassment? I'm not sure what I'd do in the company's position, but I'd sure as hell worry about it and look for ways to try to cover our butts. It's unfair to the employer that they tend to be damned if they do and damned if they don't, but you still don't want to be facing questions about why you didn't take action if ex-employee does something bad to current employee because of work-related stuff, wherever it happens.

I should clarify that these aren't death threat emails or comments. No threat of harm has been made. But I feel like the emails we have received have been about as bad as you can get without the person promising physical harm. Certainly threats about Pat trying to ruin our careers have been made.

Thanks for the advice thus far. My coworkers who also have received emails previously know about my blog and are aware of the comment. For now I probably will take the course of just completely ignoring Pat and hoping it goes away. If there are more comments or emails and if their content escalates...I'll talk to HR at that point.

I think 18 would be a terrible idea. Don't poke the angry bear. Ignore and report, I think.

Sucks.

I second everybody who says DO NOT RESPOND to him.

I can't quite tell whether it is possible that HR knows more than you do. In other words, if HR might be in a position to know whether the person is taking advantage of an Employee Assistance Program* or is otherwise receiving treatment, and whether a sympathetic HR person might unofficially notify Pat's caseworker/sponsor that Hey, Not Good Stuff Going On.

*I realize probably not your company's EAP given that he's an ex-employee.

I also think it's super-important to establish a paper trail. Just write down what is happening - the exact date he got fired, each step of what happened next, etc. IANAL, but it is not unlike a hostile-environment case -- if you have a diary or other record of events, your position is a lot stronger. There's a lot to be said for empirical data, even if it's self-report.

As supplements to the course of action suggested in 29, suggestions 6 and 10 are the clear winners.

course of action suggested announced

Brock actually brings up an interesting point. Can you be sure this isn't someone pretending to be your ex-co-worker? I'm no computer genius, but aren't there ways to mask this sort of thing? Has he ever acted unhinged in person?

34: Is it, in fact, Fontana Labs pretending to be the ex-co-worker!?

It's all coming together.

34: I'm positive it's Pat. And yes, 100% been unhinged in person (which I would go into more except for concerns about legality and it being too much of an identifying point).

Ok, good. Just keep in mind, it could be Brock Landers. Dude holds a grudge.

PSA, have you made sure the receptionist/front door person at your company is aware that they should be on high alert if Pat shows up?

Speaking as a person who was once in that role, it is MUCH better to know in advance who you're supposed to call (911!) and that you will be backed up by your superiors and not told you were overreacting.

Excellent point.

Yup, I believe so. Locks were changed, etc, immediately after Pat left, as well.

39 to 37.

Certainly threats about Pat trying to ruin our careers have been made.

And how would Pat do that, exactly? I'm asking rhetorically; my point is that this immediately makes it HR and your management's concern. Maybe you don't have the sort of relationship with them where you like having them involved, but seriously, threats to your career are their concern. As Armsmasher says, this is 100% in their job description.

Can't we bury the hatchet, Brock?

40: Okay, glad to hear it. Because the firing happened "months ago," I wasn't sure if they were aware that this is an ongoing issue.

I'd completely forgotten we were feuding, text, but now that you bring it up, no, we cannot.

A HREF="http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/cher/ificouldturnbacktime.html">relevant

I'd completely forgotten we were feuding, text, but now that you bring it up, no, we cannot.

I'd completely forgotten we were feuding, text, but now that you bring it up, no, we cannot.

I'd completely forgotten we were feuding, text, but now that you bring it up, no, we cannot.

I'd completely forgotten we were feuding, text, but now that you bring it up, no, we cannot.

I'd completely forgotten we were feuding, text, but now that you bring it up, no, we cannot.

I'd completely forgotten we were feuding, text, but now that you bring it up, no, we cannot.

You might also discreetly gather as much information about Pat as you can (address, new job, auto license #, etc.). You can give that to the police, and knowledge is power -- he might wrongly believe that he's working from a secret home base.

Well I guess I've got my answer. And I screwed up the link, too. Black day.

All work and no play makes jack a dull boy.

Wow, that was weird.

56: If by "weird" you mean "totally perfect."

If by "totally perfect" you mean "totally freaking out text"

I guess my problem is that the blog comment isn't enough to go to HR with; if it became more I would not hesitate, and the entire company would be very supportive, as everyone realizes the problems this person caused and still poses. But it's more like, jeez, Pat, my BLOG? That's sacred, yo. Okay, but, not to be sarcastic, it just shows a much more pointed personal attack than I'd seen before. Previous emails had mostly been addressed either to me as part of a group or two people. I suppose what concerns me more is the very personal nature of the blog comment.

I understand the reason for the gender-neutral name, but through the whole thread I've had this image of Julia Sweeney, cyberstalker.

I can understand that distinction; I see this as more reason to filter it through a manager or another trusted person in your organization if you want to put a buffer between the personal nature of your blog and the professional standing you have with HR. Having made the nice talk of saying I see your point, though, the increasingly personal nature of it does not in fact make it a good idea to clam up about what's going on. If they're going to be supportive because they understand the freakjob that is Pat then they will understand why it was (a) very personal in nature and (b) deeply disturbing. Emerson is right, knowledge is power. It's as true for HR and your boss (hell, if they can't do anything maybe you score a free vacation day out of it) as it is for Pat.

59: I think what you're hearing from us (well, me, anyway) is that it is plenty personal to go to HR with -- it's the difference between somebody who yells something obnoxious to the rest of his cube-mates as security is leading him out on his last day on the job, and somebody who tracks you down later to call you at home.

Your personal blog IS your "home" in some sense. It almost doesn't matter what Pat is saying, he's overstepping a boundary.

Aside from my crazy conspiracy theories, let me add that you should probably tell as many people as you are able. And I don't think it's necessarily a bad move to tell the guy you're doing that.

I think it's a bad idea to make any contact with Pat whatsoever.

If you have Pat's IP, do you have enough control over your blog to block that IP from commenting? OTOH, it might be a good idea not to block, because that might be seen as a response in itself.

I'd completely forgotten we were feuding, text, but now that you bring it up, no, we cannot.

Just want to really get the point across.

I agree that you should minimize your contact with Pat, to "none" if at all possible.

One step you might want to take is using blocking software that lets you block comments from Pat's IP address. Or require accounts and passwords to comment, and require all comments to be approved by you before they appear on your blog.

I used the latter approach when I encountered an online harrasser a little over a year ago, and it worked like a charm. Once they realize they aren't able to spew their hate on your blog, they move on.

"blocking software" s/b "blogging software"

65 violates the fundamental maxim. Wasn't me.

#22: The thing about a restraining order is that it does jack shit against a crazy person. After they burn your house down, you can get them arrested for arson and contempt of court -- whoopee!

You could say the same thing, of course, about gun control laws.

Hence the ~, presumably.

70 to 68.

In the US, with the Second Amendment, 50 state jurisdictions, a near-mentally-ill pro-gun movement, and a few hundred million guns already out there, gun control laws are futile, which is the reason why I don't spend any energy advocating for gun control. However, this does not mean that I don't think that the Second Amendment people are full of shit.

The US has more guns than any developed nation, and and more homicides too. Guns are supposed to make you safer, but they don't. Even if you only count white-on-white homicide, the US's homicide rate is still higher than any developed nation. (Finland is closest, at 84%. Japan is 15%. )

Guns are supposed to reduce crime, but they don't.

In the US, with the Second Amendment, 50 state jurisdictions, a near-mentally-ill pro-gun movement, and a few hundred million guns already out there, gun control laws are futile, which is the reason why I don't spend any energy advocating for gun control. However, this does not mean that I don't think that the Second Amendment people are full of shit.

The US has more guns than any developed nation, and and more homicides too. Guns are supposed to make you safer, but they don't. Even if you only count white-on-white homicide, the US's homicide rate is still higher than any developed nation. (Finland is closest, at 84%. Japan is 15%. )

Guns are supposed to reduce crime, but they don't.

84%? Of what?

Iraq has wonderfully low rates of white-on-white homicides.

Can I just ditto the calls to let everyone and their cousin know about this person and what they're doing? HR, Police, etc.

And I also suggest reading "The Gift of Fear".

There are also hotlines to call if you feel the need to talk to folks who advise on this stuff all the time. Your local domestic violence, rape, or suicide hotline can direct you to good resources.

The US has more guns than any developed nation, and and more homicides too. Guns are supposed to make you safer, but they don't. Even if you only count white-on-white homicide, the US's homicide rate is still higher than any developed nation. (Finland is closest, at 84%. Japan is 15%. )

Guns are supposed to reduce crime, but they don't.

The relevant comparison is not "US vs. Japan", but "US with guns vs. US without guns". There are undoubtedly numerous other factors besides gun laws that explain the difference in crime rates between the US and Japan.

65 was me, and 70 nailed the meaning of the ~. Sorry Brock, I thought the ~ would be more easily interpreted.

Yeah, the mysterious "other factors" which make sure that guns don't make Americans safe, and wouldn't do so even if America was all white. I love those other factors.

The white US has 3.5 the homicide rate as Ireland. twice the rate of France.

"The US without guns" is unimaginable. See #73. But the American safety-through-gun-ownership experiment has failed.

We have returned.

I for one welcome our new ovine overlords.

We have returned.

Not creature of the air, are you guys?

Watch out for Harold. He's the ringleader.

These gun-violence stats go down easier for members of my generation in the form of an early-90's skatepunk band's music video.

Christ's sakes GB, have we not had enough gun control talk the last couple days?

Can't blame GBiker. The first cheap gunshot was taken by Brock L. in 10.

You're right. I'll just go back to enjoying my nice, safe life in peaceful, gun-free Japan.

88: Wise move. As your link notes:

"The shooting was rare in a country where handguns are strictly banned and only five politicians are known to have been killed since World War II."

GB, are you aware that only morons use single anecdotes to win arguments? As I said, the US white-on-white homicide rate is six or seven times the Japanese homicide rate, and very little of it is by gun.

I have a friend who lived in Japan for about ten years and said that he only felt the possibility of violence once. No actual violence.

Yeah, but Japan's "strict ban" on guns evidently doesn't stop criminals from having them. Only law-abiding citizens.

Usually, the yakuza don't kill cops or politicians because the PR blowback is devastatingly bad for them. I highly suspect the criminal mastermind who offed the mayor in this case will be pressured to commit suicide in the very near future.

Evidently the srict ban brings gun violence in Japan down almost, but not quite, to zero. What is your difficulty with this concept?

GB, are you aware that only morons use single anecdotes to win arguments? . . . I have a friend who lived in Japan for about ten years and said that he only felt the possibility of violence once.

Wow, that's funny.

Well, he knows a lot more than you do, so I thought it was relevant. He actually went native and doesn't visit his American friends any more.

Yeah, but Japan's "strict ban" on guns evidently doesn't stop criminals from having them

And of course it has nothing to do with that fact that the US gun crime rate is around 200 times that of Japan.

I lived in America for 29 years and never felt the possibility of gun violence, even once. And that proves... nothing. (Neither does the shooting of the mayor in broad daylight, of course, but it was so ironic that it happened in the middle of this discussion that I felt compelled to post it.)

Still waiting for your response to #79.

Where did you live, in a nunnery?

Cross-national comparison of rates of death due to assault, 1960-2002, 18 OECD countries. We aim to please.

95: gun crime rate s/b handgun murder rate; I can't readily come up with figures for the overall rate, but most gun crimes in Japan are related to possession, and the overall number is still vanishingly small by American standards.

I lived in America for 29 years and never felt the possibility of gun violence, even once.

Offhand, I can think of two people I know who have been shot. There have been countless shootings in my neighborhood in the time I've lived here, fewer now that it's been gentrifying, but you still hear gunshots from time to time. I myself hit the kitchen floor during a bike-by a few yards away many years ago. But sure, it proves nothing.

#79 isn't a question, so I don't see how I can "respond" to it. I maintain that Japan has a low crime rate for various reasons independent of gun laws. IMHO, if you could magically take all the guns out of America, it would not make America safe like Japan. I guess we can agree to disagree on that.

There are, nevertheless, plenty of horrific crimes in Japan, like this one, where the killer massacred 8 schoolchildren (and wounded 15 more) with a knife. And the rising tide of knife crimes led to, you guessed it, calls for knife control laws.

#98: Yonkers and, later on, Manhattan.

knife control laws

Right, like you can't just kill someone with chopsticks.

Anti-gun-control people say that guns make the US safer. But the evidence is that they don't. What's your opinion on that? (Question).

Ireland, as I said, also has a much lower homicide rate than the US. Even France does. What's your opinion on that? (Question).

Do you think that widespread gun ownership increases the amount of himicide and suicide, decreases it, or has no effect on it. (Question).

Note that I factored out race in what I said by reporting only white-on-white homicide. That's the big "cultural factor" most people have in mind.

New York has gun control.

It also has concealed carry.

Frankly, you must have had a very sheltered life. Do you read newspapers?

#105?

Most Japanese seem to think that Westerners can't even eat with chopsticks, so if you wanted to off someone there, HG, doing it with chopsticks would definitely involve the element of surprise.

But if you're going for surprise, you might as well snuff them with, say, a carp. The advantage of the chopsticks is that they...I can't think of a punchline. Double as drumsticks? Rub them together to start a fire?

white-on-white homicide. That's the big "cultural factor" most people have in mind

I don't think that's it, actually. Better to look at countries with a permanent underclass, or a significant population living in grinding poverty. And America still has the frontier belief that committing righteous violence is each individual's inalienable right.

Heebie, ya know, a lot of Chinese restaurants serve carp without even telling you.

I have a liscence to carry concealed chopsticks if they ever try to pull that carp on me.

I'm pretty sure it's actually it.

Japan has a very small number of gun homicides (almost all of them committed by yakuza), but you know what else Japan has? In Tokyo at least, a state-of-the-art ballistics lab that would be the envy of almost any American city's. The Tokyo central police crime lab is one of the coolest places you can imagine.

Some f them even use carp oil when to fry vegetables with.

I'm pretty sure it's actually it.

We could debate, or I could gut you like a fish. You want to go European or American on this one?

(It is what people mean, but they're wrong.)

LALALALALALALALA
I CAN'T HEAR YOU WITH MY FINGERS IN MY EARS
LALALALALA

105, I think that guns make some people safer and other less safe. It depends on who's using them. And since gun control laws will stop only law-abiding people from having guns, they will increase the proportion of guns in the hands of criminals. I think that's a bad idea.

As I have said before, I think international comparisons of gun violence are largely meaningless because they cannot discern what the "baseline" level of violence in a given country would be if it had no guns at all (or, conversely, if it had lots of guns). Country A may just have a higher crime rate than Country B, and if guns are available, some of those crimes will involve guns.

I think racial violence is a factor, but there is lots more, such as a definite cultural preference in Japan for not causing trouble or standing out, versus a preference in America (not universally held, of course) on being strongly individualistic, getting your share, and maybe even being a bit aggressive in doing so.

110: You have any idea how much some of those Japanese carp cost? That would be like killing someone with a Fabergé egg.

And you know what else? Those carp can use chopsticks just fine. You look behind the partition in the back of the room and there they are, scarfing down muck with their chopsticks.

121 to 112. My timing sucks.

scarfing down muck with their chopsticks.

Out of their bottoms, because they're nasty bottom-feeders. Yeah! I did just go there!

Yeah, I was talking about what people mean. I wasn't trying to explain violence, just factor out the secret "cultural factor" people have in mind.

One book makes an argument that "Southern influence" is the biggest single correlated factor. North Dakota has lots of guns and quite a lot of poverty, but almost no Southern influence and very little homicide. (Alaska, by contrast, has quite a lot of Southern influence through the military and migration).

I think international comparisons of gun violence are largely meaningless because they cannot discern what the "baseline" level of violence in a given country would be if it had no guns at all (or, conversely, if it had lots of guns). Country A may just have a higher crime rate than Country B, and if guns are available, some of those crimes will involve guns. ... there is lots more, such as a definite cultural preference in Japan for not causing trouble or standing out

Look at the chart in #99 again. Never mind guns, it's just shows assault rates. To a strong first approximation, the only country that doesn't look like anywhere else is the U.S. Whatever is going on, it really isn't about Japanese culture.

#108: Frankly, you must have had a very sheltered life.

If I had known at the time that I would need more street cred on the Internet, I would have hung out in some rougher neighborhoods during my youth.

And, hey, writing a decent response to a triple-question takes time, especially reading Unfogged is not the only thing I'm doing right now. I answered your 105 in 119, but come on, have some patience.

"especially reading" s/b "especially since reading"

119: And since gun control laws will stop only law-abiding people from having guns, they will increase the proportion of guns in the hands of criminals.

And then criminals will run roughshod over society, gunning down anyone they please with impunity. Just look at Japan! Whereas in heavily-armed societies, criminals hardly ever shoot anybody, because they'd be terrified of retribution, as the examples of Colombia, Brazil and South Africa make clear. Or not.

OK, so you agree that the pro-gun people are wrong when they say that guns make us safer.

You really can't rule out cross-cultural comparisons entirely if you're going to try to make an argument, especially because you're not specifying the mysterious other factors. You just seem to want to ignore evidence that the American experiment with safety through weaponry hasn't worked.

Forget Japan. Italy, Ireland, losts of places have much less homicide than white America.

If you're going to say that Alaska has southern influence, you're going to end up with a tautological argument.

North Dakota is an interesting case, but maybe not illuminating since it's so sparsely populated.

Heebie, is your aversion to bottom feeders a sign of some sort of sexual phobia?

Homicide rates are per capita, Ogged.

No, the guy was a geographer and did detail work on settlement and migration patterns. Much of the west was settled in significant part by Southerners, but not the Upper Midwest ot New England. (Blacks counted as Southerners.)

Yes, but people are less motivated to kill people who aren't nearby.

Hmmm. Yes, I'll cop to having an aversion to incorporating rotting, nasty bottom feeder carp into my bedroom romps. I feel this is a safe space to admit this.

settlement and migration patterns

Ah, gotcha.

Yeah, but population density could still be important. Consider a ND-sized state with everyone living on their own equal-sized patch of farm vs the same place with everyone living in a football-stadium-sized piece of land. If they had equal per capita homicide rates, I'd be more impressed with the latter society.

137 -> 132

Hah! 134 neatly expresses my caveats to 132 without my having to go into a long explanation about Becks and her style.

Thank goodness!

So does 138! Awesome!

hmm.

Carp have been dealing with rejection for millennia, except in China, but it still hurts.

NDs numbers are especially spectacular, but most of the Upper Midwest or New England counts as non-Southern.

I might add that what was measured was white-on-white homicide. ("Cultural Regions of the US", Gastil).

But wasn't there some chatter recently that gun deaths, per capita, are higher in rural America? Or did I just invent that?

Also, geography: if Japan bans guns, it's easier to control illegal smuggling than if, say, Canada were to, with the U.S. right below. (Or, smaller scale, a gun ban in one city but not in the rest of the state.)

I think when we took in everyone's poor and huddles masses they sent along their crazies, too.

Whereas blonde-on-blonde homicide rates have calmed since their peak in the 1960's.

144: I think when we took in everyone's poor and huddles masses they sent along their crazies, too.

** EXCLUSIVE: MUST CREDIT DRUDGE RETORT ** NOTORIOUS LIBERAL 'CALA' DENOUNCES IMMIGRANT CRIMEWAVE ** DEVELOPING **

Don't the Aussie's mostly get by with fistfights, though?

Race is an enormous factor and the lowest homicide rates are in mostly-white states. The reason I reported US white-on-white homicide was to factor that out. The lowest homicide states are Midwestern (5) and New England (3) plus Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon, and Delaware. Besides Delaware, Rhode Island and Minnesota are fairly urbanized.

Stats

Aussies. Shouldn't try to multitask.

Everyone please switch from Japan comparisons to Ireland comparisons (30 % white US rate) or Italy comparisons (40% white US rate) or I'll blow your heads off.

Aussies. Shouldn't try to multitask.

You should see them try to walk and eat Vegemite at the same time.

Yes, but people are less motivated to kill people who aren't nearby.

(shouted, hand cupped to mouth) "I said, 'Come over here, this pistol's no good at range!'"

When I was a child there was a shootin' feud running between two related families in my community. When it got really hot the Thomases would be crouched on a corner of my parents' property that afforded good cover and a view of the Kings' house. Nobody ever got shot because, to be frank, they were all too goddamn inbred to find the trigger at least five times out of ten.

That's not at all a lie, either. Well, OK, they could find the trigger, but they were all apparently unbelievably awful shots.

Emerson is right. And it all goes back to plantantion slavery. And the harsh Scottish climate.

Via kottke.org, some portraits of American gun owners in their homes.

portraits of American gun owners in their homes

I'm actually a gun-rights supporter, but nothing has ever made me think America is completely insane as much as those pictures.

they will increase the proportion of guns in the hands of criminals.

Key word here being "proportion." Meaning, as compared to guns in the general population.

Now, I personally would rather take my chances with criminals owning 90% of the 100 guns per (say) 1 mil people than with criminals owning 10% of the 900 guns per 1 mil people. Same damn number of guns in the hands of actual "criminals", fewer guns overall. Sounds good to me.

Not to mention that the point John's kind of making is: what exactly do you mean by "criminal," Kemo Sabe? Because, you know, no one who owns a gun is a criminal until they commit a crime. If they do so and they have a gun they're obviously more likely to commit a gun crime than if, y'know, they didn't own a gun in the first place.

There's a reason you can't spell "culture" without "cult."

as those pictures.

GB, is this really the kind of thing that serves as good PR for people on the fence about guns? A Raven owner? And who the fuck buys a Taurus in .38 Super?

Ack. Allow me to inject a little class here. A custom 5 shot by Hamilton Bowen, and some more examples of his work.

I didn't post it as good PR. I posted it as interesting/funny. Of course, you could read a subtext into it about how Americans, in all their quirkiness, are united by a love of their freedom to defend their... yada yada yada. But I'm not doing that.

155 gets it exactly right. Guns don't kill people creep me out; it's the massive boners so many gun owners have for them that creep me out.

I think everybody should have a gun. It levels the playing field.*

You know, when they're playing gunball.

*Stan, picture 3 at the site above.

I was raised in a house with guns and was taught to shoot them. I will resist the usual temptation to launch into a family story and simply say that I don't own one and won't have one in my house. Other people can own them all they want; I'll take my chances.

I will resist the usual temptation to launch into a family story

Come on, don't be a tease.

I rather suspect that the family story that led McManly to have a decided "no guns in my house" position isn't exactly one for joking about, y'know?

158: While the first weapon is impressive, the name "Colt Nimrod" conjures up the worlld's most incompetent p0rn star. Though a 5-shooter could probably get lots of work, even if most of them were misfires. Or blanks.

157: Ur E?

163: It's all fun and games 'til somebody loses an eye.

And then it's more fun: you have an eye to play with!

Ew.

From BoingBoing, of all places:

Armed students end rampage, prevent further injuries

...Students ended the rampage by confronting and then tackling the gunman, officials said.

"We saw the shooter, stopped at my vehicle and got out my handgun and started to approach Peter," Tracy Bridges, who helped subdue the shooter with other students, said Thursday on NBC's "Today" show. "At that time, Peter threw up his hands and threw his weapon down. Ted was the first person to have contact with Peter, and Peter hit him one time in the face, so there was a little bit of a struggle there."

And then there's this:

At least nine shots fired in Uptown Tavern shooting

At least nine bullets were fired in a shootout Saturday morning at a downtown bar that ended with the gunman who allegedly instigated the shooting hospitalized after he was shot twice by another customer.

About 50 people were inside the Uptown Tavern, 1301 Elm St., at 12:45 a.m. Saturday when the shooting happened, sending customers diving to the floor for cover.

Police said Eliezer Encarnacion, 26, of 214 Bremer St., Apt. 2, fired a .45-caliber semiautomatic handgun about a half-dozen times at two bouncers and the assistant manager standing in a rear doorway.

Customer Kenneth Gage then pulled out his Kel Tec .380 semiautomatic handgun and fired it three times, hitting Encarnacion twice, according to court records.

Also:

"While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce normal murder rates, our results find that the only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws."

And was the guy who "instigated the shooting" at the bar also carrying a concealed handgun? Sounds like he was.

GB, you're on a bit of a roll recently. First we had your defense of Mickey Malkin, now we have you linking to John Lott in apparent unawareness that his "More Guns, Less Crime" meme has not fared very well in the field. Tim Lambert, in particular, has been on this beat for a long time. (Lott himself has acquired a rep for being, shall we say, a bit of a crank.)

I don't want to think you're clueless, seriously. But sometimes you don't make it easy.

119: And since gun control laws will stop only law-abiding people from having guns, they will increase the proportion of guns in the hands of criminals. I think that's a bad idea.

As someone else pointed out, kind of, "law-abiding people" is tautologous. An abusive guy who snaps and shoots his ex with a gun that had previously only been used for home defense is law-abiding until he's not.

Well, we can make up examples to suit our own prejudices, but the point is, "law-abiding people" makes it sound like there's a fixed number of civic-minded people, and a fixed number of people who would break the law no matter what.

And in 168, we have two "man bites dog" anecdotes and Mary Rosh John Lott. Even if that particular study is reliable, I don't think it's a good idea to keep guns legal just to deal with the rarest and most unpredictable kind of gun crime.

Arg. There's a difference between fantasy-play about what You Would Have Done, which is harmless, if usually delusional, and a good way to cope ("I wouldn't have died, because I would have rushed the gunman and kicked him with my massive rippling thighs.") and arguing that the victims in the attack died Because They Weren't Brave Like I Would Have Been, which is really pretty despicable. (If the son of the prof who died at the door thinks the kids were right to jump out the window, that should suffice for the rest of us.)

There's this belief, false as we're finding out, that Something Could Have Been Done and the victims Didn't Do It. From the reports, we're starting to get the idea that the RA who died probably confronted the gunman. Some students survived by playing dead; some by barricading the door; some by jumping out of a window; some by running. Something Was Done and Sometimes It Doesn't Work.

Moreover, this event seems poorly suited to determining what gun laws should be. Banning guns entirely on campus didn't work. The laws requiring ID didn't work; he had ID. The laws checking his background didn't work; he hadn't committed a crime. I find it sort of implausible that getting rid of gun laws would have made it *harder* for him to get weapons; I also find it implausible that had handguns been illegal, he would not have purchased a shotgun or an illegal handgun. So I'm inclined to say that rampage killings shouldn't be the model for law; there's other reasons to regulate guns, but this just seems too anomalous to draw good conclusions.

The gunman got six shots off without hitting anyone? What a heartwarming story. I want to got to that bar! It's so safe!

172 -- It's clear enough that no laws are going to stop this exact thing. I did overhear some network TV last night, CBS I think, talking about post-Columbine changes in the way school administrators are thinking about these things. Apparently, the idea is that administrators ought to be regularly talking to students, in general, and paying attention to what they say. And apparently this has led to quite a number of foiled massacres.

Obviously hard to measure, and not nearly as satisfying as the video game version.

It's just no fun at all that the solution to so many of life's difficult issues is grow the fuck up. Adolescent fantasy is much better . . .

Yesterday, a local radio station (that plays Hannity, Savage, Beck, and Rush) asked what the most hoped for result of the attack at Va Tech.

I was pleased and surprised that the most popular answer was better help for students struggling with mental health issues.

162, 163: Oh, nothing traumatic or dramatic. Well, OK, nothing traumatic to me since I was either too young to remember them or not born yet; the issue was more one of being cursed with too many available stories to want to choose between them at that hour of the night and figuring I should give the ol' "once upon a time in the sticks" saw a rest.

That GB managed to threadjack yet another thread into the Gun Control Follies is especially annoying given the topic at hand. Hey, Person Who Asked: I don't recommend at some point buying a gun just in case Pat and John Woo show up at work!

The bottom line is that the best way to protect yourself is to be alert to your surroundings and to make sure that those around you are also being alert. Co-workers, neighbors, family. Not bunker mentality. But alertness.

Engaging crazy people is usually a mistake.

Ignore them long enough and they will find someone else to be pissed off at.

That GB managed to threadjack yet another thread into the Gun Control Follies is especially annoying

No fair! Brock Landers started it!

(BTW, when have I ever threadjacked a thread onto gun control issues?)

"(BTW, when have I ever threadjacked a thread onto gun control issues?)"

Not a relevant question.

Perception is more important than reality. Plus, you are almost Japanese, which makes you almost South Korean, which makes you a bad person now.

Please don't kill us all, GB.

I'm pretty sure Brock was cracking a joke and I sought to address your 69 (token: ATM), which I took to be more serious and a more distinct digression from the topic at hand; if I offended your delicate sensibilities I apologize. Ogged has some friends who are very into that whole honor-and-guns thing, perhaps you should ask him to introduce you.

#180: Touché.

I'm keeping a list of who to snitch on if I ever get in trouble.

So far, I have Ogged (hello? Iranian), Gaijin (what true Patriot lives abroad and have you read his crazy posts?!?!), Lizardbreath (clearly has kid force-feeding issues), Emerson (no comment necessary).

I'm watching the rest of you!

"blonde on blonde homicide rates" = teh awesome. Heebie-Geebie has not received the adulation that is her due for 145.

Belatedly, just to say that 155 gave me a visceral understanding of Apo's reaction to calling himself a feminist. I have an intense resistance to the idea of saying "I am a gun rights supporter" and yet, on a policy level, I pretty much am.

I own a gun because I'm a fuckin' American and a Marine. It's my God-given right.

Gotta love this guy's attitude.

(link)

Of course! People are endowed with their creator with inalienable rights BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE ARE AMERICAN!

It's my God-given right.

It's been a while since I read the Bible last, but I'm pretty certain God didn't have anything to say about guns, no matter which translation you're using.

Um, it's somewhere in the back.

One a them deuteroapocryphathingies.

190: OK, that's funny.

It's not explicitly stated anywhere Apo, more just a sentiment that permeates the subtext of the entire book.

Book of Armaments, chapter two, verses nine through twenty-one.

Oh wait, that's hand grenades.

192: I stole it from the Simpsons:

Homer: Your mother has this crazy idea that gambling is wrong. Even though they say it's okay in the Bible.

Lisa: Really? Where?

H: Eh, somewhere in the back.

GB, pretty much every time you come here you throw out some provocative political comment. Most people here don't especially like long, hostile, stereotypical political wrangles, so they find that annoying. I (possibly uniquely here) do like long, hostle, stereotypical political wrangles, so I annoy them too. I usually find your substantial political ideas annoying and ignorant, of course, but that's the kind of thing these wrangles are all about.

Oh wait. You're asleep in Japan.

Dude, Cisco seems a little scared of Bashir and his Bushmaster CAR-15. Also, Cecilia is pretty cute (although it is only a sideshot of the face).

I never sleep.

196: More substantively, I don't think it's fair to say that "pretty much every time [I] come here [I] throw out some provocative political comment". For example, in this very thread, I've posted a link to pics of wacky gun owners that a lot of people found interesting, and a Simpsons reference that Tim enjoyed.

I like a good wangle (which is why I value the ability of various commenters here to hold their own in such wangles, in a tough, fair, informed way), but I like having fun, too.

OK then. If you want to annoy most people here less, make fewer provocative posts. Cut it down to 10% or less.

If you want to annoy me less, take your contrarian-liberal / libertarian schtick and shove it. In the modern world of today your act is old, tired, and smelly.

But if you want to keep on saying dumb things, I'll always be happy to help you stink up a precious Unfogged thread with a long, stupid political argument.

"wangle" s/b "wrangle".

"wrangle" s/b "wang"

In the modern world of today your act is old, tired, and smelly.

I take back that whole "the ability of various commenters here to hold their own in such wangles, in a tough, fair, informed way" thing.

#202: It's a tad hypocritical of you to make pro-wang jokes, Apostropher, after previously claiming that "massive boners . . . creep me out."

For what it's worth, GB, I don't mind "provocative" and there are plenty of contexts in which I think you're perfectly alright. I do wish you'd spend the effort to be more aware of the contemporary landscape, though, if you're going to get into political stuff; "provocative" is different from "stupid," and there are good reasons why it's hard to take seriously someone who takes Malkin or Lott seriously.

203: Surely you weren't originally referring to Emerson. He's just grouchy.

It's the object of the massive boner that matters. Contra BitchPhD, I don't believe authorial intent is dead.

204: Also, no more linking.

I don't think Michelle Malkin is the Voice of Truth, but conversely, something isn't automatically wrong just because it comes out of her mouth. In general, I think her weakness is that she starts with a valid point and over-simplifies and amplifies it to the point where it's not so valid anymore.

As for Lott, I just pasted in all three links from the BoingBoing post without checking who the reporters or authors were. I'm aware Lott is a controversial figure, and his use of a sock puppet on the Internet is beneath contempt. But that doesn't make him wrong, and just because another professor has come up with a rebuttal of his position on a highly controversial, inflammatory topic, doesn't mean Lott is wrong and the rebutter is right.

Honestly, not having reviewed the relevant academic literature, I'm not in a position to determine whether Lott or his critics have made the more compelling case. But I suspect that a lot of the Lott-bashers aren't in a position to make that determination either, and are just boosting the guy who supports their preconceived notion of the way things are.

something isn't automatically wrong just because it comes out of her mouth

Not automatically, no. But if you were gambling, that would be the safe bet.

Try a little harder, Biker. Lott's problem isn't an academic dispute; the problem is that he faked his data.

203: Contrarianism is a little less annoying if the folks that practice it don't go crying about rudeness every time someone gets impatient with them. If you can't stand being called names, don't piss people off.

Lott was also accused of cooking data. "Controversial" is a copout.

I'd just like to get back to my original question. Does widespread availability of firearms make Americans as a whole safer or less safe, or does it make no difference. Most gun advocates claim it makes Americans safer; I say that it makes them less safe. There's a lot of evidence for my position. Is there any for the pro-gun position?

Please don't say that international comparisons are invalid because of cultural factors. That's just a refusal to think.

Also note that this is a completely different question from "Is there any circumstance when an individual will be safer if they have a gun?" This is social policy, not psychodrama.

It's like the seatbelt question: the evidence is that seatbelts kill one driver for every ten they save, and the conclusion from that is that seatbelts are a good thing as a matter of social policy.

This is the present state of the gun argument as far as I'm concerned. I don't yet know what you think about it.

When I remember how strung out on various drugs we all were in college, I am so very glad none of us had guns. I can think of at least three occasions that might easily have ended in someone dying: sudden, deranged fights that instead ended with someone being subdued and everyone else gasping and laughing it off.

See, that's what annoys me. GB shows up and drops bombs, but I can't pin him down. His pro-gun schtick is part of his contrarian-stancing personal style, and he's not going to let anyone touch it. So he'll show up next time saying the same kind of goddamn stupid thing.

209: GB, a lack of specific technical knowledge need not make all claims equally opaque to us layfolk. That's a shallow position. A number of writers on both sides of such debates go to a great deal of effort to produce popular argument for lay consumption ( I linked to some of these, above ) and it's also possible for layfolk to have an informed take on who is answering questions and who is dancing around them, who appears to be engaged in honest behaviour and who doesn't. If you can't be bothered to go that effort in assessing the claims of a figure like Lott, then I'd submit to you that you're not really interested enough in the debate to be bringing it up at all.

211: the problem is that he faked his data

Your source for that is...? I'm looking at Lott's Wikipedia entry, and I don't see anything about him faking data. In fact, it mentions other scholars confirming his results (even while yet other scholars have, indeed, sharply criticized them).

But if he had faked data, it wouldn't be the first time it's happened among academics with strong views on gun control.

Oh, I see it now, way at the bottom: the "Lott's '2%' survey" item. Still only a small part of his total output on the issue.

OK, GB, what about the question I've asked you three times so far? You only respond to questions for which you think you have an answer.

And I just knew that you'd drag Bellesile in. You cited Lott, none of us cited Bellesile.

213: The suicide rates from the WHO don't seem particularly related to a "gun culture". Perhaps guns are more frequently used where guns are available but folks seem to make do when they want to.

213: It's like the seatbelt question: the evidence is that seatbelts kill one driver for every ten they save, and the conclusion from that is that seatbelts are a good thing as a matter of social policy.

Lots of potential social policies would save lives, but that doesn't mean we would want to have them in effect. Banning the consumption of alcohol, for example, would reduce deaths from drunk driving. But few of us would want such a policy, because we value the freedom to have a drink, we believe we're responsible enough to control our own behavior with respect to drinking and driving, and we're willing to take the risk that we might get killed on the highway by someone who isn't. (And that's not even a perfect analogy, because guns, properly used, can save lives, while drunk driving never can.)

So I reject entirely the principle that simply making Americans, in the aggregate, more safe is an irrefutable justification for a given policy. Heck, Americans would probably be safer if we banned motorcycles, but I'm not about to start pushing for that, either. There's a risk and reward tradeoff involved.

But, do guns make Americans, in the aggregate, safer or less safe? As I have said previously, I believe that widespread availability of firearms to people planning to use them to commit crimes makes us less safe. Some people here objected to this observation by claiming that we have no way to tell whether someone is going to use a gun for criminal purposes until he does. Well, without using Minority Report-style precognition, we can look at a few very reliable indicators. If you have a criminal record, particularly involving violent crime, that's a red flag. If you're buying your guns anonymously on the street from an underground dealer, that's a pretty good warning sign, too. Ditto if you have signs of, or a history of, mental illness and emotional instability.

I would be in favor of making sure people could only buy guns after a background check and screening procedure designed to weed out such types, while also teaching proper gun use procedures. I don't see why owning a gun should be any easier than, say, getting a driver's license. Indeed, I believe Americans would be safer if we eliminated black-market gun sales entirely.

But the thing is, we can't eliminate black-market gun sales. There's no reason to thnk we'd be any more successful in a War On Guns than we've been in the War On Drugs. Therefore, as I have also said previously, any outright ban (or de facto ban through impossibly draconian controls) would simply act to disarm those Americans inclined to following the law, while having no effect on the criminally-minded. Given this reality, I believe that the ability of honest citizens to arm themselves makes us safer.

Your first paragraph slips from "drinking" to "drunk driving." Shall we conflate "gun ownership" with "gun use while drunk"?

I can imagine a scenario in which a drunk person has to drive a friend who's been shot to the hospital just as easily as you can imagine a scenario in which an armed person shoots a serial killer.

Your first paragraph slips from "drinking" to "drunk driving."

Which is perfectly analogous to slipping from "guns" to "gun deaths".

I believe Americans would be safer if we eliminated black-market gun sales entirely.

But the thing is, we can't eliminate black-market gun sales. There's no reason to thnk we'd be any more successful in a War On Guns than we've been in the War On Drugs. Therefore, as I have also said previously, any outright ban (or de facto ban through impossibly draconian controls) would simply act to disarm those Americans inclined to following the law, while having no effect on the criminally-minded.

Irrational. If a gun ban meant a drastic reduction in the number of guns available, then they would be harder to get, even on the black market. And you're still assuming that there's some inherent division between "Americans inclined to following the law" and "the criminally-minded."

Well, actually, it should be "gun murders", not deaths, but the point is the same. Drinking is the general case, and drunk driving is the special case where drinking is used inappropriately. Gun ownership, i.e., "guns", is the general case, and "gun murders" are the special case where guns are used inappropriately.

223: Nonsense. That's completely ridiculous, and I refuse to believe that you're arguing in good faith at this point.

224: B, you need to put italics tags around each individual paragraph you quote.

"gun murders" are the special case where guns are used inappropriately.

So if I aim at you but don't fire, that's not inappropriate? What about if I fire and miss? Is that appropriate gun use?

#226: see #225 re #223. I don't get your hostility to the comparison.

We've got a whole lotta cross-postin' going on...

Re: 229, okay, murder is one of several possible inappropriate uses of a gun, just as drunk driving is one of several inappropriate uses of alcohol.

227: I know, I tend to forget.
230: Yeah, and that's an obvious and sloppy elision, which inclines me not to want to argue with you about this any more. I don't think you're thinking very carefully about what you're saying, and I don't want to spend a lot of time having to deal with that.

Yeah, and that's an obvious and sloppy elision

I don't get it. Misuse of alcohol leads to all sorts of evils like not only drunk driving, but date rape, bar fights, passing out and dying from binge drinking, etc. Banning alcohol would, therefore, make us safer in the aggreate. Seems like a fair analogy to me.

But if you really hate the comparison, fine, forget it. It doesn't change my point that increasing safety is not the sole criterion we use in deciding which social policies to implement.

The motorcycle example is bogus. Motorcycles kill the driver and sometimes his passengers, guns kill others more than half the time.

What I said was that having such widespread availability of guns does not make Americans safer, but less safe. Many or most pro-gun people claim and firmly believe the opposite, but I know of no evidence for their belief.

I am trying to get you to respond one way or another to this particular very general claim, which I believe is false. It's true that at some level of social disaster some or many people will be better off with guns, but I'm asking a broader question. Tell me that it was a very good thing when America, in contrast to most of the rest of the civilized world, got on the easy-gun-ownership path which we probably will never be able to get off of, and also tell me that it has nothing at all to do with America's very high murder rate.

The position you just expressed was a gun-control position, of course.

#233: I am trying to get you to respond one way or another to this particular very general claim, which I believe is false.

I believe I've responded to you as fully as anyone could reasonably expect, and indeed given you more information than a simple "yes" or "no" would have provided. Yet you act like I'm somehow ducking your question.

You sure as fuck have avoided a simple yes or no answer, which is what I specifically requested four times. I didn't ask for chaff or an information dump. More is not better.

I say Americans are less safe, and we are on an unfortunate path. Do you disagree?