Featured Post

Remembering the Bulls I Never Saw in Pamplona . . .

It's that time of year, when I think about my youth in Spain. I think especially about my great adventure in Pamplona, running from the ...

Sunday, February 18, 2018

Sunday Thoughts: "Common Sense" Gun Control, the FBI, Concealed Handguns & Other Memes of Our Age

Another mass shooting. Horrible beyond words. Events such as this one in Florida, reveal deep, deep problems in all of Western societies. We see the fruits of the progressive-directed rot of our most basic institutions: schools, law enforcement, media, medical services, and, of course, family structure. This problem goes much, much beyond any particular piece of legislation, or any one election or politician.

That said, however, we see and hear immediate calls for new "common sense" legislation to control weapons. I find it difficult to believe that any piece of legislation produced in Washington or Tallahassee could have prevented this week's school massacre . . . well, except for one. That one, of course, is to repeal the nonsense making schools into so-called gun-free zones. One can imagine how different the result might have been if, say, that heroic football coach who died protecting students, shielding them with his own body, or some other member of the faculty, had been trained and legally able to carry and use a firearm. Instead, naturally, we get the usual DNC/progressive talking points (an articulate exception) attacking President Trump, the GOP and the NRA; silly attempts to make the Hispanic shooter into a white supremacist; and, the all-purpose stand-by, calls for denial of gun ownership on the basis of "mental health."

I have dealt with the mental health gambit before years ago, and have reposted the piece with my thoughts at the top of this blog. Nothing that has happened since that original post, makes me change my mind; in fact, I am even more convinced today that it would be a tragic mistake to make "mental health" a criteria for suspending without due process a person's Constitutional right to own a firearm.

Who among you believes that the progressives, who immediately take over any new program or policy, would not "weaponize" mental health to attack political opponents? Do you trust some Silicon Valley soy boy nerds to develop an algorithm, along the lines of those being developed to "prevent extremist speech and thought from the internet," that would not be or quickly become a politicized weapon to suppress conservatives? In recent years, we've seen in the US this type of weaponization of the EPA, the ATF, the IRS, the FBI, the NSA, and the CIA. In Europe, too, the police forces of several countries seem to spend more time cracking down on "right-wing hate speech" than on catching the criminals and the jihadis infesting the streets of the Old World.

Let us not forget, at a minimum, that "mental health," as my post at the top of this blog discusses, is a squishy topic, subject to redefinition in accordance with the tides and currents of prevailing political correctness. Don't forget, also, that until quite recently homosexuality was considered a mental health issue, until the political establishment decided it wasn't. Doesn't really sound like the science is too settled on "mental health."

The basic approach taken by the progressives on guns is well-known. They seek to take away your rights and mine because some people are criminal pieces of crap and illegally use guns to commit horrible and already illegal deeds. They, however, don't want to hear about deporting criminal aliens, or stopping the open violation of our immigration laws by millions of persons who should not be in our country. They, instead, want to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens; while those of us in favor of "common sense immigration laws and enforcement," for example,want to remove from the streets the actual individual people violating our laws. Hey, progs, see the difference?

In sum, the massacre in Florida, as in so many other cases, came about because of screw-ups by adult guardians, the police, the FBI, and the school authorities. They made it possible for this piece of excrement to act out his sick fantasies. All the warning signs were there. Political correctness at its finest.

Yesterday, two of my sons, one of their significant others, and yours truly, took the eight-hour North Carolina concealed handgun course at the local gun store in Bahama. The class consisted of fourteen people of all ages, including four women, and three African American men--kinda violates the narrative re racist, misogynistic Southerners, no? You couldn't have asked for a nicer, more polite group of people. The lead instructor, a former cop, was excellent and stressed the legal and moral responsibilities that go with carrying a firearm, including respecting "gun free" zones. We went out to the range and the instructors, again, were extremely helpful and polite. Yours truly got the highest score at the range (298/300) shooting my S&W MP 40, but I would never brag about that or say it in public. I just report it here because I know my six readers will not tell anybody else.

Any one of those people in that class, would, I think, have done the right thing if they had been legally allowed to be armed, and present at a school shooting. We all were agreed that we need "common sense" criminal control.

120 comments:

  1. The insane calls from the left to ban "scary" guns, blame the NRA, Trump, the law abiding, etc. were as predictable as they were insipid. Truly amazing how an Hispanic shooter became a white supremacist, or the pistol on an AR type weapon made it "more dangerous." These fruitbats don't even try to be logical or constructive. They just hope to eradicate the 2d Amendment someday. Then there's Constitutional genius Senator Nelson, who has proclaimed the 2d Amendment applies to.....hunting. Seriously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hunting.... seditionists... maybe...

      Delete
    2. Truly amazing how an Hispanic shooter became a white supremacist,

      Hispanic is a designation of culture, white is a designation of skin color and other surface features. Many Hispanics are white, even though they may not be treated as such. This is particularly true for those of recent Spanish descent. There is no contradiction between being Hispanic and considering yourself white.

      Delete
    3. His adoptive family had the surname of Cruz.it would not surprise me if he is not Hispanic at all.I think he looks more Eastern European..also would not be surprised it there could be Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. JMHO tho...

      Delete
    4. One Brow, The point remains that the story about his belonging to a white supremacist outfit was false. Interesting how liberals play games with "hispanic" and "white." When convenient they are two categories; when not, well, they are flexible.

      Delete
    5. DiploMad,

      Yes, there were white supremacist groups that falsely claimed Cruz was allied with them.

      I agree that the language is used sloppily by liberals. I wonder if you will agree that the distinction is also sloppy on the conservative side? Specks and planks, you know.

      When most people see "Hispanic", they think of Mexican. My understanding is that the Mexicans includes descendant of Europen settlers, Native Americans, and other groups, often mixed together over centuries. As in many other places, white/light Mexicans have it easier in Mexico, and generally have less need to emigrate. So, the Mexicans we see here tend to be browner.

      In real life, Hispanics come in every shade of skin color, and many gets the benefits of being white.

      Delete
    6. I'm not convinced that liberals use language in anything but a purposeful way. It's a very cautious, revolving, legalistic use of language. It's almost like the liberal movement is peopled with pharis...errr... trial lawyers. If anything, I would compare the use of language by liberals more to 'Three Card Monte'. You blinked, you missed it, you just lost.
      In the name of being sensitive to people's feelings, we have created a social that is, in practice, incredibly intolerant.
      Nowadays, you can lose your entire life's work by using the wrong word in a facebook post. To me, that's almost the definitely of 'liberal'.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    7. heh.. 'definition of'. :)

      Delete
    8. reader #1482,

      Are there liberals who play games with language (regarding racial/ethnic categories)? Certainly. Liberals who use language sloppily, but not deliberately? Without a doubt. Liberals who use language carefully? Absolutely. It's as silly to put them all into a single group as it is to put all conservatives in a single group (not only in this regard).

      What is tolerance, to you? One description I have seen is that tolerance is a mutual non-aggression pact. The intolerant are those who break the pact through inconsideration or denial. If people are breaking the pact, why should they be able to claim its protections?

      I take your last paragraph as an exaggeration. Generally, if there is only a post, an apology is more than sufficient. Further, for every person could name who lost their livelihood by preaching intolerance, I can likely find two (non-comedian) personalities who make their living by saying intolerant things.

      Delete
    9. I imagine there are more moderate progressives.. and it's also possible that this language manipulation is not directly intentional.

      It is also true that this issue is anecdotal at heart. I find with very difficult to come to common understandings in anything with my extremely liberal friends. I am careful not to denigrate their opinions or feelings, but that respect is just never mutual, and it is never, ever, walked back.
      I'm no Trump fan. I feel like his history of manifold marriages and philandering speaks for itself. Yet every single one of my progressive buddies considers me a 'trump kool aid drinker'. Why? Not because I fail to see how awesome Hillary Clinton apparently is.... because none of them sing her praises. But because in a differential analysis of which candidate is the lesser evil, I find a good margin on Trump's side. That, apparently, passes for kool aid today.

      I think I might just not see it... I don't see the places where conservatives bring their political views to work and expect everybody to just agree with them or be quiet... I don't see any of those... they must be out there.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    10. We are a tribal species, and one consequence is that we demean, conflate, and dehumanize those we see as not being members of our tribe. This affects how liberals talk about conservatives, and how conservatives talk about liberals. It also affects how much we trust sources of information from people we think are not in our tribe.

      As a liberal/progressive, I would not expect to bring my political views to work and have everyone agree with me or be quiet, and that has never happened anyway. Frankly, I prefer to keep my politics out of my work environment, regardless.

      However, I think you will find certain industries lend themselves more to a liberal or conservative political background. Working at a hospital located in an inner city, specifically designated as a place for the uninsured (pre-ACA, obviously) tends to attract a more liberal workforce that does working for a defense contractor.

      Delete
  2. "We all were agreed that we need "common sense" criminal control." Add to that "Liberal" control.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Im the 1990s we had a multi-year experiment with banning semi-automatic rifles. I think the results were inconclusive. Might we not now have am equivalent period for allowing protective "carry" for responsible adults in our schools? Then we can compare results to establish a national consensus. Seems fair ....

    ReplyDelete
  4. I suspect that the particular phenomenon of school pupils, or ex-pupils, committing mass murder by shooting in their schools is a peculiarly American habit. Explanation therefore demands a peculiarly American cause. Just as explanation of mass murder by motor vehicle committed by moslems demands a peculiarly moslem cause.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is due to American public schools being dens of horror and (in most states) "gun free" zones. We could drastically reduce the number of school shootings in America by banning public schools.

      Delete
    2. TheOtherSean,

      Common is Western culture: public schools being gun free zones.

      Exclusive to the US: regularly occurring school shootings.

      Your response does not address dearieme's post at all.

      Delete
    3. It entirely addresses the points. American schools warps the minds of youth more than foreign schools, such that some of them snap and lash out at the source of their anguish. Americans are just uniquely suited to lash out at the source of their pain.

      Delete
    4. TheOtherSean,

      What is the type of warping that occurs, in your view? You are giving out generalities that seem to lack support.

      Delete
    5. Most likely the school shooting difference is that it's one of the few places in the US where you can be sure that the vast majority are unarmed (being too young to have a weapon, even before the gun free zone shtick) and not have the protections you'd find at a court house or military base. (As the jerk Army psychiatrist demonstrated, if you can get past the gate guards it's one thing....)

      Contrast with, say, France, where most places are going to have a very low rate of firearms per person.

      ****
      Hm, there may be a reporting problem, too; I don't remember that '09 shooting in Germany getting reported at all, much less as a school shooting. I thought the '12 attack in France was a Jewish community center, but apparently it was a school, that might have just been racism against Jews rather than "targeting a school" though.
      https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2017-11-01-at-Wednesday-November-1-12.30-AM.png

      Delete
    6. Picture is from this:
      https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

      Delete
    7. interesting report, I wonder if they have a larger time scale.

      here's the link itself https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    8. I think the point here is that by declaring *only* (for the most part) schools as gun-free zones, the law is effectively placing a target on children.
      If, like much of europe, guns were outlawed in all places, there would not be a particular impetus for shootings to occur particularly at schools.
      Another 'gun free zone' is military bases since Bush-1 & Clinton. We've had a rash of shootings there too, though as with all small cross-section events, developing rigorous statistics and trends is pretty elusive.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    9. School shootings seem to be carried out by disaffected kids who were bullied and ridiculed by the popular kids.

      So they go back to the schools, to shoot the bullies.

      Delete
    10. bobby,

      The reports I read were that Cruz was the bully when he was in school.

      Real life defies simple categorizations.

      Delete
    11. bullies beget bullies

      Delete
    12. "Exclusive to the US: regularly occurring school shootings."

      Wrong. Utterly wrong. So utterly wrong it's obvious you're just spouting the BS you're told to.

      Delete
    13. Wrong. Utterly wrong.

      Can you name another Western country with regularly occurring school shootings? If not, how is this wrong?

      Delete
  5. http://www.nwahomepage.com/news/knwa/firing-up-states-first-enhanced-carry-training/979555500

    JK

    ReplyDelete
  6. In the school where I teach, we have had a couple of violent incidents in the dozen years since I started teaching there. One was fatal; the victim of the second is in stable condition after a number of days in critical condition. Also, both involved knives rather than guns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ermahgerd, ban the knives!
      Off the streets and out of your kitchen, because there's no legitimate use for such a military-style killing implement.
      Also, while you're at it, BAN ALL THE THINGS!

      Delete
  7. Early this month, the stabbing at my high school was also related to MS-13 activity in our area.

    Re the gangs, the kids acting up are the wannabe gangbangers. The ones who are already in can be surprisingly disciplined--maybe not so surprisingly, since they don't want to call attention to themselves. When they strike, there is little warning.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kepha,
    "The ones who are already in can be surprisingly disciplined--maybe not so surprisingly, since they don't want to call attention to themselves. When they strike, there is little warning."
    I can believe that, but what do you think of the tats on the ones who are in?

    ReplyDelete
  9. One never addressed way to end such malicious gun violence is to mandate certain people MUST carry weapons at all times. Since it is a matter of public trust, then it stands to reason that elected officers must be one of the groups mandated in this case.

    Moreover, since more senior governmental types are, by inference, more trusted, they should carry larger weapons. Thus, a first term city alderman/board member/congressman should have to carry a .22 target pistol (to get some experience). Second termers would have to carry 9 mm's, and third .45's. First term committee chairs would get shotguns, second term means M-16's. For people holding the Speakership, Majority Leader or Minority Leader offices, or chairing the ways and means committee, and having more than three terms under their belt, should, of course, carry 155's, or 105's, depending on their rank.

    Aside from the public safety this would engender, I'd think that such a requirement would lead to shorter lengths of stay in office.

    Green Bear
    (Now to get my tongue out of my cheek)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Replies
    1. I feel you intend jest, but this is yet one more reason independent study and homeschool programs are on the rise!
      Not to mention the invocation of 5150 on California second graders these days.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    2. Only partially jesting. Think how much damage a large percentage of our public schools are doing to America's youth every year. By comparison, the damage done by a school shooting is much more limited and contained.

      Delete
    3. Aye! And you probably don't even live in California!

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    4. Just for reference, Kindergarteners in the SF bay area are taken to a Black Lives Matters rally in the guise of a children's music concert field trip.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  11. A lot of the gun-grabbers are the same ones who apparently think Trump is (literally?) Hitler. I guess they want his troops to be the only ones with guns when he starts putting Latinos in boxcars (to go to the border, one hopes, but who knows with a "Hitler"). Illogical folk, at the least.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Events such as this one in Florida, reveal deep, deep problems in all of Western societies. We see the fruits of the progressive-directed rot of our most basic institutions: schools, law enforcement, media, medical services, and, of course, family structure.

    Every other Western society has gone further to the left in terms of school policy, law enforcement, media, medical services, and family structure. All of them have a lesser problem with school shootings. If you were to make any objective inference that the two were related, it would be in the opposite direction you chose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The real tragedy is that the school shooters are shooting teachers and students, rather than shooting the educrats at the school board and state education departments, the ones responsible for much of this the mess.

      Delete
    2. Yeah. Second we hang the lawyers; first we hang the educrats.

      Actually, I've heard worse ideas.

      Delete
    3. There are countries where acquiring a gun legally is nearly impossible. Yet they still have school shootings. Can we draw any conclusions from that?

      Delete
    4. Doctor Weasel,

      I would not think so. Why do you ask?

      Delete
    5. "Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk." -- Bertrand Russell

      I try to think, but I am as human as nayone else.

      Delete
  13. This post on this blog gets to the root of what has happened and why: http://malcolmpollack.com/2018/02/16/reaping-the-whirlwind/

    When did things all begin to go wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What changed in Britain since my rifle-shooting boyhood is two things:

      (i) two lunatics, one in Dunblane, one in Hungerford, decided to be copycats of American mass killings. A duplicitous Opposition helped to panic a feeble Government into passing restrictive gun laws.

      (ii) There's far more gun crime from the Usual Suspects using illegal guns, usually pistols. You might have thought that that would call for making it easier for respectable citizens to arm themselves, but no, perish the thought. Slowly more policemen are becoming armed. Yet I have more experience with guns than most British policemen, and I'm more intelligent and probably calmer too. Logically our local policeman should remain unarmed and a hundred old rifle-shooters like me should get some training with pistols, and then be encouraged to carry them around. We could be called Geezer Gun Groups. Of course, at a casual inspection nobody could tell which codgers were armed. It might put off burglars abut, eh?

      Delete
    2. Interesting about Britain. Sometimes a people can be panicked into disarming, and sometimes a people can be persuaded into it "for their own safety", that safety promise is naturally made by governments. Then a people can be ordered to disarm. In the end, ALL governments want their peasants disarmed.

      Delete
    3. We're not disarmed. Shotgun permits are presumably still easy to get. I'm told that if I applied for a rifle licence I should expect to get it because I can easily join a gun club and store and use the rifle there. Or because I can get a suitable safe store installed at home. Whether the state is competent enough to know that I had a licence for years when I was younger I rather doubt. Who would look through yellowing paper records, if they even existed? It probably is competent enough to know I have no criminal record and no record of insanity.

      What I can't buy legally is a semi-automatic rifle (I wouldn't want one anyway) or a pistol. The latter is a pity, I think. How are the old, or the frail, or the female to defend themselves in an emergency if not with a pistol?

      Delete
    4. You also date not defend yourself with a firearm, shotgun or otherwise. Then you'll be the one headed for the lock up.

      Delete
    5. True, but one might reasonably hope that one judge with balls, or one truculent jury, could begin to change that. No legislation would be required.

      Delete
    6. Afterthought: why is there no feminist campaign to make it easier for women to own pistols? How else are they to defend themselves when a couple of 200 lb burglars break in?

      There might indeed be a notable reluctance of juries to jail some old dear who has shot at burglars in self-defence. Or some young chit who has shot an attempted rapist. So why the silence? Golly, feminists are useless buggers.

      Delete
    7. Good question. Feminists have had their "use" alright in a cultural war on boys and masculinity in general. Unwed mothers, fatherless boys and "toxic masculinity" has produced and is producing a generation of males who know no rules, morals or boundaries. Undisciplined masculinity will take its revenge.

      Delete
    8. I agree that toxic masculinity has been producing generations of males who recognize no rules, morals, or boundaries. I would like to think that you approve of this behavior finally being brought out into the light, as opposed to previously blaming the women for the actions of the men. However, I doubt that's what you meant, sadly.

      Delete
    9. Sadly, you missed it completely.

      Delete
    10. whitewall, what do you think I missed? I did note that I doubted that's what you meant. I'm sure your opinion is that if we go back to when 'men were men and women knew their place, men would act like jerks'. The truth is that men acted even more like jerks back then, but women didn't feel safe in calling them out on it.

      Delete
    11. The 'liberal' solution is for boys to grow up addicted to porn and video games.... it keeps their 'aggression' in check ... after all, we don't want conflict and challenges... (sarcasm)
      I think what whitewall is saying is that we're tossing the baby too, not just the bathwater.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    12. Growing up in the 1960s, the guys I knew played violent games and got our hands on every scrap of porn and dirty story we could. There hasn't been any change there. I have not seen evidence that either has had any effect, good or bad, on male aggression.

      Delete
    13. "I agree that toxic masculinity has been producing generations of males who recognize no rules, morals, or boundaries."

      No, those are the Kennedys, Clintons, and other leftist families.

      Delete
    14. Specks and planks. For every Kennedy and Clinton you can find a Trump/Bush/etc. Power breeds privilege in all people.

      Delete
  14. The argument by leftist idiots and Progressive, Postmodernist ideologues is that American citizens should be restricted in their ability to buy military style weapons but their actions defy this conclusion.
    1. Osama Obama and Eric "the Red" Holder were selling military style weapons to MS-13 and other Drug Gangs in Mexico so the Drug Gangs are armed to the teeth.
    2. They practice catch and release of violent criminals so that felons who committed gun violence are repeatedly reappearing to menace the law abiding population.
    3. They are invading our own nation with Third World illegal aliens where virtually none respect the Rule of Law and some are imported from terrorist nations who would use many types of weapons in their violent crimes.
    4. THE FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA, IRS AND STATE DEPARTMENT ARE GONE ROGUE and "We the People" have very good reason to fear the DC Central government and be armed to protect ourselves against the tyranny.
    And when it comes to logical arguments:
    1. Why would we as citizens give up our weapons when the criminals have easy access to these weapons from our corrupt government?
    2. If the government not only fails to protect us but invades its own nation with aliens and criminals, why should we not then have significant firepower to do the job the government just won't do?
    3. If Third World illegals and jihadists are going to terrorize us with machetes, SUV's, pressure cooker bombs and other dangerous weapons, why should we not have more powerful and accurate weapons for defense?
    4. If the Federal government has just shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that they used the FBI, FISA Court and beforehand the IRS and DOJ to target Americans, we have every reason to take heed of Judge Napolitano's words (based on Jefferson and others) that when a government becomes tyrannical, we MUST have military style weapons to be able to water the tree of liberty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott
      I hope you don't mind if I spread YOUR words far and wide!! Beautiful summation of "where we are today".....

      Delete
    2. Very well stated, Scott.

      I agree entirely.

      Delete
  15. It seems so many of these mass shootings are done by people who first murder some family members and then go to a church or school to kill more. In the last 50 years what institutions have deliberately been weakened by Progressives on their march to remake society in their unholy image? The family, the church and the public school. All three are building blocks of healthy communities and have always been an obstacle to the progressive lust for power.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some character called Benjamin Franklin is on record as saying:

      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

      As for those who demand that others be stripped of their liberty on the same grounds……..

      See also:

      "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H. L. Mencken.

      Delete
    2. I have heard the BF quote before. It still makes no sense. Your "inalienable right" to liberty is not sullied merely because I seek to avoid being shot to death by a crazed gunman with more ammo than brains.

      Delete
    3. DEN,

      If you choose not to defend yourself on the face of a crazed gunman, that is certainly your choice.

      The problem lies with those that would restrict MY ability to have the equipment necessary to defend myself and my own family. We currently have well over 20,000 gun laws in this country.

      Which one would have stopped this lunatic?

      Delete
  16. My position has always been that those who demand "gun control" in the loudest voices should do the honest thing and simply mount an effort to repeal the Second Amendment.

    We all know how far that would get, and so do they, so instead they try to legislate the Second Amendment into meaninglessness.

    But when it comes to mass shootings like Parkland's, I read a column by David French on the National Review website the other day that struck a chord with me:

    Gun Violence Restraining Orders.

    Since it became clear that some people took to heart the admonition that if they "See something, say something" about the deranged shooter before last week's massacre, and the FBI and other authorities didn't -- or couldn't -- do anything with that information, another approach might be possible, one that's both prudent and constitutional.

    Just as a judge can issue a limited-duration restraining order against someone who might be a personally violent threat to someone, most often in domestic cases, it should be possible to do the same for crazies like Nicolas Cruz, only in this case by taking away their weapons -- again, for a limited duration, and only with probable cause.

    If gun violence restraining orders were possible, they might be abused by authorities, and the subjects of the orders might defy them. Nothing is 100 percent.

    But if they work as intended, they would protect both legal, law-abiding gun owners from blanket sanctions and innocent potential victims as well.

    And the idea beats the 100 percent confiscation that the hard-core gun-control crazies are trying to turn every mass shooting into an excuse to impose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HarryBro,

      I think you would see a lot of discomfort on both sides of the political aisle over the notion of removing a fundamental right from a person who has not engaged in any wrongdoing. I don't think you need to go any further than the comment immediately after yours to see an example.

      I think almost anyone of the left would be happy with the guns laws of, say, Japan or Britain, which do allow private ownership of shotguns (after vigorous screenings), but not semi-automatic pistols and rifles. Very few are proposing 100% confiscation.

      Delete
    2. discomfort on one side of the political aisle
      fixed it for you

      Delete
    3. I think what HarryBro is referring to, is the removal of the 2nd amendment, which is distinct from a blanket ban on guns. It would just make us 'more like europeans'.
      Yeah... that's not going to be a seller to either party...

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    4. Doctor Weasel,

      The level of discomfort over removing a (generic) fundamental right changes in each party, depending on the right in question. For this particular right, I don't see either party supporting this proposal.

      Delete
    5. "Very few are proposing 100% confiscation."

      Except those who are. Like Nancy Pelosi.

      And, since the "common sense gun safety laws" would do absolutely nothing to actually keep criminals and lunatics from committing crimes,the real goal is to establish their power to remove our right to self defense.

      Delete
    6. Except those who are. Like Nancy Pelosi.

      I have read sources like the Washington (Moonie) Times who claimed that, but Pelosi has not advocated for confiscation. At one point she did advocate for the "boldest possible" law, but confiscation is not possible.

      And, since the "common sense gun safety laws" would do absolutely nothing to actually keep criminals and lunatics from committing crimes,the real goal is to establish their power to remove our right to self defense.

      If you make guns more expensive, fewer criminals will be able to afford them. Fewer criminals with guns means fewer deaths.

      As for self-defense, what is the situation where a semi-automatic rifle is better defense than a revolver? How likely do you foresee such a situation in your life?

      Delete
  17. I knew that a post on this topic would show up eventually. :)

    This case is particularly frustrating, because it seems that everyone "knew" that this guy was going to show up one day and start shooting at people, yet nothing was done (and not much could have been done).

    The FBI gets more than 2,000 "tips" a day (and actually investigates about 30 of those). Encouraging people to "say something" likely just pollutes the false alarm to real threat ratio. And no, I don't think the FBI Director should resign over this (there are plenty of other reasons I why think he should resign, though :) ). Trying to stop shootings in advance is taking the Bureau far beyond its remit, capabilities, and competence, and some low level employee who doesn't follow the correct procedure (What? You mean those big government bureaucracies don't function perfectly?) isn't the fault of the Director.

    As much as I support the second amendment, I am more than willing to withhold that support for people who write "I want to be a professional school shooter" on social media.

    I imagine that any person on this list who was appointed to be the "Gun God" (in some fantasy world) - who (assuming unlimited time, motivation and resources) personally had to approve or disapprove of every firearm purchase in the entire country (either using a systemic approach, or entirely at one's whim) would never have let this guy purchase a gun (that is, of course, not the same as preventing him from obtaining a gun through other means, meaning it would help at the margin, but isn't really a serious solution). And no one wants the government reviewing social media posts (and interviewing friends and acquaintances) to determine one's fitness to purchase a weapon. You are absolutely right about how quickly and completely the collectivists would politicize this.

    I guess the attacker lied on his purchase application about using psychotropic drugs, so no help there. A lot of these sickos (the Texas church shooter also comes to mind) already aren't supposed to have guns, of course.

    This is another example of the breakdown of common decency in America (although I believe that Mr. Pollack should have anticipated the reactions he would get, and I wouldn't think that given the circumstances that right now is the time that he would want to engage those idiots).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This "new Left" that has emerged from what was at one time called "liberalism" is itself a mental disorder. A bad ideology that allows its followers to feel justified by any act that harms any opponent, directly or indirectly.

      Delete
  18. Had minor surgery last November. My surgeon mentioned he and his wife belong to the same gun club as my wife and I. The anesthesiologist popped in to shoot me up and mentioned he owns part of the gun club. An anti ACA comment if I may: Surgery performed at cash only center in Edmond, OK. About 70% less than insurance hospitals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Were you aware that hospital pricing is a response to the tactics of private insurance companies were using long before there was an ACA?

      Delete
    2. The ACA has exploded prices. The ACA has made things worse. Coverage is not medical care.The taxpayer kickbacks to insurance companies (to support the ACA) were massive. The health insurance business has always been a scam.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. walt reed,

      Prices were exploding back in 2001 (I worked for a health insurance company at that time, it was a point of internal discussion). The rate of increase slowed under the ACA. I won't disagree that private health insurance can have qualities in common with some scams.

      Delete
    5. that's been a major failure of ACA, in my mind.... health care has been going up in cost largely because modern medical advances have far more value than in previous decades.
      It's crazy to think ever larger portions of our incomes *shouldn't* be dedicated to health care with the modern miracles now available.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    6. reader #1482,

      Agreed. Unfortunately, our system is set up to encourage prices to rise as technologies come out (and has been for over 30 years).

      Delete
    7. Now this is where I think most of America is completely wrong.
      That price increase is the *cause* of technology coming out, not the result.
      Doctors and researchers see dollar signs first, saved patients second. I don't like it, but I respect it and the miracles that come through it.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    8. reader #1482,

      You are not wrong. Probably it's a feedback loop there.

      Delete
  19. Hinderaker at PowerLine re-runs a post of NRO's Charles Cooke. Mr. Cooke suggests that the Left get right to it: since we know that they ultimately want to make the U.S. a "gun free zone," the Left should gear up its efforts and do the hard work to repeal the 2A.

    He does mentions some difficulties the Left might face.... ;-)

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/02/repeal-the-2nd-amendment-yes-please-try.php

    ReplyDelete
  20. Disagree in part with Diplomad. Needs to be change in everything with respect to paranoid schizophrenics, which most mass, non-terrorist, mass shooters are.

    1. Shrinks and authorities to whom they are often known before they harm others, need to stop minimizing the likelihood that they will become violent.

    2. Paranoid schizophrenics should be diagnosed as such, not white washed into some vague, lesser diagnosis.

    3. NO, PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENICS SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PURCHASE GUNS, NOR SHOULD THERE BE GUNS IN THEIR PLACE OF RESIDENCE. Yes, that means their family can't keep guns in their home. No, I don't know enough about what is checked or not checked to buy a gun to know how to stop them from purchasing guns, and yes I recognize the possibility of abuse if mental illness is a reason to stop gun ownership. Most mental health personnel are probably liberals.

    4. Involuntary committment, Which do-gooders made almost impossible, needs to be possible again. Often it is desperate families seeking treatment help who want the committment.

    5. Mental health professionals who consistently bungle judging these cases by underestimating capacity for violence should start being held accountable. They say they can't predict which will become violent, so they never predict anyone will become violent. I think it's bs that they cannot predict. They cannot predict how violent - i.,e., a mass killer vs. budgeoning a parent, but they can predict violence. While they are busily working on a whole new set of skills to treat transgenders they seem to be doing little to sharpen their predictive skills as to what kind of threat of violence the violently mentally ill pose.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Nothing that has happened since that original post, makes me change my mind; in fact, I am even more convinced today that it would be a tragic mistake to make "mental health" a criteria for suspending without due process a person's Constitutional right to own a firearm.

    I very much agree-- both because due process is a must to avoid/minimize abuses, and because if someone is dangerously insane enough that they shouldn't have a gun, they're dangerously insane enough that they shouldn't be allowed out.

    It's sad, and philosophically difficult for a lot of world views, but we need to decide if we'd rather have involuntary institutionalization before they slaughter folks, or have more mass killings in the future. (Although getting rid of gun free zones would improve things.)

    ReplyDelete
  22. "More" as in a higher percent, not "more" as in "if we do what I want, there won't be any others."

    ReplyDelete
  23. Lewis,

    Remember when twitter banned you?

    Check out this guy.

    Google doesn't like him because he's EXTREME...
    You know, tells the truth.

    https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e06_1519057581

    ReplyDelete
  24. Let me cheer you all up by repeating what my father said when he taught me too shoot. "... because the next time the Germans might be Russians."

    ReplyDelete
  25. When the Second Amendment was put in place, Americans had recently fought a war to get free of an intrusive incompetent government that cared nothing for them. And in those days, an army was little more than organized groups of men carrying guns. Armed citizens could reasonably hope to go nose-to-nose with an out-of-control government. The Second Amendment was thus the Last Resort against the re-emergence of an overbearing government.

    Things have changed since those days, as Bill Clinton proved when he sent tanks against American citizens at Waco, burning children to death. The ability to own a handgun or rifle is not as useful against today's better-equipped overbearing government.

    It seems that any discussion about "gun control" ought to be preceded by a discussion about "government control". When Big Government becomes oppressive (which many would agree is not an impossible scenario), what is the citizen's Last Resort? Give us a realistic alternative to fight back against an out-of-control Government ... then talk about removing guns from the population. (And knives. And bomb-ready fertilizer. And ...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We're not going to fight a directly confrontational war against tanks and jets.

      We're going to target the wives and the children and the friends and the employees and the pets and the cars of the people who have ordered our government against us.

      We're not stupid. But the people who think they can order tanks against us without living in virtual armed prisons themselves would be.

      Delete
    2. There is an interesting book, called: "Unintended Consequences".

      Probably banned and the author "disappeared" by now, but it covers a LOT of this territory.

      Delete
    3. Bruce,

      The book is still on sale at amazon. John Ross is alive and well, living not too far from me.

      The rampant paranoia on this site is both amusing and disturbing.

      Delete
    4. BTW, Ross ran for the Missouri Senate as a Democrat.

      Delete
    5. "Ross ran for the Missouri Senate as a Democrat."

      But he got better.

      Delete
    6. But he got better.

      He ran as a Democrat after he wrote "Unintended Consequences". So, you mean he got better by running as a Democrat? :)

      Delete
    7. Seeing as you are almost neighbours, why not pay him a visit and ask him to join this discussion? Primary sources are always interesting.

      Delete
    8. I'm just teasing you. He ran as a conservative, pre-Roosevelt Democrat, so no real change. You're a good sport.

      Delete
  26. The coach was a security guard at his other job. he was disarmed by the "gun free" zone. If we can have multiple armed guards protecting the courthouse, there is no reason that we can't have them protecting schools. And there needs to be two. The one at Columbine was at lunch when it happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of the problems with guards is that the students know who they are and where they patrol. Armed teachers, who are not known by the students are a far, far better option. There are no additional salaries that need to be paid and there can be many more armed people on sight.

      Delete
  27. Oh, as for the FBI and tips. They took the time to film me at work, and interview my aunt and uncle because someone said my husband looked like a guy wanted by the FBI. He was a different height and the only real thing he had in common was smoking a pipe and wearing a beard. They were convinced he wasn't the guy but still stopped by the house to talk to him.

    There is not excuse for this.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Note that every time the phrase "Common Sense" is used as a descriptive by Politicos, it always involves the curtailing of a Right or Freedom of the Citizenry.
    I think its past due that we have Common Sense Politician Control.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Rush Limbaugh points out that mass shooters all have at least one thing in common: they are NOT members of the NRA. Is there some way that could be used as a criterion for purchase of an AR-type weapon?

    The proposition is doubtless fraught with opportunity to be misconstrued and misapplied by "progressives", but that's true of just about everything anymore.

    Finally, I have to agree entirely with KellyJ: when someone comes at you with the demand for "common sense" anything, especially if the word "control" is also applied, run in the opposite direction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. F,

      1) Do you rally want to private club to assume official government functions? Any private club, or just those you trust?

      2) What's to prevent mass shooters from joining the NRA first and then performing mass shootings?

      Delete
    2. One Brow: There is an organization called the Civilian Marksmanship Program that makes rifles and shooting equipment available to non-military shooters who engage in NRA marksmanship programs. Included in their equipment list is surplus Garand rifles, powerful semi-automotic rifles that are not entirely unlike the AR that Cruz used in Parkland. Tens of thousands have been sold to civilians through the CMP. Not a one has been used in a school shooting.

      Now the fact that they are sold to shooters engaged in formal target shooting is not the only reason they don't show up in schools: they are also large and heavy. But if you have ever been involved in a formal target shooting program you understand that training and safety are very large parts of the program, and someone is unlikely to join if their goal is ultimately to shoot up a school. So yes, that kind of private club would be a good way to direct access to a specific type of weapon to legitimate use.

      The British Gliding Association is another illustration of a private organization controlling access to a sport: they are responsible for training and certifying glider pilots in the UK, while that same process is handled in the USA by the Federal Aviation Administration, who are generally more concerned about, and focused on, large commercial aviation concerns. The BGA does an excellent job of setting standards and controlling access. The idea of a "private club" assuming official government functions is not unheard of.

      Of course there are now so many AR rifles in private hands that it would be impossible to put the genie back in the bottle, but you get the idea.

      As for joining a private organization in order to perform mass shootings, there is a lot of study and training that goes into membership in an NRA marksmanship program. It is possible a shooter would join specifically to get access to a rifle he could use to shoot up a school, but he would likely be flagged by instructors and safety officers as unsuited for membership long before he could get his hands on a military weapon.

      Concerning the need for more laws, if you have ever bought a firearm in the USA you know you must sign a document that lists a number of disqualifying conditions. Included on that list is the use of drugs that Cruz was reportedly using. He thus had to lie to make the purchase, so the official government functions you want to rely upon did not work. It we absolutely must "do something," as we are being urged so insistently, perhaps we need to think outside the box. The Dianne Feinstein approach of outlawing guns that have a large magazine, barrel shroud, bayonet lug, or pistol grip is ineffective and is clearly not going to stop school shootings. And the fact that is ineffective is ultimately used to call for ever more restrictive laws based on equally ineffective characteristics.

      If we really need to "do something," let it be something that will accomplish the goal we are working toward, not just increase restrictions that are ineffective.

      Delete
    3. F,

      I agree that school shooters would not voluntarily join something like the Civilian Marksmanship Program under today's laws. It offers nothing for them. My point was that if joining something like the CMP was the only way to get semi-automatic weaponry, then school shooters would join it.

      I have never owned a gun nor felt the need for it.

      I don't know if school shooting can be reduced, or what would be effective. Every proposal I have seen seems to have a hundred objections, and I don't know how legitimate these objections are.

      Delete
  30. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  31. One Brow:

    The fact that you have never owned a gun means you have probably not gone through the purchase process. It is neither quick nor simple. It is designed to prevent people like Cruz from buying a gun. It applies to everyone who sells more than a few guns. You can get around it by buying from a family member or someone who only sells 2-3 guns in a year -- the so-called gun show loophole -- but most sellers at gun shows actually go through the NICS process and keep detailed records of their sales. And I have never heard anyone say "oh just lie on this form." In fact, most sellers take the process very seriously, as they risk a large fine and loss of their license to buy and sell.

    The failure in the Cruz example was not the "gun show loophole", it was that he lied on his application. That should surprise no one -- a person planning to commit a crime with a gun is not likely to tell the truth and have the sale refused on that basis.

    All of which shows the major flaw of the proposals being floated -- writing another law will not deter the person who intends to break the law anyway. So the "do something" crowd begins to agitate for a solution that is not, in fact, a solution.

    The suggestion that sales of AR rifles be denied to anyone under 21 has flaws, but it might work in limited circumstances. I would accept it as a palliative, but I recognize that another shooting is possible even with this law.

    As for the proposal to outlaw bump stocks because they were used in the Las Vegas shooting -- they are not entirely dependable and probably of limited interest to serious shooters. I, for example, don't see myself ever owning a bump stock. But the way the law is written will also affect other systems that are effective and attractive to law-abiding people, like a relative of mine who has one. He will have to throw his away if that law passes. No big deal, but it will likely not deter a school shooting in future, so the "do something" crowd will rise up once again and demand more be done. It's a never-ending reaction, and it doesn't address the problem, apparently, because every time we pass another law another shooting happens with other devices.

    The bottom line is that guns are not the issue. There has been a drastic change in our culture, a change that allows young people to contemplate murdering classmates. That is something I and my friends would never have contemplated when we were youngsters, even though we owned guns. And that is what needs to be addressed, not bump stocks or ARs. It it is not too late. . .

    ReplyDelete
  32. There has been a drastic change in our culture, a change that allows young people to contemplate murdering classmates. That is something I and my friends would never have contemplated when we were youngsters, even though we owned guns. And that is what needs to be addressed, not bump stocks or ARs. It it is not too late. . .

    Kids have been killing other kids for as long as there have been kids. You are right in that the vast majority never think about it. However, there have always been kids who did. This has been true at all times and in all cultures; there is no culture change nor reversal that will eliminate it in the future.

    The change has been that, as the weaponry available for killing has become more effective, the body from the killers has risen. In a knifing spree, you might injure several, but rarely would more than one or two people wind up dead.

    You can't waive away behaviors that have been continuing for thousands of years. You can only limit the amount of damage they can do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. paul_vincent_zecchinoMarch 3, 2018 at 12:35 PM

      Is SoreStinkos paying you overtime for working so assiduously on weekends?

      Sad for you that your anti-2A, pro gun-grab rhetoric is so old it has moss growing on its north side.

      Do you really mean to gull us with tired old hypotheticals, moralizings and fanciful tales which were gassed off by your forebears during the late70s/early 80s gun-control spasm?

      Your glib, false points have been long and serially debunked by credible researchers who actually went out and gathered facts, rather than parrot slogans from the Haunted Thesaurus of Discarded Demshevik Crusades.

      No amount of anti-gun laws, extant or proposed, will stop those who have decided to harm others. One armed citizen in their path stops them.

      Junking Biden's cynical 'gun free zone' scam will surely stop them.

      Everyone has their opinion as to government schools. But school mass murderers see them the same way, as big, fat, barrels stuffed with fish in need of shooting.


      I'm not interested in your arguments. Neither are any my family members or friends. None of us is even the slightest interested in having a 'conversation about guns'.

      We know what that conversation will entail: you want us disarmed, defenseless, and dead, as Kurt Schlichter so succinctly stated recently.

      I've known this about the always violent, always leftist gun-grabbers for decades: you want control. And you'll say anything to get it.

      The Left is hate. Revenge is its pastime. Genocide is its legacy.


      Delete
    2. I'm not interested in your arguments.

      Works for me. I am sure your mental load is decreased when you rail on instead of engaging.

      We know what that conversation will entail: you want us disarmed, defenseless, and dead, as Kurt Schlichter so succinctly stated recently.

      I would describe your telepathic abilities as surreal.

      I've known this about the always violent, always leftist gun-grabbers for decades: you want control. And you'll say anything to get it.

      The guy collecting means of violence is the true pacifist; the guy who owns no weapons is the violent fanatic. That's an interesting world you live in.

      Delete
    3. Your glib, false points have been long and serially debunked by credible researchers ...

      Which glib, false points in particular?

      Delete
    4. All of them. You could do the research, if you would put in some work outside your paid trolling times.

      Delete
    5. Rob Crawford, your paranoia is so depressing it removes all the humor from your condescension.

      However, both do you the favor of not bothering to present one point in the comment being responded to that was glib or false, so good work there!

      Delete
  33. You know the left wing mantra about communism having just "never been done right"? It's nonsense, of course, but let me suggest that gun free zones have just "never been done right."

    No, no, wait for it. The key illustration here is the law of blockade, specifically, "blockades, to be binding, must be effective." What that means is that a mere nonsense announcement of a blockade is legally of no effect. (More specifically, no sovereign state has an obligation to ensure that it's citizens do not violate someone else's blockade, but also that none of their citizens have any obligation to recognize a blockade that is merely announced, but not enforced.)

    Now translate that over to the gun free zone: "Be it enacted that no gun free zone will be of any legal effect unless it is effective, which is to say that, as a bare minimum, a) there is access control, with b) armed guards, and c) metal detectors, to ensure that nobody with a gun _can_ get in." (Oh, and small lockers for visitors to secure their guns at the door, because it is unconscionable for people to be disarmed when going to and from.)

    Now turn that into a federal law. What that means is that teachers, anybody, could simply carry and ignore any nonsense about gun free zones or, where they couldn't carry, it would only be because the GFZ was effective.

    ReplyDelete