The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
10 Cases in Past Year Where Law-Abiding Defenders "Have Stopped Likely Mass Public Shootings" With Guns
You can see the list from the Crime Prevention Research Center; it goes back more than a year, but I counted the incidents just since June 4, 2021. The list is supported by links to media coverage of each incident, so you needn't trust and can instead verify. I checked a few and they seem to check out, though of course there's always the possibility of error in news coverage (plus of course there's no reason to think that the list is complete, since there may well have been such incidents that weren't covered in the news in a way that would come up on the Center's searches).
Naturally, it's also hard to tell how the incident would have played out had the defender not interceded; it doesn't cover the almost certainly far more common scenarios of self-defense against non-mass shootings (and of the non-mass shootings themselves); and of course this doesn't tell us whether some particular gun control proposal might, on balance, reduce underlying gun crime in a way that doesn't unduly interfere with lawful self-defense. Still, I think it's worth noting these incidents, to help us keep in mind the possible costs of gun control measures that do unduly interfere with lawful self-defense.
Here's one incident from the list, from Syracuse (N.Y.), WSYR-TV (Natalie Dascoulias):
Demetrius Jackson, the man killed in the Lodi Street shooting on Tuesday, was in possession of a loaded 9mm handgun while outside of 1808 Lodi Street, District Attorney William Fitzpatrick said.
Jackson threatened multiple people at the location and fired the loaded handgun in the direction of those people, officials said.
Another man, who was on scene and in possession of a 9mm handgun returned fire striking and killing Jackson, Fitzpatrick said.
According to Fitzpatrick, this man has a valid pistol permit for the 9mm handgun.
The District Attorney said in a statement that based on preliminary investigation, it appears the man who shot Jackson saved the lives of several individuals.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You can’t stop the suicidal mentally deranged mass shooters—they generally inflict as much carnage as they desire because they can outgun Navy SEALs as they are equipped with assault rifles and high capacity magazines and tactical gear and don’t care if they die. Remember, two of our greatest warriors were killed by a suicidal mentally deranged mass shooter when they were armed and at a gun range…he could have killed more but he stopped shooting.
There is no such thing as an assault rifle. That is a made up term designed to demonize a particular type of commonly owned and use firearm. Same with "high capacity" as those are just standard issue magazines.
A little mixed up there: Assault "rifles" are a real thing, and, quite contrary to the 2nd amendment, Americans aren't legally permitted to own them.
The propaganda term is "assault weapon", which was meant to be confused with "assault rifle".
Please define what you are calling an assault rifle.
Google is your friend : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
Google is no one's friend (nor is wikipedia) and I asked for Bellmore's definition not a generic one.
Contrary to Humpty Dumpty, words have actual meanings.
If you had a clue you would have directed your question at Crummybrain, who made more than one idiotic assertion calling for illumination of his broken mental processes.
Wikipedia of course gets it wrong in this instance. It says an a.r. is selective fire, then says the first common example of an a.r. was a weapon that was not selective fire. Sheesh.
Either way, an AR is not an a.r.
Who is this addressed to? I have no idea who "Crummybrain" is.
New to you "club".
Your inability to figure out the obvious is no surprise.
Gee, thanks asshole.
In the spirit of YOUR question, who is that directed at?
"Either way, an AR is not an a.r."
Also AR stands for Armalite Rifle, not Assault Rifle. Armalite is the company that originally designed the AR-15, which they tried to sell to the DOD which rejected it.
The DOD then turned around and used the AR-15 as a base from which they designed the M16.
Did that result in a patent license or claim?
Yes, I knew what AR stood for.
"Did that result in a patent license or claim?"
Against the federal government? Do you really think that would fly?
https://www.worldipreview.com/contributed-article/us-jurisdiction-report-the-lawful-seizure-of-patent-rights
"Yes, I knew what AR stood for."
I figured you did, but there are a lot of people who think it stands for "Assault Rifle", so the point is worth stressing.
Armalite used Eric Stoner's direct impingement design in the AR-15 but sold patten rights to Colt who produced the M-16 the US military bought. Just so we are all on the same page.
But your question about patent issues does raise an interesting question about the necessity of having a top tier patent lawyer to sort out just what an AR-15 is.
The original AR-15 has a somewhat distinctive look with the top carrying handle and iron sights on the handle and the charging handle at the back. But what really set it apart was the direct impingement design. While direct impingement does produce a lighter weapon the dirty gas deposited in critical areas required more frequent cleaning than the more common long piston or short piston designs. So much so that lots of serious gun peeps describe direct impingement as 'shitting where you eat'.
The result has been products offered in the civilian market that look like an AR-15 from a distance but until you really get close you can't tell if it has direct impingement or long of short piston operation. Not to mention there are AR-15 look alikes that chamber rounds other than 5.56; including .22lr. It is also possible to buy a lower receiver and other parts to make an AR-15 look alike. Conversely it is also possible to make or buy a weapon that does not have the AR-15 look alike form but has internal guts that conform to the AR-15 design.
Point is that the AR-15 has become like Kleenex in general usage.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20rifle
This is also the definition that the US military uses, and is almost certainly the definition that Brett was referring to.
Again, the StG44 is unquestionably an a.r. but is incapable of semiautomatic fire, AFAIK. (Option of "burst" fire, also irrelevant, is also a common modern characteristic.) And it's the cartridge, not the range, that is "intermediate". In size.
If the US military used the definition you quote then the US military would be as wrong as Wikipedia.
Seems like it's capable of select fire.
https://www.battlefieldvegas.com/weapon/assault-rifles/stg-44-assault-rifle/
Wikipedia:
"The StG 44, while lacking the range of the Kar 98k, had a considerably longer range than the PPS/PPSh submachine guns, more power, an ability to switch between a fully automatic and a default semi-automatic fire mode and surprising accuracy."
So, I stand enlightened on the select-fire capability.
Also, "Although various experimental rounds had been developed to one degree or another by this point, the Army instead decided to select yet a new design, the Polte 8×33mm Kurzpatrone ("short cartridge"). This used a spitzer bullet and basic cartridge design of the standard 7.92×57mm Mauser rifle cartridge, cutting down the cartridge from the original 7.92×57mm Mauser to 7.92×33mm Kurz.[4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44
Assault rifles have intermediate range because they're rifles that are designed for typical combat distances (more than spitting distance, less than half a mile) rather than long-distance accuracy. Having select-fire capability and intermediate cartridge size are related to that design trade.
Not the select fire attribute. AR-15s are essentially identical to M16s and M4 Carbines, in terms of range and cartridge, but are semiautomatic only, and thus not Assault Rifles.
An "assault rifle" is a select fire medium caliber rifle, with detatchable magazine.
The select fire there is key. It means it can go semiautomatic or full automatic.
Not full automatic, not for quite some time -decades, in most military arsenals. This isn't true for all platforms, but since the left-leaning/progressives have such a deep hatred for the AR variants, it is true of the M4.
Actually, it's gone back and forth. There are multiple variants of the M16.
The original and the A1 version were full auto, with a save/semi/auto selector
M16A2 is safe/semi/burst only
There are several "Enhanced" versions of the A2 that have a 4 way selector for safe/semi/burst/auto.
The M16A3 was back to safe/semi/auto
The M16A4 (the latest version) has both safe/semi/burst and safe/semi/auto versions but no 4 way selector option.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#Variants
I cannot tell you how much I enjoy having the weapon I carried for my entire military career as an Infantryman, being sent to hellholes because stupid politicians had to 'do something,' explained to me by people who provide links to wikipedia... It's much like the general level of comprehension on most subjects by the vast majority of people, surface-deep, but ye gods, will they go out of their way to let you know their expertise. So, as we green collar like to say, not only no, but fuck no. Use wiki to find the M249, and you will find out why there is no need for an automatic variant of the M16, whether or not it crops up occasionally. The M14 is still in service, as is the M1911, and any number of US and foreign submachine guns from WW2, but I don't imagine the master tacticians who are the wiki editors have much to say there.
No "need" for an automatic variant M16 does not invalidate the fact that there are plenty of them, which were in regular service while I was active. 3d Battalion, 2d Marines.
Your supposed expertise seems to be made up. I carried variously the M16A2, M9, M4 (test battalion for the original shorter barrel version), M16A4 and M249 SAW. And, I wasn't even a grunt (grunt adjacent, Evil I, ooh-fucking-rah). Of course there is use for the automatic M16 compared to the SAW. They're entirely different weapon platforms. Go back to your made up fox hole.
*while I was active, in the early 2000s.*
According to Sen. Feinstein, Assualt rifles are the scary looking ones.
Actually if we are to listen to the hysteria an assault rifle is anything that doesn't look as if it was designed in the 19th Century i.e.: if the body and stock are made from any material other than wood. Therefore Ruger Mini 14 with wood stock = OK. Mini 14 with fiberglass stock = deadly assault weapon. Both have the same exact action and both fire the same round as the AR.
Also applying Black Krylon spray paint is an attempt to convert the weapon into a very scary super deadly killing machine.
See how much more deadly one is than the other?
https://images.guns.com/wordpress/2019/10/Ruger-Announces-New-Mini-14-Tactical-Models.jpg?impolicy=og-image
A gun grabber invented the term "assault weapon" to fool people into thinking that rather ordinary weapons are assault rifles. They have mostly only succeeded at fooling other gun grabbers.
This is booger picker on the bang switch and magazine inserted in the gun Feinstein?
An assault rifle is a select-fire, intermediate cartridge, magazine-fed rifle.
An assault weapon is potentially any semi-auto shotgun or pistol or rifle, with visual characteristics that make them look scary to the ignorant. And if they are ignorant enough, the gun in question doesn't even have to be semi-auto.
Assault Rifles are Select fire rifles of intermediate caliber.
They can be owned by Americans but typically cost $10k+ because of regulatory constraints.
Assault weapons are semi automatic rifles (and sometimes handguns) with scary cosmetic features.
Hammers are used to kill more people annually than rifles. Knives are used to kill more people annually than rifles. Blunt Objects are used to kill more people annually than rifles. Hands, feet & fists kill more people annually than rifles.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
The citation you give does not support the claim that "Hammers are used to kill more people annually than rifles".
First, the source lumps murder victims that were killed by all blunt objects. It does not separate hammers from baseball bats from rocks. And, IIRC, that number even includes being pushed into a blunt object such as a wall or curb if that results in the death that's classified as a "murder".
Second, there are about 3,000 murders where a firearm of unknown type was the murder weapon. Some of these could have been rifles - in theory (although unlikely) all of them might have been rifles which would result in far more murders being committed with rifles than blunt objects.
I agree with your general point but misrepresenting facts (esp. when linking to the source that fails to support the conclusion) just gives fodder to the opposing side.
I think the important question was were the baseball bats painted in Deadly Black?
And did they have the dangerous assault grip tape?
“A little mixed up there: Assault "rifles" are a real thing, and, quite contrary to the 2nd amendment, Americans aren't legally permitted to own them.”
Wrong. If you jump through the proper hoops, pass the requisite background checks, and buy the correct tax stamp, you can indeed legally own your very own fully automatic firearm.
Yes, you can own full auto guns that are at least, at this point, 36 years old. I'll grant that some of them are assault rifles, so I was mistaken.
Whatever—in America nutty 18 year old civilians can outgun Navy SEALs.
Not even close to being true.
Meaningless claim. What equipment are you imagining the SEALS to be equipped with?
If a SEAL is in his backyard doing BBQ he can probably be outgunned by an 8-yeart-old with a BB gun. Your point is?
Put any teen you can find in an abandoned wharehouse, against an unarmed Navy seal and we all know who walks out, and who is carried out.
I forgot to add. the kid gets any weapons he wants.
Where are these abandoned whorehouses??
I'd love to see anyone. of any age, armed with an AR go up against a SEAL carrying their standard issue MP5-N. I'd bet the deed to my home on the SEAL.
Why shouldn't I be able to outgun Navy Seals?
I'm the one paying their salaries, why should they be better armed than me?
It's one less thing for me to worry about, between high prices for gas and food, and huge gaps on the shelves, I should at least be able to set my mind at ease about outgunning the seals when they come for me.
Wow! True dumbness on display.
Let me guess, you got that little "Factoid" off the Bumper Sticker your wife made you put on the Prius?
Pro Tip; don't count on CNN and MS/NBC for information on firearms or related matters. Ask some grown ups first.
I have hope for Eugene. He has a small clue.
Here is the lawyer utter stupidity he does not mention.
To be a mass shooting, the FBI requires. 4 people be shot. If someone fires back after one person is shot, that is not a mass shooting. These are lawyers at the FBI. That explains the utter stupidity of this definition. It should be changed to 4 or more people within range of the shooter.
Luckily for the defender cited, he had done the lawyer paper work to carry a gun. He would have faced serious prison time otherwise. PA lady had a permit, but not in NJ. She went to prison in NJ for possession of a gun, after being honest to a NJ thug who stopped her. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of our constitution does not apply to NJ. She was pardoned by the NJ governor, after spending a long time in prison.
Even with the proper paper work, the lawyer always prosecutes the defender. He wants the cops called, his coffee slurping, donut chomping agents. He does not want these worthless rent seekers to lose their jobs.
When not prosecuted, the shooter will sue the defender. The courts will say that is a controversy and allow the litigation. This is to generate fees for 3 lawyers.
Attend a gun safety class. Learn that the dangerous aspect of handling a gun is what the lawyer will do to you. You will be arrested, and you will be sued for defending yourself.
The reason we have crime, that we have mass shootings, is simple. The violent criminal has the full protection, privileging and empowerment of the lawyer profession to generate jobs and fees for lawyers in rent seeking.
These points are way over Eugene's head. I expect none of the lawyers here to even understand their simple math. However, ask any bus passenger, or diner patron, or even a kid in Life Skills Class, learning to eat with a spoon. They can explain them to the lawyer.
As regards that 4 victim limit, see my oft-repeated post below. Some guy looked at public shootings where the shooter did not know his victims (not family, co-workers, classmates, etc) and compared death counts when stopped by civilians vs stopped by police. Civilian stoppage averaged two victims, so their defensive fire does not show up in the FBI lists.
I found your citation stunning. The point is that self help is better. It is a very important point. It will not be publicized due to its effect on government employment. You should write an op ed and brifer letters to the editor. Send it to all legislators you can.
I support all law abiding citizen conceal carry. If you fail to fire on the violent criminal, you get a $100 fine.
That policy would have prevented 9/11 , saved us $7 trillion.
Eugene should have a separate post on your citation. It is not a collection of unrelated anecdotes.
I would use your name, but I can't.
Four or more people in range of the shooter. Surely you jest. A 9mm hand gun can lob a bullet a bit over a mile. A single shot in any inhabited part of the country would that definition.
Technically true, but it would have to be fired into the air at around a 45 degree angle. By the time it hits anything on the ground the bullet will be coming down more or less in free fall and unlikely to be lethal.
You are referring to the Absolute Maximum Range. Everyone knows the Effective Range is 150 feet. So the number of people in a150 foot radius would be a better count. That of a Bushmaster is 800 feet. By the way, the Effective Range is for skilled users.
The idea is to include the incidents where defenders stop the shooter before allowing for damage. Maybe no one was shot. Everyone should blast the shooter immediately in a if we can get rid of this lawyer rent seeking fucked up world.
Effective range for a hand gun is the range you can more or less reliably hit the target. That’s not the lethal range. A 9mm is lethal at at least quadruple that 150 foot range. I have often hit targets at 300 feet with a 9mm handgun unsupported. Even at max range you don’t want to be on the receiving end.
FYI, achieving max range in a vacuum requires 45 degrees of elevation. In the earth’s atmosphere the elevation for max range is closer to 30 degrees.
One more thing. For a bullet to be in free fall it needs to be shot straight up in the air. The lower the angle of elevation the greater the remaining kinetic energy remaining at the end of flight.
I defer to your experience. Everyone within 300 feet should be counted, not those actually shot. My range is 30 feet with a slight tremor's causing all shots to be random no matter how careful.
A red dot sight really helps.
The video at the link is a bit long. They are demonstrating lethality out to 440 yards.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_wXFf34bB34
I am persuaded, all people within 440 yards should be counted for the mass shooting designation. Exclude those behind a metal obstruction.
The shooting back requirement is presumably to distinguish them from run of the mill gang shootouts, as well as a lot of drive bys. A lot more of these, but it’s mostly criminals killing other criminals, so isn’t overly usable for gun grabbing.
Is that a bad parody or do you really believe civilians outgun Navy SEALS? You are deluded if you do think that.
Chris Kyle, the American top sniper, survived Iraq. He was killed being kind to a mental patient on a gun range. These are the violent psychopaths who are protected, privileged, and empowered by the lawyer profession. Why? Because they generate lawyer jobs and massive government employment. Instead of being killed at 14, every year they live, they cause massive damages and kill others thanks to lawyer protection, privileging, and empowerment.
Kyle was armed when he was shot.
I am with Saddam. When you have a person, you have a problem. When you do not have a person, your problem goes away. So why take a chance?
I'm usually armed when I'm at a gun range. It's about "threat". Kyle was there trying to help the man. He had no perception that he was a "threat". If he had, odds are that things would have turned out differently.
You can be armed to the teeth, but, if you are not expecting me to shoot you, all of those weapons mean nothing. By the time that you perceive that I'm a "threat", I'll have at least gotten off one shot and if I hit with that shot, you'll never know that there was a "threat".
The important question, of course, is whether Mr. Jackson's death was caused by his lung being blown out of his body.
https://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/syracuse-police-man-dead-after-being-shot-in-the-head-on-lodi-street-tuesday-afternoon/
I kind of doubt his lung was blown out of his body by a head shot.
Is that some sort of joke?
Yes, our President said it regarding those high power 9mm guns.
Gandydancer: I assume it's a reference to President Biden saying that a trauma doctor had told him that "A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body" (which I assume Michael P indeed views as laughable, whether or not outright funny).
Thank you. I didn't get the reference, but didn't think MP was an idiot gun grabber (like Crummybrain), so it was a puzzle.
"Your inability to figure out the obvious is no surprise."
It's not "obvious" that Mr. Biden said something which I'd never heard that he said.
Your determined misunderstanding of basic English words fits with your room-temperature IQ.
Once again, thanks asshole.
That quote got national news coverage. What rock have you been hiding under for the last couple of weeks?
Did it get that much coverage outside of the "right wing" press? Maybe Duck Duck Go has some weird bias, but when I checked to make sure I paraphrased the claim correctly, I saw a bunch of fringe/alt- right news sites talking about it, but only Fox and Newsweek from what has ever been mainstream media.
The Left does not care about children and will only use them as political props. It is offensive, sad, immoral, and disgusting that they do so and there is no way in hell we should reward them for this behavior by passing any form of gun control.
Biden could save 100 lives of 100 kids by the end of the month if he would just enforce the southern border, and stop fentynel, and all the rest of the drugs, and human trafficking,
But those children lives are expendable.
The nexus is that saving those kids lives does nothing to forward the political agenda of the extreme left.
Remember, leftists are deranged, mentally ill, power hungry, sociopaths. Expect them to always act according to this profile.
“Remember, leftists are deranged, mentally ill, power hungry, sociopaths.”
UTTER PROJECTION.
And you know it too. You want to commit violence to win political power. And cheat in elections. There is no conspiracy theory you won’t believe, and some of your paranoia has to be the product of mental illness.
As for sociopath, in all your posts I have never once seen you form the ability to care about other people except when you pretend to for the purpose of defending guns.
So says the guy who is perfectly fine with murdering babies in the womb because that is a "choice".....
Talk about projection....
What I actually want is to not use government force, i.e. violence or the threat of violence to force people through the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth, particularly minors and rape victims. Maybe if you ever met a pregnant woman you would understand this better. (Although you probably have but your inability empathize and understand human emotion, particularly those of women, prevents you from understanding).
And although you call that murder (not that you actually believe that it is), we know you’re fine with murder generally because you want to commit acts of violence against “leftists.” So spare me that bullshit.
Again, never did that.
And, that is one hell of a coping mechanism you have to not care about your fellow man. "It's fine as long as the government doesn't do it!!!!!" That actually more aptly demonstrates how deep your level of depravity is when it comes to these matters.
Again, never did that.
Liar. We can read your posts. We have had conversations about your desire to engage in political violence or have others do it.
I've pointed out that the left has become increasingly violent, which the media seems to like to ignore. They write about how "punching down" is just fine. "Punching nazis" is some sort of fun game. How Trump supporters should expect to be assaulted if they come into certain areas of a city. Antifa is a violent terrorist organization. BLM was almost no better back in 2020 but was less organized.
I think you have become easily confuse with who is out there doing the actual violence.
Buffalo. El Paso. Christchurch. Tree of Life.
I'll raise you one assassination attempt by a Bernie Bros. who if it were not for a few Capitol police officers probably could have taken out half a dozen Republican Congressmen. Instead he only got to injure a few.
That’s. One guy. I have four. With a body count around 100
Oh. And a mens rights dude, tried to kill judge Esther Salas but killed her son and husband instead. And there was a militia affiliated individual in Wisconsin who just killed a judge and had a hit list including democratic politicians.
You are to the point where you are just making shit up. That is sad.
What did I make up Jimmy?
Google Esther Salas and Roy Den Hollander. Google Judge John Roemer.
The Buffalo shooter was a left wing racist that hated the right.
El Paso shooter was non-aligned and criticized both parties for being pawns of the corporations.
Christchurch, besides being Australian, did support support any political alignment. He despised Trump and American Republicans as worse than liberals, because they were both corporatist AND immigration supporters.
The Tree of Life shooter was generally right-wing, but also such a strong anti-Semite that he hated Trump and the Republicans for their support of Israel.
Three of the four also justified their actions in terms of environmentalism - "Good for the Earth" - and embraced the label of "ecofascist".
So, you got one out of four correct. Pretty good for you!
Incidentally, let's add:
Kori Ali Muhammad
Frank James
Darrell Brooks
Micah Johnson
Gavin Long
Ishmaaiyl Brinsley
Noah Green
Were those all "right-wingers" too?
“ It is offensive, sad, immoral, and disgusting ”
You know what is all these things? YOU! The fact you would DARE use these words when you have repeatedly made unsubtle calls for violence against your political enemies is offensive, sad, immoral, and disgusting. The fact that you think kids are capable of being props is pure projection. Oh and by the way: how long would I have to search before I found you invoking a murder victim to demonize immigrants? Not props to you then, huh?
You repeatedly demonize and bully unpopular groups. That’s offensive.
You are a paranoid freak who believes in outlandish conspiracy theories. That’s sad.
You routinely want violence to happen to your perceived enemies. That’s immoral.
You’re an utter POS with no sense of shame. That’s disgusting.
I have done none of this and you know it. You are as much of a useful idiot as all the others out there. But, they, maybe if you just say it 1,394,101,204 times it will become truth. It is a "safe and effective" way of programming the public and only "rare" when people will call you on such BS like I am doing.
“I have done none of this and you know it.”
LIAR!
Jimmy. We can read your posts. You routinely
make less than subtle calls for poltical violence. You routinely demonize LGBT people and immigrants. You routinely believe the most insane conspiracy theories as if they were real.
You’re a bad person and you’re projecting your badness onto “leftists” to justify your awful views and behavior.
Scream louder and it makes your lies become untrue, eh?
To the left, yes, pointing out a man is a man and a woman is a woman is "demonizing" those people.
To the left, yes, pointing out that illegals, who are in the country in violation of our laws, is also "demonizing" because the left has decided immigration ought to not be against the law so we can just ignore that.
To the left, yes, pointing out that powerful people seem to organize political agendas and sometimes that results in action is the latest buzz word "conspiracy theory". Using programmed terms such as that though are just a dead giveaway you are nothing but a tool who has absolutely no ability to critically think.
Maybe you need to blame the NRA and other Americans for your sick and perverted beliefs in order to feel better. If that is the "self-help" you need then by all means just let it all out.
I don’t have sick and perverted beliefs. I believe humans have moral duties to help and support each other and to refrain from
using violence and harm against them. That’s it. That’s the belief system. If you think that’s sick and perverted then that’s a you problem.
Except the unborn, at least according to you. We owe them no moral duty to be able to live a full, productive life. Oh and if another human is harmed by someone, then that isn't the fault of the person doing the harm, but a group like the NRA, right? And if another group of humans want to try to act like their mental illness is "normal" and project that by manipulating the genitals of children, that is cool?
I think you need to do some introspection here. It is Sunday so a great day to do that.
We owe them no moral duty to be able to live a full, productive life.
We actually do, that’s why I support universal healthcare, free well-funded public education, and a strong social safety net. Republicans want to cut subsidized school meals.
“ Oh and if another human is harmed by someone, then that isn't the fault of the person doing the harm, but a group like the NRA, right?”
The person is to blame, but you can also cast aspersions on policies and their supporters that made the harm much more likely and much easier to accomplish.
“ And if another group of humans want to try to act like their mental illness is "normal" and project that by manipulating the genitals of children, that is cool?”
I want to affirm the identity of humans using empathy and placing those questions in the care of parents and medical/psychological professionals. Idiot right-wingers aren’t qualified to opine on what mental illness is.
Speaking of manipulating genitals: did you see where the Ohio GOP is pushing a bill mandating internal genital exams of children in HS sports if any person questions their gender? It passed the house That means if a teenage girl is questioned by an opposing teams coach or just some random busybody , to continue to play she has to have a doctor stick their fingers up their vagina and feel around. I don’t think “the left” has ever actually passed a bill legalizing the sexual assault of children. Maybe when people on your team are writing the words “internal genital examination” in an effort to go after 1-2 trans kids in school sports, I think it is you who needs introspection.
"Republicans want to cut subsidized school meals."
This is in the immediate aftermath of the (D) administration's threat to cut off subsidized school meals to schools that don't allow trannys in girls' bathrooms. Sheesh.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/if-schools-don-t-let-boys-into-girls-bathrooms-biden-will-take-their-lunch-money/ar-AAXJFM4
https://www.businessinsider.com/mitch-mcconnell-opposes-free-school-lunches-for-kids-washington-post-2022-3?amp
Oh and this has been a Republican thing for awhile btw:
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/missouri-lawmaker-on-child-hunger-hunger-can-be-a-positive-motivator-65aee2bd6ada/
And don’t say: “tranny” it’s rude and demeaning. Especially when you’re talking about kids.
Lying shamelessly like you do is far ruder than calling trannys what they are, which is "trannys".
And that McConnell doesn't want to extend a pandemic-justified temporary expansion of free lunches doesn't obviate my point at all.
You’re a dick.
Actual text of x:
"x" = "Save Women's Sports Act"
https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_134/bills/hb151/PH/02/hb151_02_PH?format=pdf
I am not. Let’s break it down:
“ If a participant's sex is disputed”
By whom? It doesn’t say. This could be anyone.
“shall establish the participant's sex by presenting a signed
physician's statement indicating the participant's sex based
upon only the following:“
So a doctor needs to look. Is it their doctor? Doesn’t say. I guess they don’t have to participate that day…or can have some random doctor do it.
“1) The participant's internal and external reproductive
anatomy;
(2) The participant's normal endogenously produced levels
of testosterone;
(3) An analysis of the participant's genetic makeup.”
Okay, I’ll grant you it didn’t say the word “genital examination” but let’s look at how this works. How does a physician assess the “internal” reproductive anatomy? Sounds like a pelvic exam. Do you want the details on that? I’ll let a gynecologist explain.
And before you say something stupid about how it could be an X-Ray or MRI: stop and think about how insane it is that your best defense of this bill is that it only requires kids to undergo 1000s of dollars worth of unnecessary imaging to play sports.
As for the other things: it doesn’t define what “normal” testosterone levels are. Hormones vary. And it demands genetic testing to play sports.
So yeah. Real normal stuff here from Ohio republicans who definitely aren’t freaks.
LTG is a giant liar and leftist stooge. We all know this. I think he suspects it too when he is typing this garbage, but is in denial.
He is also very concerned about very specific medical procedures here, but doesn't seem to give any concern about the hundreds of thousands of completely unnecessary elective surgeries that take a place every year that kill unborn babies.
But, he still wants to "affirm" someone's mental illness that is leading them to think they are a sex that they are not because that is what the left has programmed him to think is "humane" to do.
The problem is those who think like LTG and also most likely mentally ill and need real help instead of others who are as equally if not more ill trying to validate their psychosis.
Jimmy. Somehow you appear to have a JD. You are not qualified to opine on what constitutes mental illness. And by your criteria more than half the country is mentally ill anyway, so your definition is less than useless.
And this may or may not surprise you: but I’ve been to therapy. Just run of the mill depression. Nothing SSRI’s can’t fix. If I was actually “mentally ill” that wouldn’t be the case, would it? If I had psychosis I wouldn’t only need Zoloft.
To engage in the mental gymnastics you do to justify your leftist, perverted, beliefs only someone who is mentally ill is capable of a feet like that.
Seriously, you are not well. Take a break from the outrage industry and focus on getting yourself, mentally, to a good place. If you care as much about human life as you said you do, then don't forget you are one of those people. Go care for yourself. The internet will be there when you are better.
Fuck you Jimmy. I am well. I take my mental and physical health seriously. Like I said: I’ve been to therapy, just have depression. I have the support of wonderful fiends and family. I know people who have more serious mental health issues and I understand what they entail.
Fuck you for pretending to be empathetic and caring when you are anything but.
The only mental gymnastics going on are yours as you try to convince yourself that the reason people are telling you you have bad values is because of mental illness. People aren’t crazy, you just have bad values.
I'll repost this.
Read or skim this. Shooters stopped by civilians killed far fewer victims, because the stoppers were on the scene, whereas police had to be called, dispatched, arrive, coordinate, assess, and finally act cautiously. One begins to suspect there's a reason Mother Jones and the police ignore shootings with fewer than 4 victims.
Oh heck, left off the close blockquote tag just before the last paragraph.
Compelling arithmetic and utilitarian analysis. But ask a lawyer. You will get, no comprende.
This comment is worth at least a letter to the Wall Street Journal.
Sometimes there is only one or no victims, but you can certainly tell the intent from the preparation and behavior.
This mass shooting was stopped by one unarmed man who charged the shooter, and became the only fatality although several other people were wounded:
"During a church lunch banquet, Chou attempted to lock the doors from the inside with chains and super glue and then opened fire at the elderly churchgoers, officials said. Chou also had a bag of Molotov cocktails and a bag of extra ammunition, according to authorities.
Dr. John Cheng, a family and sports medicine physician there with his recently widowed mother, charged at the man and was fatally shot in the attempt. His efforts caused the gun to jam.
The pastor, Billy Chang, struck the gunman with a chair, and others hogtied the man and took at least two handguns from him, officials said."
Since the VC is now just an echo chamber reflecting the "research" of John Lott, Eugene, you'll forgive me if I now have to put you into the "ignore" column when commenting on gun issues.
Christ. You really do side with Josh and David K. on the topics you post about. I thought they were the nutters. Guess you're right there with them.
When everyone is a nutter except you, then it's probably you not them.
But just as a test to make sure, do you think everyone who disagrees with you is a nutter, or could you possibly concede that there are some people that disagree with you because after assessing the facts they come up with a different conclusion?
Lott is definitely an interesting case study in shoddy & worthless "scholarship". His academic career is one long slime trail of discredited studies. They've covered every possible wing-nut obsession (guns, abortion, affirmative action, women's suffrage, etc) right up-to & including Big Lie propaganda on "voter fraud". The guy's been exposed, humiliated and refuted more times than I have fingers & toes, but the nutters still line-up for his spoon-fed pap. I guess if you have Gun Religion you take whatever "scholarship" is available - even if it's from a hack discredited a score times over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott
Well when all Wikipedia can say is that he only proved that more guns don't cause more crime I can say that's a major achievement:
"Referring to the research done on the topic, The Chronicle of Higher Education wrote in 2003 that "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."[29] As Lott critics Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III pointed out, "Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile."[
So the fact that a robust right to keep and bear arms does not "[lead] to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared" pretty much leads to a conclusion there is no case for infringing our constitutional rights to keep and bear arms.
Scholars agree. It's the science.
Ian Ayres, lawyer/economist/plagiarist, not notably qualified to critique that kind of study. John J. Donohue III, lawyer/economist primarily notable for... publishing shoddy statistical research with Steven Levitt on the link between abortion and crime. Why are people living in glass houses the only ones who cast stones at Lott (or at least the ones highlighted by Wikipedia editors)?
The guy has actually done a lot of good research. He embarrassingly screwed up one time that I know of, and that gave gun controllers an opening to discredit everything he does.
Now they don't have to demonstrate that a particular study is wrong, they just yell "Mary Rosh!" and people ignore it.
It's good work if you can get it, I guess, but good research is not about confirming your priors.
Research based on a thesis derived from partisan debate should be a red flag. Basic research techniques used for applied ends are going to have a lot of false positives just due to confirmation bias.
Most importantly, it doesn't prove the underlying thesis, because it answers the wrong question, as detailed in comments below.
Lol. John Lott does something bad once. He’s fine.
Michael Bellelises does something bad twenty years ago: the entire historical profession can’t be trusted.
Imagine being this big of a clown.
The ENTIRE historical profession can't be trusted.
When it comes to being a huge clown your powers of imagination are, I am sure, never stressed.
...I should have capitalized "CAN'T", too.
That is Brett’s position.
The history profession's problem with Bellesiles is that they gave his book the Bancroft award after people started pointing out the fraud. Not before. And getting them to admit afterwards that it was a work of fraud was like pulling teeth.
And that was twenty years ago, dude. And you refuse to acknowledge how they’ve grappled with it in the decades since. Doubt you’ve even read Hoffer on this. Moreover, you brush off all their research because they’re “democrats.” Even though you have never:
1. Been in an archive or have extensive experience researching primary sources.
2. Mastered any field of historiography.
3. Taught and history course and done the required research in preparation.
You don’t know more about history than historians but you refuse to admit it due to your unfathomable arrogance. Seriously can you ever just admit that historians as a group know more about history than you, that they will be more correct about historical questions than you, and that the fact that you don’t engage in historical research as your job means that your knowledge is necessarily extremely limited compared to theirs? (I’d like you to do this about law, medicine, psychology, and Judaism too, but we’ll start with history).
Seriously can you ever just admit that historians as a group know more about history than you
He can't. Any more than he can admit lawyers know more law, economists know more economics, climate scientists know more about climate, etc.
I have no doubt that basically every historian who hasn't recently suffered from some neurological insult knows more history than I do. Some of it may be the proverbial stuff that's not so, but they probably have me beat on that score, too.
I have an attentive 1970's HS student's grasp of history, supplemented by a laser focus on founding era events and documents relevant to the topic of the 2nd amendment. I'm an engineer, not a historian, I don't have the time to acquire more knowledge of the field than that.
And yet, I could not get 3 pages into Arming America without suffering WTF moments where he wrote things I knew damned well were not so, and had the references on my shelves to prove it. And he won the Bancroft award anyway.
Did the professional historians not have alarm bells go off, too? They probably did, and muffled them under a pillow because they liked what he was saying. THAT is why I despise the history profession: Not because they didn't know Bellesiles was peddling lies. Because they didn't care that he was peddling lies until too much of a fuss was raised to paper over it.
Finally some humility, couched in arrogance yes, but a huge improvement. Congratulations.
You still don’t acknowledge how the field has been grappling with the scandal in the last 20 years But baby steps.
Now if you can admit that you don’t know more about what it means to be a Jew than Jewish people or that your grasp of legal knowledge is incredibly thin and you are usually wrong, you’ll be on your way to being a normal person.
I see you have no interest in addressing the point, which is that it wasn't a lack of knowledge that was displayed in the Bellesiles affair, it was an ideologically motivated lack of concern with the truth.
I see no sign that the history profession has meaningfully reformed. They're still taking Saul Cornell seriously, for instance.
Finally some humility, couched in arrogance
Pot...kettle...
This blog is a lot like a Ron Paul campaign rally I attended a number of years ago.
When they entered, those who attended were disaffected, withdrawn misfits. They sat far from each other, distrustful, tentative, eyes cast downward. What one would expect from a group whose interactions with the mainstream had left them a battered pile of scars, bruises, and grievances.
As the hotel ballroom filled, however, and they were forced to sit closer to one another, they began to notice that they had a bit in common with their new neighbors. The same strange shirts, buttons, caps, etc. They began to converse, and learned they had plenty in common.
So they began to open up. They increasingly enjoyed the exchanges, becoming more comfortable. They smiled. They shared opinions they generally concealed -- and found a welcoming audience.
The room began to resemble a regular political gathering, because the people began to feel normal. No longer outcasts, malcontents, awkward losers . . . they began to feel normal, accepted, even accomplished.
When the warm-up guy reached the podium, the mood elevated. His job was easy -- this crowd was ready to be enthusiastic and successful.
It was a good crowd for Ron Paul, too. These were his people, and they uplifted him as much as he uplifted them.
I was happy for them. These people, so sad and alienated every other day, had a chance to experience the feeling of being normal, of relevance, of having a chance to succeed and be right about something. It was nice to see.
By the end of his speech, the crowd was shouting and sincere. 'We WILL restore freedom to America. We WILL succeed. We WILL win this election.'
The event ended, and as Mr. Paul left the stage and the crowd left the room, joyous, I began to recognize that nothing that occurred in that ballroom changed anything -- and that whether they recognized it yet as they approached the chilly air beyond the ballroom doors, these Ron Paul fans were still hopeless losers, antisocial misfits, politically irrelevant malcontents. They were not going to win any political arguments, not going to change any laws or societal norms, not going to win any elections, not going to call any shots in America, not going to be anything other than scorned and mocked by nearly all Americans, as usual.
I still wonder whether it is better for the Ron Paul fans of our world to (1) experience a fleeting, false sense of normalcy and relevance (followed immediately by a dousing with cold water) or (2) never be misled toward a illusory, temporary sense of relevance and accepted.
This blog is a Ron Paul rally for gun nuts.
You have long since convinced anyone aware of your manias that if your speak of "disaffected, withdrawn misfits" you are engaging in baseless projection.
No, I did not read the rest of that wall of crap.
Proving that both you and Kirkland are assholes.
Better an asshole than a dishonest dimwit.
In most eyes around here I am the asshole, much as someone who mentioned 'hey, you guys aren't going to win anything, because in the reality-based world Ron Paul won't get one percent of the vote in a national election, you deluded freaks' would have been considered the asshole by the cheering, chanting kooks at that Ron Paul for President event.
I wonder how many of those Ron Paul fans are still irrelevant malcontents, impervious to reason and reality, after twenty-some more years of experience on the wrong side of history and the losing side of the culture war.
So, you won't be 'deigning to read' the articles here any longer? No more baseless assertions, no more rote repetition of current talking points (death cults! Augh!), or trotting out risible canards? Shame, that.
So....each of these was stopped with a handgun? Which means that the only gun the good guys need to stop a mass shooting is a handgun? So rifles can have limited capacity magazines and forced slow rate of fire to allow for hunting and any other use without issue, because they aren't used in self defense?
No. Semiautomatic rifles have been used as well.
I believe that in the near-Ur example of mass shooting, the Texas Tower incident, rifles were used defensively by the citizenry in the suppression of his fire. So, no, your conclusion is based on an inadequate sample plus determined ignorance.
Well except US v Miller (SC 1939) made it clear that a core right of the second amendment is a right to keep and bear arms suitable to the militia. There is no arm more suitable to the militia than an AR-15. It's highly standardized, easy to repair and change parts, and uses common ammunition.
It was Heller that expanded that core 2nd amendment right to include handguns for self defense, but it in no way encroached on Miller even if it fell short of fully protecting the original intent of the 2nd amendment
Why not the M16, which was adapted from the AR-15 design specifically for military use?
Actually, there were select fire AR-15s before the military adopted such as the M16. And supposedly, a handful of them went over to Vietnam. If any still exist, they are thought to be worth >$100k as collectors’ items. Armalite, with a manufacturing FFL, could legally build select fire AR-15s for demonstration to the government, and the government, being the government, could buy them. I think that the way it worked was that the military demanded some tweaks before it would standardize on the select fire AR-15 as the M16, and those tweaks quickly moved back into the civilian semiautomatic AR-15.
Well I am making the point Judge Benitez when he threw out California's "assault weapons" ban, temporarily of course.
Miller upheld the NFA, which is binding on Benitez, which makes the M16 problematic as a standard militia rifle under current law.
Heller is supposedly binding in the 9th circuit too, but it seems over half their en banc panels haven't read it yet.
Just to amplify your remarks - one of the reasons that the AR-15 is the ultimate militia weapon in this country is that it shares a manual of arms with the military M16 and M4. That means that pretty much any veteran who has served in our military over the last 60 years can very likely shoot and maintain an AR-15, and many of those who used them in combat can disassemble and reassemble AR-15s blindfolded. AR-15s are identical to their service weapons, except for the third position on the selector switch that allows full auto or burst fire. No other available firearm can make that claim.
That merely, to repeat the observation above, implies that the M16 ought to be an even better militia weapon than the AR.
What do the Swiss use? FA fully automatic or merely semi-automatic take-home-weapon?
Well just get the Feds to rescind the prohibition on fully automatic weapons.
"just"?
Obviously my inability to force the Feds to stop violating the US Constitution and allow the populace to acquire a more "ultimate" militia weapon is irrelevant to my demurral from the description of the AR-15 as "the ultimate militia weapon".
The Swiss use select fire weapons for their militia. Militia members have a locked cabinet in their home for the rifle and a set amount of ammunition they're responsible for.
Great place to visit during one of their Schuetzen Fest events. Get on a bus or train and 1/2 of the people may have a select fire rifle slung over their shoulder on the way to the range. A lot of beautiful old straight pull K31s too, machined like fine jewelry and very accurate for a standard issue rifle.
Switzerland stopped issuing ammunition for home storage for those weapons in 2007.
That might be up for reassessment given Russia's recent threats.
AR-15 is to shooting as Kleenex is to sneezing. America’s Rifle and tissue paper.
This article makes the common mistake of misunderstanding that these are not just mass shootings, but intentional suicides. Nothing has been 'prevented' in any of these cases: letting potential mass shooters know unequivocally that they will be shot in the act _encourages_ them.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-mass-shooters-q-a-00035762
"POLITICO: You’ve written about how mass shootings are always acts of violent suicide. Do people realize this is what’s happening in mass shootings?
"Peterson: I don’t think most people realize that these are suicides, in addition to homicides. Mass shooters design these to be their final acts. When you realize this, it completely flips the idea that someone with a gun on the scene is going to deter this. If anything, that’s an incentive for these individuals. They are going in to be killed."
I was going to post this.
While I agree that mass shooters are "violent homicides:"
1. Many mass shooters (like the Buffalo shooter) explicitly write that they look for a place where there are no guns so that they can inflict the most damage. Having guards, SROs, etc is still a deterrent.
2. Having an armed guards, SROs, etc. and a fast police response still minimizes the carnage. They quicker that they are killed the better.
3. I generally agree with the point of the article about mental health. People who look to commit violent suicide can always switch to bombs, or arson. Availability of tools wont stop them; they plan it for months. Do terrorists have the same mental illness- propensity for violent suicide?
4. People get lost in the mental health system, or don't seek help. Are we going to do something about that? Probably not. We have entire encampments in California of people who are addicted to drugs and need help. You cannot institutionalize people.
5. The issue with psychology is that "profiles" of mass shooters are not replicable science. There is a lot of potential for confirmation bias in this research. You could have 90 people with the same "profile," only 2 of which become violent.
All that said, I generally agree that there needs to be a stronger focus on mental health care and suicide prevents. In schools, its straightforward to add counselors. However, for adults, I think its not straightforward. As the article points out, older shooters tend to not call behavioral health lines. In the case of the Las Vegas shooter, I don't think he told anyone for years what his problems were.
Many mass shooters (like the Buffalo shooter) explicitly write that they look for a place where there are no guns so that they can inflict the most damage.
A critical point. It is NOT that a crazy guy is very likely to be deterred by the risk of getting himself killed - he may very well be looking to go out with a bang. But he wants to go out with a BANG, not a damp squib.
What's the point of immolating yourself if you only take a couple of people with you. Where's the herostratian glory in that You want to take out a whole bunch of people.
So a soft target, ie a "gun free zone", where you get a good chance of killing a dozen, or a couple of dozen people, is much to be preferred to a harder target where you might get taken out by an armed civilian after you've only loosed off a couple of rounds.
The Japan arsonist killed 36 people. The Station nightclub fire (caused by pyrotechnics) killed 100. Its not super hard to engineer a bug arson in a crowded area and kill a bunch of people. Arson is big in Australia. google Nurse Roger Dean
"You could have 90 people with the same "profile," only 2 of which become violent."
Considering how few mass shooters there are around, it's probably more like 9,000 with the same profile, and only 2 become violent.
I've said this in other threads: As far as I can tell, the gun control advocates envision a society where homicidally inclined people are wandering around all over the place, only they're frustrated homicidally inclined people, because they have trouble getting one particular means of killing people.
The alternative is that they think guns are demonically possessed, and transform peaceful people into killers. Maybe they think gun shops are like that antique shop in "Friday the 13th".
That's basically the only two ways you can make sense of their complete disinterest in WHY these creeps want to kill people.
Supply side prohibitionists are almost always wrong: First law of economics, supply rises to meet demand. It doesn't matter that you, for example, ban drugs or guns. Someone is going to figure out a way to make meth in their RV because someone out their wants to buy it. Supply side prohibitionists adhere to the incorrect notion that supply creates its own demand, whether its drugs, guns, alcohol, prostitution, or violent video games.
Supply side prohibitionists, historically, have always been wrong. You simply cannot ban things and expect to choke off demand.
I do think there is something to this, though the does seem to be a general correlation between countries that ban guns and lower gun deaths.
Nevertheless, 1) America's gun culture is pretty unique so probably not comparable, and 2) America has an individual right to self defense so outcome arguments are off topic anyhow.
"though there does seem to be a general correlation between countries that ban guns and lower gun deaths."
Um, so what? Who the hell cares about "gun deaths"? Are people who are bludgeoned to death, poisoned, burned, knifed, run over with cars, somehow less dead?
You know what focusing on "gun deaths" does? It lets you exclude all consideration of substitution effects, of suicides and murderers simply switching to a different means of killing people.
The only category of "gun deaths" that any sensible, moral person would concern themselves with are accidents, because that's the only category that's not intentional, and thus not subject to an approximately 100% substitution effect. Estimated to be about 430 deaths per year. About half that many people accidentally drown in 5 gallon buckets every year, have you noticed the nation-wide drive to mandate safety features?
This is deranged. Utterly deranged.
Takeaway the shooter's AR-15 and he will simply bludgeon ten or twenty people to death with a baseball bat! Is that what you think?
Suicide? Lots of suicides are impulsive. People who fail at suicide often don't try again. A gun around makes it easy. Not many people have cyanide pills handy. I've known three people who killed themselves with guns. All three were seriously depressed at the moment. If a gun hadn't been handy, I think they would all be alive because guess what, you can get over depression, and depressed people aren't great planners.
Do you think before you post these kinds of "logical" arguments?
Substitution? Yeah, Dylann Roof would have killed just as many with a knife. Fucking stupid beyond all belief.
A friend of mine is alive because he didn’t have a gun, and his attempt to slit his wrists failed luckily. If he had used a gun, he would have been dead immediately instead of being found and rescued.
Hell, *I* tried slitting my wrists, during my depression after my first wife divorced me. Hurt like hell, and brought me to my senses before I had more than a flesh wound. I realized that killing myself would hurt my loved ones, and resolved to just live unhappy. That kept me alive long enough to get over the depression.
I had a closet full of guns!
Why didn't I just stick one in my mouth, and blow out my brains? Because, on some level, I was just playing at it. (Though "play" isn't quite the right word.)
Do you understand that there's a basic difference between suicide attempts, and people who successfully suicide? Speaking from personal experience here: It's not guns. It's how serious you are about it. I had plenty of ways to reliably kill myself, if I'd really wanted to. I didn't use any of them because I wasn't serious about wanting to die, I just wanted the people around me to notice that I was suffering, and a failed attempt could do that.
And this brings up another point: Not only do men commit suicide at a lot higher rate than women, half of those suicides are in a moderately short period after they've been divorced.
So, you're going to fight suicide by attacking the civil liberties of everybody in the country, the vast majority of whom will never do anything wrong? Instead of, oh, reforming divorce laws? Or providing intensive psychiatric help for guys at high risk of offing themselves?
If so, you don't give a damn about suicide, it's just another excuse to go after the guns.
I don't think you are reading Brett correctly.
The argument is that it doesn't make sense to lump homicide and suicide because they are different, if you will, 'diseases', with different causes and cures.
You wouldn't compare countries based on their combined rate of heart disease and malaria, for example.
Gun suicide and homicide in the US tend to happen in different areas and by different groups ... see maps 2 and 3 (you fav source!).
The cures are different - for one example, a magazine size limit is unlikely to affect suicides much.
Lastly, I think the morality is a lot different, in how much coercion I'm willing to do to prevent a murder vs. a suicide, and I don't think I'm an outlier. For example if you attempt a murder, society is willing to imprison you for many years, but we don't restrict people for very long after an attempted suicide.
They are just very different problems, with different solutions.
No, the distinction I'm drawing here is between intentional acts and accidents. See, you can reduce the rate of accidents by simple interventions, like altering firearms actions so that they can't go off if dropped, because firearms accidents aren't deliberate, people don't want and intend them to happen.
Murder and suicide are fundamentally different from accidents in that regard, because they are a matter of intent, on the part of intelligent, active, problem solving creatures, who will not be stopped by just taking one of MANY means to their ends away from them.
You can't even stop an ant by dropping a pebble in its path, it will walk around it. You think you can stop an intelligent being intent on killing/dying by taking away one solitary means from them, in a world full of alternate means? That's fundamentally stupid, on a cosmic level.
The focus of gun controllers is on "gun" deaths, because it lets them ignore substitution effects that render their efforts futile, and because, on a fundamental level, gun control isn't a means, it's an end. They don't want to ban guns to save lives. They talk about saving lives in order to have an excuse for banning guns.
If you want to reduce deliberates, instead of accidents, you go after motive, not means.
You don't ask how, you ask "why?".
"Impulsive suicide" is a trope. People struggle for years with depression. Studies show that successful suicides are preceded by unsuccessful attempts.
Also check the CDC data. 1. Only half of suicides involved a gun (and the rate of gun suicides is declining). 2. Most suicides are middle age and older people. The rate of suicide among young people is very low. You read about it in the media a lot precisely because its somewhat unusual.
Have you considered that successful suicides might be preceded by unsuccessful "attempts", not because it takes several tries to get it right, but instead because depression isn't an off/on thing, its a gradual decent into Hell? And the earlier failures were due to not yet being genuinely committed to dying?
Takeaway the shooter's AR-15 and he will simply bludgeon ten or twenty people to death with a baseball bat! Is that what you think?
We get that you're too stupid to think of any alternative to an AR-15 other than a baseball bat, but that's no reason to assume anyone else is.
"I do think there is something to this, though the does seem to be a general correlation between countries that ban guns and lower gun deaths."
But not gun *homicides*.
I don't think that chart proves much.
The second one excludes the US, for starters. The fact that you see no correlation when looking at low-homicide countries doesn't mean much, because you are looking at "compressed" data.
Put the US on that chart and whatever happens to the correlation coefficient you'll see a giant outlier, and pretty much all of western Europe plus Japan and Canada are on that chart.
IOW, the article is BS.
I'm afraid I'm not following your argument at all. Could you phrase it more rigorously, perhaps?
"Put the US on that chart and whatever happens to the correlation coefficient you'll see a giant outlier,..."
What will happen to the correlation coefficient is not much. Outliers don't prove a correlation, much less cause and effect.
If one posits 'eating saturated fats causes toenail fungus', a scatterplot of random looking data plus one outlier doesn't make your case; if you think that the outlier proves that eating lots of fats causes fungus, you have to come up with an explanation for why your proposed cause-n-effect doesn't seem to affect all those other countries.
What will happen to the correlation coefficient is not much. Outliers don't prove a correlation, much less cause and effect.
Correct.
But the argument being made is that the lack of a significant correlation coefficient means there is no relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates.
And that is true for the countries listed, which have gun ownership rates between virtually zero and about 40 per hundred.
But that means nothing about the US, with a rate of over 100. It's like finding no correlation between height and basketball ability for high school students between 5' 7" and 5' 9", and then concluding that being 6' 6" wouldn't help. The extrapolation is unjustified.
The third chart, which shows high homicide countries, includes no countries that are comparable to the US in political, social, or economic terms, so again, not very useful.
The first chart is interesting but suffers from the fact that guns can and do move across state borders, and that you really need to look at the amount of urbanization in a state.
So your model is a non-linear one, where guns have no effect at all for ownership rates <40, but large effects for higher rates?
'the article is BS' seems pretty strong when your alternative explanation is to fit a non-linear model to a single outlier.
I'm skeptical. A rate of 40 per 100 means guns are readily available - after all, kids for example won't have their own. It's getting into 'everyone who wants one has one' territory.
Isn't the usual estimate that 40ish % of US households have a gun? That seems to imply that the very high US number is at least in part driven by a few individuals owning multiple guns. My first guess is that you get most of the bad effects from the first gun a murderer owns.
Here is a partial list of countries by pct of households with guns. Note that Finland's ownership rate is 90% of the US rate, but its homicide rate is a fraction of the US rate, so why wouldn't Finland exhibit your hypothesized non-linear effect? Do you feel the effect is so highly non-linear that changing the ownership rate from 37.9 to 42 will change the homicide rate from 0.2 to 4.46? That would be 4% more households with guns raising the homicide rate over twenty fold.
Switzerland is another example - 68% of the households with guns, but one fiftieth the murders.
Could you elaborate on the mechanism by which you think adding such small numbers of households with guns increases the homicide rate so drastically?
Per our earlier conversation, yes, we really, REALLY need to teach statistical numeracy in K-12. That's getting really obvious.
Look, if ALL the correlation in your data set comes from one instance, your real independent variable isn't "rate of gun ownership", it's "Is America, yes/no?". That's pretty fundamental.
Then you have to get away from these, frankly stupid, international comparisons. The US is different from other countries in the world on so many metrics it's absurd. I mean, just to give one example, how many European nations share a 2,000 mile border with a failed narco-state with an ongoing civil war? You think that doesn't have any influence on our crime rates at all? MS-13 isn't the only Mexican criminal gang operating in the US, you know. You're going to argue their presence here has no effect on our crime rates at all?
If you want to do real, not pretend, statistics, you should probably take as many of those confounding variables out of the mix as possible, and just do your statistics WITHIN the US.
Then we get to a general rule of doing statistical studies: The stronger a potential confounding variable is, the more accurately you have to know it in order to compensate for it. Because if it's stronger than the variable you're investigating, and you're missing variations in it, all your correlation with the variable you're investigating could be due to variations in the stronger variable you haven't controlled for. IOW, you don't try measuring the gravitational constant in your lab with a window open on a gusty day.
So, how much does the murder rate vary from place to place in the US, in jurisdictions with the same gun laws? Oh, only about A THOUSAND PERCENT. Once you get down to the neighborhood level. I'm guessing that high crime streets don't have a hundred times the rate of gun ownership than the street two blocks over, and they certainly would have the same gun laws.
So, have you identified every last metric these places vary on, and measured them to better than a tenth of a percent precision?
Most statistical studies trying to measure the relationship between gun laws/ownership rates and crime are pretend statistics. They're going through the motions while violating fundamental principles of statistical analysis. They're done by people who mostly KNOW they're violating those principles, and don't care.
While their gun violence rates are a fraction of the US, their total violence rates are statistically indistinguishable (when controlled for demographics such as economic status and immigration rates, etc.).
Well, I can't find anything controlled like that, but
this gives a picture of violent crime, and if you want to claim "indistinguishable" you better have those controls doing a lot of work, and you better have an awful lot of violent non-homicides to make up for the difference in homicide rates.
This is incoherent economics. Among other things, demand and supply are not quantities but relationships between quantities and prices.
Reduce supply - drive up production costs - and the quantity drops, because that doesn't affect the demand curve, but changes the point at which the two curves intersect.
Incoherent economics is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
"Reduce supply - drive up production costs - and the quantity drops, because that doesn't affect the demand curve, but changes the point at which the two curves intersect."
Because that argument has worked so well for drugs, guns, alcohol, prostitution...
The flaw in you logic is that the demand for these goods is inelastic: demand changes very little with price.
Homicidal suicidal maniacs bear whatever cost is necessary. They are literally going to die trying. That is practically the definition of inelastic demand.
The flaw in you logic is that the demand for these goods is inelastic: demand changes very little with price.
Well, that's not a flaw in my logic even if you are right that the demand is somewhat inelastic. That doesn't imply zero elasticity. Further, depending on the shape of the demand curve, elasticity will often increase as prices increase. That's true of a linear demand curve, for example.
So I think you are overgeneralizing.
And is demand for guns really inelastic? Maybe the homicidal lunatic will pay anything, but even he has a credit limit.
How soon you forget. The Buffalo shooter is alive.
As is the guy who shot up a movie theater a few years ago. Who drove past a number of theaters that weren't gun free zones to get to one which was.
And of course the claim that "Nothing has been 'prevented' in any of these cases..." is arrant idiocy.
Odd how seldom mass shootings are stopped this way in other western democracies.
The ones that already gave in to gun grabbers?
What stopped the Charlie Hebdo killers, or the Bataclan attackers, or Norway's Utøya massacre? For examples from last year, who stopped the killings in Ardea Italy, Kongsberg Norway, and Plymouth England? Why aren't these mass murders in other Western democracies ever stopped by armed bystanders? It is a mystery!
The ones who have gun violence rates a fraction of ours.
Well we can look at crimes and who commits the crimes and then compare. You might find out there is another difference.
Just a side note - While their gun violence rates are a fraction of the US, their total violence rates are statistically indistinguishable (when controlled for demographics such as economic status and immigration rates, etc.).
Got a cite for that? Not saying you're lying, just interested!
Do you live under a rock? 1. 'Google is your friend.' 2. I've been around long enough to know 'Not saying you're lying, just interested' is most likely indicative of the opposite, and considering the source, this seems likely. You have been more likely to mock and reject facts when a narrative was available.
I disagree with many on here, and often ask for them to back up their statements, generally not expecting them to be able to. I went out of my way to say that was not my expectation this time.
You came in like an asshole in response, assuming bad faith. And providing no content in response! Your cynicism well beyond what you need.
This entire comment is an ad-hominem. Did *you* try to Google, or just wanted to vent your spleen at me.
I tried (albeit just now), and did not find anything fell out about violent crime in western democracies as compared to the US. Certainly not with controlling for immigration rates.
No one can prove what you did or didn't find except you.
Never mind "immigration". We have a violent black native population. Any analysis of overall rates that doesn't account for that is crap.
And you've fully earned the disbelief of your honesty that was expressed.
It's pretty common knowledge if you have looked at the topic. For example, look at this wiki page.
The US rate is 6.2. I'm not going 2020 specifically, but usually maybe 60% of all US murders are by firearm. That gives a non-firearm rate of about 2.5. In a quick scan, Lichtenstein is the only West European country that's higher than that, and it's only 2.6. Several are less than 1.0.
(insert std disclaimer about the dangers of comparing crime stats between countries!)
ooops: I'm not going *to look up* 2020 specifically
That does not appear to support Rossami's thesis, which was 1) about violent crime, and 2) Included controlling for 'class and immigration.'
In all my time on Reason.com, I have never been proven wrong when I assumed bad faith, so I gotta side with Hank here: your choices are accept at face value, disregard, or do your own research.
If it is so easy to find on Google, please provide a link that substantiates the claim about violent crime rates when adjusted for demographics.
I looked, and the closest I could find was https://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/violent-crime-us-abroad/, which is several years old but reports that the UK had roughly 2.5 times the violent crime rate of the US without adjusting for demographics.
The FBI's UCR strongly suggests that controlling for demographics would bring the US closer to European countries, although I don't know exactly how close (in large part because the FBI does not break data down by combinations of race and ethnicity), and the UCR is limited because many agencies do not submit data for it.
Thank you for actually engaging on this. It's really interesting, but doesn't really get at the Western Democracy-US violent crime comparison, these are worldwide stats.
But some interesting observations!
Most of Europe is safer than Detroit, but are Detroit and Europe representative?
Violent crime has declined sharply in the US since the mid 1990’s. While this is due to a variety of changes in enforcement, rehabilitation of criminals, and overall higher standards of living, a large portion of the similarities between the crime levels of US and western European countries hinges on differences in what crimes are reported.
Another difference between the US and other relatively safe developed nations is that the US has a much higher homicide rate than similarly “safe” countries. 14,827 people were murdered in the US last year. This is way down from the 24,526 US murders in 1993, yet still leaves the US at 4.8 murders per 100,000 citizens. In comparison, Japan has .4 murders per 100,000 residents. Germany has .8, Australia 1, France 1.1, and Britain–who has recently garnered media attention for being the most dangerous wealthy European nation– has 1.2.
that the cities with the top 5 homicide rates in the world boast substantially higher rates than any other cities on the list. To put the numbers in context, you’re more than 3 times likelier to be the victim of a homicide in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, than in New Orleans, and more than 30 times more likely when comparing San Pedro Sula to the US as a whole.
Another notable trend is that no European or Asian cities are in the top 50 deadliest cities. This complicates the picture of the US standing toe-to-toe with the industrialized world as a low violent crime nation. At the very least, the deadliest cities in the US have many more homicides than the deadliest cities in Europe and Asia. At most, the US is a in a pandemic of homicides, even while other types of violent crime are stifled.
Thanks for the cite, though!
I will give you, controlled for immigration & class, more complex. Nonetheless, your presumption of bad faith on my part is fairly entertaining. An observation is not an ad hominem, you seem bright enough to be able to figure that out. The narrative before any other possible explanations, one supposes.
? I presumed no bad faith on your part. I bridled at your assumption of bad faith on *my* part.
What is this "controlled for class" business?
Are there no poor people elsewhere?
And if the high rates in the US are a function of greater inequality maybe we should consider that part of the cost of our economic system.
Bernard, how's that war on poverty going? How many tens of trillions will we spend over how many decades before we realize that Democrat solutions aren't solving anything?
"how many decades before we realize that Democrat solutions aren't solving anything?"
They are designed to not solve anything. In fact, they define the problem (for example by excluding government transfer payments in determining poverty) in a way that makes it impossible to solve by any means.
Wanting people to have a wage they can independently live on without government assistance doesn't seem like it's some kind of bad faith attempt to make addressing poverty impossible.
Everyone is aware poverty will always be with us. Anyone who pretends otherwise is being ridiculous.
" the UK had roughly 2.5 times the violent crime rate of the US without adjusting for demographics."
I have to point out that violent crime reporting in the UK is dodgy. Really dodgy. It's actually higher than that.
The linked article doesn't seem to actually say that.
Also read the quotes I pulled from the article. Interesting, but also not really in keeping with that take!
Two things:
1. See the part of the article I quoted about what counts as a violent crime.
2. Maybe look at more than one comparable country.
Did you notice this?
a large portion of the similarities between the crime levels of US and western European countries hinges on differences in what crimes are reported. The FBI counts four categories of crime as violent crime: murder and non-negligible manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. While aggravated assault is the only assault category included under violent crime reports in the US, other nations include the much more numerous level 1 assault in violent crime reporting. This makes the US appear relatively less violent from a statistical perspective.
Of course not.
While their gun violence rates are a fraction of the US, their total violence rates are statistically indistinguishable (when controlled for demographics such as economic status and immigration rates, etc.).
Well, I can't find anything controlled like that, but
this gives a picture of violent crime, and if you want to claim "indistinguishable" you better have those controls doing a lot of work, and you better have an awful lot of violent non-homicides to make up for the difference in homicide rates.
Just a general comment: read the disclaimers in that page carefully; comparing crime stats across countries is pretty tricky.
For one example from that page, Poland and Italy have 'sexual violence' rates that are a fifth of Austria's. I would wager a beer that those rates aren't making an apples to apples comparison between those countries. The alternative - that Austria is just overrun by sexual predators - seems unlikely.
Yes. Cross-country comparisons are tricky.
Indeed, lots of crime stats differ because of non-reporting, varying definitions, etc. That's why homicide rates are often considered the best index of violent crime. Bodies do get counted.
"Bodies do get counted."
Maybe :-). I often hear it asserted, for example, that UK murder figures only include solved murders. I spent some time looking for airtight confirmation or refutation, without success.
Or consider this:
"Linking international homicide clearance rates is hindered by the differential use of definitions. Further, some reports exclude homicides committed in conjunction with a felony or other crime. In these statistics, homicides are coded as a by-product of another felony – for example, a homicide committed in the course of a robbery is coded as a ‘robbery gone wrong’ rather than a homicide"
etc, etc.
Of course
When seconds count the police are minutes away. And even then they don’t always act
Your self defense is your responsibility
...and in the spirit of ObamaCare Congress needs to pass a law that requires every adult (18 and up) American citizen to purchase and maintain a firearm or face a penalty (make that tax) if they refuse.
Of course this would not apply to known criminals and the mentally ill which would eliminate most Democrats.
Sounds like Switzerland
Yes and we all know what a backward country that is.
Switzerland doesn't require people to buy firearms. They issue weapons (but not ammunition) to militia members and require them to be stored at home during the term of their reserve service.
Per-capita civilian gun ownership in Switzerland is high globally speaking but less than 1/4 the rate in the US, and behind several other countries including Canada.
Eugene still can't seem to acknowledge the fact that 19 children, ages 9 thru 11, were gunned-down in school. It's an interesting approach to influencing the national conversation on the subject; just ignore the school shooting that put the issue of guns in the headlines, and write about instances where guns were used to stop "bad" people.
Nothing strengthens your argument more than refusing to grapple with, or even acknowledge, the tragedy that underlies the counter-position.
Have you acknowledged that leftist policies lead to huge numbers of murders in the United States every single month? Or that leftist policies drove the increase in murders over the past several years, an increase that makes the Uvalde shooting a drop in the bucket?
It's an interesting approach to influencing the national conversation on the subject; just ignore the killers, and write about children gunned down by your fellow leftist in the kind of gun-free zone that leftists want to put almost everywhere.
You think tough on crime policies would prevent a huge number of murders? What makes you so sure about this? We have a huge per-capita incarceration rate right now - our baseline is pretty not-leftist- so what's your plan here?
Roll back the pro-crime policies that have been enacted over the last two years. Secure the border so it's much harder to smuggle drugs and career criminals into the country. Require drug offenders to enter, and comply with, treatment programs as a condition of early release or probation. Abolish the policies that ensure such marked income inequality in Democratic strongholds, and the ones that so strongly contribute to the correlation between poverty and crime.
But it's classic Sarcastr0 to demand answers without acknowledging the problems with leftist policies.
Illegals and imported drugs are not responsible for our crime rate.
Require drug offenders to enter, and comply with, treatment programs as a condition of early release or probation.
This is...what the left wants.
Abolish the policies that ensure such marked income inequality in Democratic strongholds
Like...kill the homeless? Because the idea that local policies are responsible for income inequality is...not well thought out.
Yes, it's classic Sarcastr0 to think liberal policies are better than conservative ones. Because I'm a liberal. How hypocritical of me!
"This is...what the left wants."
George Gascon -- and the people who voted for him and to retain him -- disagree: https://abc7.com/george-gascon-los-angeles-district-attorney-lada-misdemeanor-crimes/8674095/
My county's prosecutor has a similar pro-crime policy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/virginia-misdemeanor-cases-ruling/2021/04/08/f654ad4a-9256-11eb-a74e-1f4cf89fd948_story.html
Oh, so you want both treatment AND criminalization. Of misdemeanors.
Liberals want the treatment bit. But when pushed, turns out for you the criminalization is key. The thing we've been trying without success for ages now.
Think a bit how your double whammy system might actually work. Like, put yourself in someone up for misdemeanor possession under your system.
As is often the case, your tough on crime plan is utterly unrealistic.
The many murders committed by known criminals would certainly be prevented if they'd been executed.
See Table 5, the line for murder.
From the following paragraph: "Fifteen percent of murderers were on probation, 13% were on pretrial release, and 8% were on parole."
That's over a third. Would you agree that people committing a murder while on probation/parole/bond is an indication of the justice system making a mistake with respect to those individuals?
Also see Table 6: 21% of murderers had 10 or more prior arrests, so it's not like there weren't any warning signs. Table 7: 10% had 10 or more prior felony arrests. Table 9: 5% had 5 or more prior felony convictions.
Once convicted of murder, the median sentence was either 20 years (Table 16) or 15ish years (Figure 4). So murder gets you a fairly stiff sentence.
But Table 9 is concerning. Now, I get the 'Three Felonies a Day' argument. That's a concern, but I'm not sure that people who accumulate multiple felony convictions are generally getting convicted of those kinds of things over and over. Just anecdotally, when local ne'er do wells get on the front page, their priors aren't usually reboxing fish, possession of a Blue Jay feather or similar things, they are assault, robbery, and so on.
We know that, generally speaking, criminals age out of violent crime in middle age. When I see a bio where a 27 year old has been arrested for murder and has 12 prior felony convictions, I tend to think that perhaps after the first few felony convictions, we ought to start increasing sentences exponentially, to the point that having a dozen felony convictions would be impossible before you reached middle age.
That reminds me why James Taranto would mock headlines like the ones at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/us/us-mass-incarceration-rate.html and https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/06/wonder-why-prisons-stay-full-when-crime-goes-down-heres-the-real-reason/ .
So you're ignoring the fact that the #1 reason for 2A is self defense.
And it works,
But can we agree that the president and other congressional critters have armed security for defense?
Why is that? Why not make sure that all bad guys are disarmed by sensible "Common Sense" gun control laws?
But whatever we do to restrict private citizens lets do the same for the secret service shall we? Because after all the law should be applied equally, see 14A.
OK.
Let's start by allowing guns in courtrooms, including SCOTUS, and in Congressional galleries and office buildings.
They already have armed security. So what is their to start
And why do we need armed security? And if people in restaurants, malls, schools, churches, and so on are supposed to be safer if there are more "good-guys with guns" around, then why wouldn't those locations be safer also?
What is there to start?
Allow anyone to carry a gun in. I mean, if they decide NYC can't ake it illegal to carry gun on crowded streets, or in the subway, then what the fuck are they doing saying "courts are different?"
A constitutional right is just that
So, do people's constitutional right to carry a gun not count inside a courtroom or while observing the legislature do its job?
OK. But then why abrogate it in a courtroom?
All I'm saying is that for SCOTUS to demand that cities allow open carry of guns everywhere as a constitutional matter then it's bald-faced hypocrisy to ban it in their courtroom, or any other. Hey, as long as Alito is safe why should he give a fuck about anyone else?
And if Mitch McConnell cheers such a decision then let him push to allow it in the Senate galleries.
I'm not sure about the Supreme Court security protocols, but in Washington State the law is that courts may ban guns if and only if the court has guards and metal detectors, and they provide lockers at the security checkpoint for permit holders. I don't think gun owners generally object to such a scheme.
There is some interesting legislative history. Permit holders used to be able to carry in courtrooms. Then one day an estranged husband knew his ?ex?wife would be in court on a given day (divorce hearing? his abuse trial? can't recall). He waited in the parking garage and shot and killed her as she walked from her car to court. I don't believe he was a legal owner.
Anyway, the first reaction of our distinguished solons was to ban guns in courts. Then someone pointed out such a rule wouldn't have helped her, and in fact would have prevented her from protecting herself. It's one thing to say 'people who don't want to be disarmed can just not go to the mall', and another to do the same when they are legally required to go to court at a specific time.
Hence the resulting system - you can protect yourself right up to the security gates, and from there on the guards and metal detectors keep you safe.
How about going at that from the other side? Any place that prohibits legal CCW has to have security checkpoints and metal detectors? If not, then that place has to be held responsible for the safety of the people there.
No specified security, just unlimited liability for any injury by a criminal act that could have been prevented by an armed person.
The very notion that gun violence is a problem in the US seems to be something that the right can't face.
Violence and lack of prosecution and punishment is the problem.
The very notion of 2A seems to be lost on the left. That guns can and are used for self defense.
So the street thugs who shoot up Chicago every week will have guns but the citizens whom they terrorize won't. Yea great plan. What ios your plan by the way?
But that's why we have 2A. Convince 2/3 congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures to revise or repeal and there you go,
The very notion that mental health is the real problem in the US seems to be something that the left can't face.
It's *a* real problem, but saying it's *the* real problem is a telling deflection.
I'd love to be proven wrong, though - lets really invest in mental health and see!
Start with the White House.
Waaaaaaaank
Keep your personal activities to yourself.
"Investing" in mental health is a dishonest description of what you are really proposing, isn't it?
So then why do republicans consistently vote against expanding state funded mental health treatment or expanding Medicaid? Oh and why do some of their most prominent pundits demonize medications and the concept of depression?
Because expanding spending on quackery isn't a good idea.
Imagine being a violent racist like yourself and then thinking anyone will care about what you think is quackery.
Imagining that describing me as a "violent racist" does anything but discredit you is stupidity. Imagining that "quackery" would be an appropriate description of "thinking anyone will care about what you think" merely proves the accuracy of that diagnosis.
You 1) want to execute more people, that is violence. 2) you talk about “violent blacks” and have a track record as a Neo-Confederate/Lost-Causer. That is racist.
“ Imagining that "quackery" would be an appropriate description of "thinking anyone will care about what you think" merely proves the accuracy of that diagnosis.”
This sentence doesn’t make any sense.
This is a white, male, bigot-friendly, right-wing gun nut blog.
That it attracts the fans and comments reflected by this discussion should surprise no one.
The surprising point it that neither the proprietor nor one of the disaffected, conservative fans has used that vile racial slur in this discussion -- at least, not yet.
Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, anyway.
Two things:
1. Most of the shooters would not have been in the mental health system.
2. As soon as conservatives start agitating for improved mental health services, including adequate funding, I'll be happy to support them as, I bet, will most Democrats.
But I don't see it. The right generally fights against government spending on health, including mental health, so the insistence that that's the problem that needs fixing is laughably ill-supported.
Some red states, including Texas, have refused to expand Medicaid.
It's not the left that doesn't want to deal with mental health.
What is the purpose of saying such a stupid thing? To virtue signal to your fellow gun grabbers?
That the right's proposals to ameliorate gun violence are different than yours obviously doesn't mean that they haven't "faced" the problem or that you have.
What does "can’t face" mean in this context?
We don’t throw out the 4th Amendment because it enables murders to happen. Not the 5th, nor the 6th. We obey the law. Why can’t you agree to obey it?
There’s an amendment process if you want to change the constitution. You have to get people to agree though, and we all know you guys prefer underhanded schemes and dogmatic decrees instead of inclusion and government by the people.
Just a price we gotta pay to live in a free society. A price somehow no other country needs to pay.
Well, it's a price of living in a free society. If you don't live in a free society, why would you need to pay it?
...You think every other Western country isn't living in a free society?
Even the US isn't a really free society, but the rest of the West is even less free than America.
Why do you suppose all our economies have slowed down so much? The entire West is suffocating under a heavy blanket of bureaucratic control, of having to get permission before innovating, before doing basically ANYTHING. The internet was an exception for a while, which is why it took off.
Take a look at kit aircraft vs regular civil aviation: A Cesna still looks about the same as it did 40 years ago! The kit aircraft flown under rules that allow people to take chances are lightyears ahead of them. But that's a legislative carve-out from the general miasma of regulation, it wasn't easy to get.
This is a very pinched view of freedom. If your definition means no one in this world is free, maybe it's not a very useful one.
It is also a view that ignores the lessons of the civil rights movements about formal freedom versus operational freedom.
Not sure why you're connecting the inherent good of freedom to an outcome like innovation, but it's not a very good choice of arena for you. America does a *lot* of innovation; I don't think it's viable to argue our tech environment is largely the same it was 40 years ago. Picking one random thing is a recipe for confirmation bias.
With that caution, my counter example would be the supplements market. Largely unregulated, it's become a haven for hucksters, unsafe products, not of innovation except how to fleece people.
If your definition of freedom implies that if everybody were locked in a prison cell, we'd all be free, it's got problems. My definition of "free" is "can do as you like".
"With that caution, my counter example would be the supplements market. Largely unregulated, it's become a haven for hucksters, unsafe products, not of innovation except how to fleece people."
Oh, God, I WISH the supplements market was largely unregulated! Half the stuff I used to be able to get has been taken off the market because it actually works, which results in the FDA calling it a drug.
If your definition of freedom implies that if everybody were locked in a prison cell, we'd all be free, it's got problems.
No one is arguing that.
My definition of "free" is "can do as you like". Not really, though. You ignore economic constraints. And the effect of externalities.
Which makes your freedom is more theoretical than real foir most people.
Technically being able to do something is worthless. Actual choices someone can make are what matters. Your freedom is a freedom of the wealthy and well-represented.
Half the stuff I used to be able to get has been taken off the market because it actually works, which results in the FDA calling it a drug.
Not the narrative I was seeing, so immediately interesting. Like what?
Poland isn’t Norway. Poland can’t decide to be Norway.
The US can’t decide to be some other country either. We can only be the US. Pining for some random thing from some random country isn’t policy and it isn’t thoughtful.
You can’t even make the people on your block or in your building at work into who you want them to be.
He never seems to grapple directly with tragedy or human emotions. Every negative event is some kind of obstacle to be logic-gamed around so he can prove his points.
Some people have enormous, often crippling difficulty with human interactions, common gestures, standard emotions, and social norms. They not only are painfully awkward in many situations but often have difficulty handling change, too.
They tend to favor black-and-white situations and solitary activities, especially computer programming (writing code) or fields heavy on mathematics and detail.
They also tend to aggregate at this blog for some reason.
"Eugene still can't seem to acknowledge the fact that 19 children, ages 9 thru 11, were gunned-down in school."
I'm pretty sure that he not only acknowledged it, but that he said as much when responding to the event.
That he didn't advocate the same responses as you merely proves that he is not as much of an opportunistic gun grabber as you.
What does "grapple with" mean specifically in this context and how are you not completely lying about whether EV or whomever else completed the operation of "grapple with". Please inform us all what you mean.
The whole being soft in crime not feeding the crime rate argument is absurd.
Psychotic mass shooters are a problem but are a tiny fraction of the violent crime in this country.
Basically what happens in Chicago every weekend is a big problem but not discussed much because of demographics. And their DA like others in big blue cities is big on not prosecuting, Social justice is not actual justice.
Thats why this present discussion is so unserious.
And law abiding folks who are forced to deal with violent crime are now told by our idiot president that 9 mm ammo is unnecessary.
To whom? Is his secret service going to down size to 22's?
Since DC lives in the fantasy world of Hollywood, more likely .44 magnum.
(they never heard Dirty Harry utter the line "a man's got to know his limitations")
While the Secret Service will not confirm or deny it is an open secret that they are armed with FN HerstalP90 PDW which are 5.7 rounds or .22 rounds produced in Europe. The P90 was also used in Stargate SG-1 TV show.
I'm still waiting for the hoplophobes to tell me what law they propose that would prevent a significant number of these evil monsters from committing these horrendous acts.
That’s not what they want the laws to do.
Your telepathy has uncovered yet more tyranny once you decode what those dastardly people trying to prevent school shootings truly mean!
Lay off the paranoia; sometimes people mean what they say.
Of course, no one can predict the future. But other countries with fewer guns don't have this.
I'm not sure that means that's what would happen here, but it's not some kind of out-there crazy connection gun control folks are drawing.
Which law makes the US like one of the "countries with fewer guns"? Specifically how does it do that?
Not a gun control guy, but I'd guess sale and permit restrictions would do that over time.
I'd like to see a list of cases where the presence of an armed bystander made the situation worse.
Unlike police, private citizens are usually careful about knowing when to pull a gun, and cognizant of what's beyond their target.
Jack Rubenstein certainly made Lee Harvey Oswald's situation worse.
At this point and for the last several years every school shooting in California could be potentially the responsibility of the governor and legislature. Until roughly 10 years ago a person with a CCW could carry on school grounds. After exactly ZERO cases of anyone with a CCW killing or attempting to kill innocent people on school grounds the legislature and governor prohibited anyone with a CCW carrying on school grounds except with the permission of school officials. Too many school officials in conservative areas allowed people to carry so a couple of years later the legislature and governor took that power away from school officials.
So, I read the list, back through 2018. A striking fact is that during that interval not one mass shooting is alleged to have been stopped by a good guy with a gun. Does that seem peculiar to you? Are you under a different impression? Then you fell for it. I'm surprised EV fell for it. But maybe he is getting cynical, and letting policy biases suppress his critical faculties.
Every, "mass public shooting," the list referred to during that time interval is imaginary, made-up, speculative. None occurred, and was stopped in process by a good guy with a gun. Not one.
In a notable number of incidents, shooters are said to have been, "firing into the crowd," or something like that. But with no one even wounded, except the shooter. No one appears to wonder how that could happen, or if it means the shooter was actually aiming somewhere else.
There seem to be more incidents with zero innocent fatalities than with even one innocent fatality. Listed incidents are commonplace with no innocents even wounded. But each incident rates speculative mention as a potential mass shooting. The listing method treats third-party speculation as especially probative.
In short, no matter what the headline says, this is just a list of incidents where a good guy with a gun used it to stop someone from shooting someone else—sometimes during incidents when there was an earnest effort to shoot people, sometimes not. But not once so deadly earnest that many people were killed.
Action to stop illegal shootings is laudable, and a point in favor of carrying guns. But all the pumped-up conclusions beyond that are empty speculation.
Shorter, more honest, Lathrop: Armed citizens are effective at preventing masses of people from getting shot in the first place.
'Shorter, more honest, Lathrop.' This has never existed nor occurred.
In other words, mass shooting incidents that were prevented before innocents were shot don’t count because no innocents killed means it wasn’t a mass shooting. Innocents alive and healthy literally don’t count.
". . . that were prevented," is the subject for debate. You are not debating it, you are assuming it.
Use EV's first ten examples from the list (have you read them through?) Show how each of them distinguishes itself by unusually violent potential to escalate to mass killings. To be persuasive, evidence you offer has to be of a kind which could not be applied likewise to every other shooting incident.
Good luck.
"A man fired from a south central Nebraska grain complex Thursday returned to the facility and started shooting at his former colleagues killing two, and injuring another according to the Nebraska State Patrol.
The gunman, identified as Max Hoskinson, 61, was shot and killed by another employee of the Agrex facility in Superior, Nebraska. . . .
According to investigators, Hoskinson returned to Agrex shortly before 2:00 p.m. and opened fire with a handgun. He was stopped by someone who used a shotgun stored in the Agrex office to shoot the gunman. . . ."
Fired dude returns with a gun and starts shooting, kills two, wounds one, only stops when hit by a shotgun....nope, no hint of a mass shooting there! I mean, we've never heard of mass shootings with that fact pattern!
Hoo boy.
Absaroka, what distinguishes that fact pattern from other similar patterns: fired dude returns with a gun, and shoots 1, then stops; or shoots 2, and then stops; or shoots 3 and then stops? It is as if you think killers never stop on their own.
In fact, killers almost always stop on their own, and usually after only 1 or a few casualties. With regard to angry revenge killings, that is, by far, the dominant fact pattern, not an imaginative one which says, "These 10 would likely go on to become mass killings."
Do you really join with EV, who seems willing to put 10 bets on the longest of long-shots, and suggest they all may pay off? You must know that it is far more likely that among 10 such bets, none will pay off.
But no matter what you know, you want that bogus OP headline to be true, so you assume it is true. How many of the list items did you critique from the original sources, before you cherry picked that one as the best you could find? If you did go to the original sources, you must have noticed ambiguities reported by investigators which did not make it through Lott's paraphrases. In some of those original source reports, it is not clear that some casualties were actually the work of the criminal shooter. Some might have resulted from police fire, or from bystanders responding to a firing incident with their own guns. Investigators expressed uncertainty about the sources of some casualties. Lott's summaries seem to avoid mention of that, even while he links to sources which are ambiguous, and might contradict him if the facts were known.
I did go to the original sources - the Nebraska State Police in that case. The shooter was fired, left for a while, returned and started shooting coworkers. He went from the office where he killed the first one and was trying to break into a conference room containing more coworkers. Two of them were trying to hold the door shut, and one was killed and one wounded when the shooter fired through the door. While that was going on, one of the employees in the conference room retrieved a shotgun that the elevator kept for pest control, and as the killer forced the door and entered the conference room, the guy with the shotgun fired and stopped the attack.
You went to the primary sources, right, so you know these facts?
You picked this incident as an example that doesn't exemplify the fact pattern of a mass shooting. Pull the other leg.
Are you really saying that since none of the listed incidents had mass casualties that no mass casualty incidents were stopped?
Also, from the OP: 'Naturally, it's also hard to tell how the incident would have played out had the defender not interceded;"
Are you really saying that since none of the listed incidents had mass casualties that no mass casualty incidents were stopped?
That is what I am saying.
On what reasonable basis does anyone conclude that an ordinary shooting incident, with few or no casualties—like thousands and thousands of other shooting incidents—was somehow predestined to become far worse? Speculation is not proof. What presumption justifies a notion that a few specific ordinary-looking shootings were somehow destined to match extraordinary mass-casualty incidents which occur, at most, in low double-digit numbers per year nationwide?
Note also, the point of the OP's advocacy is that arming everyone will, for instance, prevent mass killings in schools. What that leaves from consideration is the possibility that those horrific statistical exceptions may be distinguished by malign faculties particular to those shooters, and rarely found in others.
The killers at Sandy Hook, Parkman, and Uvalde demonstrated a faculty for cruelty and remorseless execution which is thankfully rare among humans. Even criminals who intend mass murder may, and probably often do, shrink from that intent after they kill initially, and see what that looks like, and feels like.
For normal humans, that makes even an ambition for notoriety potentially self-limiting. Some of the incidents on the list cited in the OP—the most threatening-looking incidents in fact—could by their descriptions be examples of that routine self-limitation of a previously more-deadly ambition.
A good guy with a gun may deserve congratulations for courage. He cannot really be said to have stopped a killing spree which was in process of stopping itself. Most gun killings, the overwhelming majority, are self-limited by the shooter to one victim or to a few. That is true whether or not anyone else intervenes. That is the normal course. Unsurprisingly, some incidents on the list look like that happened, even before the good guy took command. Many other listed incidents look like even that level of threat was never in evidence.
With that said, do not forget the part about especially malign faculties among the worst shooting cases. Those shooters may by their exceptional planning, target selection, choice of arms, and heinously perverted purpose and killing talents be in fact much harder to stop than the others. If the advocacy is that arming good guys will serve fortuitously to stop shooters of that sort, then proof for it must include evidence that it was an incident of that sort which was fortuitously stopped. At the least, you need to show a lot of victims, with still more under threat, at the moment the good guy puts an end to it.
We have seen occasional evidence that good guys with guns, and even some unarmed good guys with nothing but extraordinary courage, have tried, and paid with their lives. By contrast, we have seen all-too-common evidence that human frailty is typically not a match for such deadly emergency, not even when armed and armored, present in overwhelming force, and tasked for heroics. That chastening evidence cannot be ignored.
We have yet to see much evidence, or maybe not any, that the hypothetically intrepid and fortuitously armed good guy has ever stopped such a determined and malignant adversary in mid-spree. Perhaps it will happen someday. Some successful law enforcement actions, using snipers, for instance, show it could happen. But mostly such attempts are too hard to set up, and too slow to respond to do much good. That is why suicide by the shooter is such a common outcome.
Even with an exceptional example or two to prove the good guy with a gun concept, that would hardly be a sufficient pointer toward workable policy, for instance, to arm teachers to make schools safe. The commonplace hazards from that policy, played out over years, and multiplied by the millions of teachers equipped with inevitably average gun management diligence, plus the usual complement of human frailties, point to danger created by the policy itself.
Carried guns get left in washrooms for students to find. Students see guns, and track where they are kept. Teachers, no less than others, suffer personal shortcomings. Like everyone else, teachers fall at times into disorganized lives; they manifest mental instability; or experience paranoia; suffer cognitive decline; become alcoholics; struggle with interpersonal conflicts outside school, which may not stay outside; and show other faults which impair a gun management task which must work essentially perfectly to remain safe in a school setting.
Above all, teachers, no less than anyone else, are occasionally careless, and omit to mange everyday tasks—such as safe gun management—which require their attention. Each teacher among millions shares those vulnerabilities. Thus, compared to any statistical rarities it could ever hope to stop, a policy to arm teachers threatens by statistical omnipresence increased danger in schools.
Just a lot of stupid.
Won’t matter. Can’t get credit with social circles unless CNN and Twitter blue checks care.
Lives saved without fanfare are worthless to people looking for social-climbing credit points.
Why the repeated reference to the caliber of the handguns carried by both the late shooter, and the armed citizen. 9MM handguns, usually pistols, are not the least unusual. There are revolvers so chambered also, though less common. I wonder as to the following. If both shooters had been armed with 38 caliber revolvers, would there have been repeated mention thereof.
Sirhan Sirhan killed RFK with a 22 Revolver, John Hinkely almost did the same with Ronaldus Maximus in 1981 (how this repulsive POS was let out of the Looney Bin is beyond me, ask Jody Foster if she should be allowed an "Assault Weapon" or at least a 9mm)
One thing I like about "Red" China (I still call them "Red" China)
they'd have solved Hinkely's Mental Problems with a 7.62 x 25 (not a misprint, it's a Com-block Pistol round) to his Medulla Oblongata (not the Frontal Cortex, there's a difference, specifically, when you're executing somebody, you don't care about their potential future Higher level reasoning, you're just wanting to take out the respiratory/cardiac centers, and if it just happens to get the Cardiac Accelerator Nerves, so much the better)
Frank
Reporters and gun control advocates are almost perfectly ignorant about anything to do with guns. Guns and gun owners are the other and they want controls on people who are not like them.
The caliber and the rest of that is just repeating what they heard on CNN or whatever other leftist outlet said. All the words about guns mean bogeyman. A 9MM handgun is a bogeyman gun. An AR15 is another bogeyman gun. And etc. with all the rest.
Ben_ — As someone better informed about guns, please list some of the reasons a shooter might prefer a 9MM Glock to a .38 special revolver. Likewise for an AR-style .223 semi-automatic rifle, vs. a bolt action .30-06.
Of course I expect you to avoid bogeyman distinctions, and stick to mention of performance comparisons among the types, and their significance for killing people. Include all the points you can think of, so we know your scorn for the less informed is fully justified.
Ammo is cheaper, not as heavy, and easier to find for one calibre versus another. That’s one important reason.
An AR-a style rifle is a very well-designed weapon. They are the most popular rifle in the US. If you want any kind of customization or variation, it's likely to be available for an AR-style rifle.
There you go. Those are some of the considerations. If you care to know more then do some Google searches.
A gun is like any other equipment. There are practical decisions for purchasers and users. Are you surprised that people who are not like you make practical decisions about what they do?
I asked specifically that you compare the relative strengths of those weapons for killing people. You failed to answer. I take that to mean I have enough knowledge about guns to figure out questions you are embarrassed to answer.
Try to be forthright. Can you do that?
Would these attempted shootings have happened if guns were harder to get? That question should be part of the equation. The question isn't what happened in any one case, it's what happens on balance. The clear reality is that many places have fewer shootings: UK, Australia, Canada. There's something they're doing right, that we aren't doing -- discuss.
Hmm, questioner7, "The clear reality is that many places have fewer shootings UK, Australia, Canada"
"There's something they're doing right, that we aren't doing -- discuss.
Hey, I'm a Doctor, I don't "do" Discussion Questions, I like numbers, Anion Gaps, pH, PR intervals,
But one thing right off the bat,
Population US 2022 334,000,000
Populations UK, Australia, Canada, 2022, 133,000,000
That's part of it, the other is,
Have you ever been to the UK, Austalia, Canada???
There's a particular Demographic Difference from the US of A that might account for the disparity, I'd agree with making some things "Harder to Get" (Cheap Immigrant Labor) but it might not be the answer you want me to (give you) (HT Fleetwood Mac)
Frank
To those who think gun control will solve mass shootings, address this:
https://kfor.com/news/disturbing-video-man-goes-on-killing-spree-with-bow-and-arrow-and-knives/
Oh come on, Matthew. Be serious.
What is the rate of mass archery killings?
Who cares? He comes with arrows I want ti have my handgun
Couple of years ago I was sailing in the Keys and met a girl from Sweden who wound up filling the position of admiral on my boat. Liked her so much I took her home with me to my condo.
She was shocked and said the walk in closet in my bedroom was bigger than her apartment in Sweden. She was also shocked by how many clothes I had in my closed as well as having a big screen TV in the living room, a smaller flat screen in my bedroom, and a middle size flat screen in the den.
Point is even someone like me who is mostly a regular guy has a lot more stuff than most folks in the EU or the rest of the world. In fact the US really is the richest country in the world and has bigger houses/condos, more TVs. More to the point of this thread more guns, hope that is not too big a shock to the libtards.
No, America does not have more guns because we have more space.
He didn't say that. He said that it's at least partly because we're wealthier than those other countries.
Guns are an expensive luxury good, for the most part, and there are only 4 countries in the world where the median income is higher than the US. (Luxembourg, UAE, Norway, and Switzerland.)
I think Americans, for the most part, simply aren't aware that we're, by global standards, some of the wealthiest people in the world.
This is not a well-supported causal connection.
It may or may not be, but it is at least what Ragebot was talking about, not "space".
His metric for wealth is half about size of our houses, except those are cheaper because of all the space we have.
But since his case is unsupported either way, not sure it matters.
But since his case is unsupported...
Well, not if one is relying on your bullshit straw man of it, anyway.
No, America does not have more guns because we have more space.
Then it's a good thing he never said anything like that...you lysing sack of shit.
Why, without those we would have had 703 mass shootings in 2021 instead of the 693 we had. Proof that the answer to mass shootings is more guns.
...That the #1 mass shooting capital of the world is also the #1 "potential mass shooters stopped by civilians" capital of the world probably shouldn't be a surprise.
And it probably isn't the "win" you think it is.