Don't ban guns - ban the violence and illustrate the symptoms leading up to it

[Taverner]

If you look at Loughner's last week - his last month - even his last 24 hours before the assassination, you will find acts that would have been a dead giveaway. He did the kinds of things someone who was about to go on a killing spree would do.

We need to illustrate this and make this kind of pattern visible. We also need to find a litmus test for this sort of thing.

I am not sure what needs to happen, but banning a specific, easy to go around, type of magazine will do nothing.

[Lint Head]

1. Ban war!

[Kolesar]

2. "make this kind of pattern visible"

In the short term, order more gauze and rubber bags.

[Taverner]

3. Thing is banning guns, or any kind of magazine, or any other arrangement of molecules will not work

[bluerum]

14. But banning behavior will work?

[sharesunited]

4. Crazy is a right. Guns and ammo aren't.

[Katya Mullethov]

16. lol

You would vote your job , of course you would .

[TPaine7]

19. Just like having bullets enter your body?

You have a unique take on rights. Please don't (or stop, as the case may be) exercising your unique rights.

[sharesunited]

20. Don't get that one backwards. It's the right NOT to have bullets enter your body.

[Atypical Liberal]

23. This is incorrect by current law.

By current settled Constitutional law, "guns and ammo" are an individual right that cannot be abrogated by the States.

[sharesunited]

48. With limitations which include what is in popular use.

To what extent does government have the right to influence what weaponry is allowed in popular use?

Stay tuned for further adjudication!

[DrDan]

5. why would anyone need the ability to shoot 33 rounds without interuption

ban 'em

[Taverner]

6. And the end result is exactly what?

[X_Digger]

13. 'anyone'? Police, too?

You do realize that a more accurate restatement of your question would be (in light of Rep 'the-shoulder-thing-that-goes-up' McCarthy's legislation) would be:

"why would anyone need the ability to shoot 11 rounds without interruption"

Right?

Let's ask the homeowner facing the third assailant in a violent home invasion.

Let's ask the GLBT man facing a pack of homophobes with baseball bats and tire irons.

Let's ask the African American man facing a truckload of redneck racists on a lonely country road.


But, that's beside the point.

It's not up to me to have to justify anything. It's up to you to justify why a particular restriction will have a demonstrable, measurable positive result, and then we can compare those advantages to the above kinds of situations.

[DrDan]

22. fine - who needs the ability to fire more than 11 rounds without interuption

(of course, police and military excluded - geez)

Let's ask the 12th-19th person shot last Saturday. No conjecture with that - 19 shot.

[X_Digger]

25. What makes you think the same people would have been in the same spot..

.. had Loughner reloaded sooner? Were the people who tackled him in position to do so at round #12?

[DrDan]

26. fact is they tackled him as he reloaded - no conjecture

[X_Digger]

29. My point stands, and you didn't address it.

Would the people who tackled him have been in the same position to do so after 11 rounds?

[DrDan]

31. I am not going to play that game - fact is - he was tackled as he reloaded

no conjecture - no guesses - no "what if . . . . "

[X_Digger]

34. Of course, you're engaging in 'what if'..

But, only YOUR 'what if' should be assumed as fact, right?

If there were nobody in a position to tackle him in the 1.5 seconds that it would have taken to reload a 10 round magazine, the point is moot.

[DrDan]

35. the facts are simple - he was tackled while reloading - simple

no "If there were nobody . . .. "

tackled while reloading.

[X_Digger]

36. You said..

"Let's ask the 12th-19th person shot last Saturday."

With the unstated assumption that the outcome would have been different had Loughner used a 10 round magazine. You are engaging in a 'what if' whether you'll admit to it or not.

In order for your 'what if' to stand up to scrutiny, you'd have to know if anyone were as close to him when he hit the 12th person as when he was reloading. If there wasn't anyone close enough, then the point is moot. It wouldn't have saved those shot by round 12-19. It might have meant a different person was shot, assuming people's positions changed in that 1.5 seconds.

You're also assuming that Loughner would have not changed tactics, had he been limited to 10 rounds. He purchased a second gun the same day he purchased the glock 19. Just as Cho did at VT, or Hennard did at Luby's, he could have kept the crowd covered with one while reloading the other.

'the facts are simple' -- yes, they are. So is your conjecture. To assume that by just tweaking just one thing, the outcome would have been better is asinine. To assume that a shooter can't or won't adapt tactics to suit the situation at hand is naive and dangerous.

[DrDan]

39. spin it any way you like - the fact is he was tackled while reloading

[NewMoonTherian]

18. I feel I may need that ability in the future.

Keep'em.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Very_Boring_Name]

7. Nah, ban guns

[Taverner]

8. And exactly what would be the goal of this?

[Very_Boring_Name]

11. Less shootings? Jared Lee Loughner wouldn't have had access to one, for example

nor would the virginia tech shooter.

[Edweird]

17. Obviously. Look at Mexico - strictest gun laws in the world. Clearly effective. Vermont,

on the other hand, with it's lax gun laws is knee deep in death. It couldn't be any clearer how effective gun bans are....

[DrDan]

27. Mexico gets their guns from the U.S. - estimated 60K guns crossed

the border in the past few years - due to lax gun laws here.

[shadowrider]

28. You are, of course, including those weapons sold to Mexico by the U.S. Gov't

which have been stolen by cartels, crooked cops, crooked federales, crooked politicians etc., right?

[DrDan]

30. 60,000 due to lax gun laws in the U.S.. . . . 60.000

and that is just the number that have been recovered

[X_Digger]

32. Let me guess.. you got that number from wapo.. who doesn't source it..

When you look for a source, you find this GAO report-

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09781t.pdf

Adding up the numbers from 2007 and 2008, you get a total of- 9,760. If you add in 2009's 4,449 (http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/issue_brief_mexico_2010.pdf) you get 14,209. -- not 60,000

Now if we compare to Calderon's own statement before congress-

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/05/mexican_president_challenges_c.html

Just to give you an idea, we have seized 75,000 guns and assault weapons in Mexico in the last three years. And more than 80 percent of those we have been able to trace came from the United States — from the United States.

You see what wapo did? 80% of 75,000 is ... 60,000. Wapo assumed that all 75,000 were sent to the atf to be traced and came up as of US origin.

According to congressional testimony by ATF management, that's not possible..

http://www.atf.gov/press/speech/2009/032409_newell-testimony.htm

http://www.atf.gov/press/speech/2009/031709ad-hoover-doj-testimony.pdf

Doesn't stop wapo from spreading this shit around..

[DrDan]

33. 60,000 - spin it any way you like . . . .

[X_Digger]

38. Where'd you get the number, eh?

Please cite the source.

[Edweird]

37. So you admit that gun laws don't work? It's against the law to own those guns in Mexico.

[DrDan]

40. so it is your claim to just throw out all gun laws . . . . because of the ease at which

guns can be purchased on the U.S.

[shadowrider]

41. NO responsible gun owner on this forum has EVER suggested

throwing out all gun laws.

You're engaging in unsubstantiated hyperbole from the most fringe perspective.

[DrDan]

42. "So you admit gun laws don't work" . . . . show me where I said that

quit making up bogus claims.

[shadowrider]

43. I didn't say you said that. It's a strawman. What I said was

NO responsible gun owner on this forum has EVER suggested

throwing out all gun laws.

As a response to what YOU said:

so it is your claim to just throw out all gun laws . . . . because of the ease at which

guns can be purchased on the U.S.

[Edweird]

44. Nope. Only that the strict gun control laws in Mexico are an obvious abysmal failure.

All gun grabbers have are excuses for the failures. Either the laws work, or they don't. It's clear that they don't. All they do is create an armed criminal population with an unarmed citizenry. That makes me question what side of the law the gun grabbers are actually on.

[DrDan]

45. when 60,000 guns come across the border from the U.S.'s lax environment, it

no wonder their laws lack effectiveness

[Edweird]

46. Either the laws work or they don't. It's as simple as that.

The US is close to Mexico, but if you believe that the US is the only place guns can be bought, you are sadly mistaken. Even if every gun in the US was seized and smelted into scrap, guns would still be flowing into Mexico. It would happen for the same reason you can't blame Columbia for our drug problem or Germany for the fact the people speed. Again, all you have are lame EXCUSES, which BTW bear a striking resemblance to RW'ers pitch for tax cuts. "The tax cuts didn't stimulate the economy and create jobs because they didn't go far enough".

The really bad guys in Mexico have military weapons - those aren't coming from gun shows or strawman purchases.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spanone]

9. what kind of pattern? ...crazy follows no pattern.

[Taverner]

10. There is always a pattern

[spanone]

12. here's a pattern. 10 bullets in the clip and he's tackled reloading instead of 30 some shots

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. Like the Virginia Tech shooter was? Oh, wait, he wasn't...

If Loughner had taken the second gun he owned, and used only ca. 10 round magazines like Cho did, he might have killed even more

people.

[east texas lib]

21. Correct!

Usually it involves years of lesser 'incidents' glossed over or ignored by parents, friends, co-workers, acquaintances and/or law enforcement agencies until one day the eruption occurs. Then there is much 'surprise', finger-pointing, blame shifting and the oh so inevitable political gamesmanship.

[Atypical Liberal]

24. But how do we do it?

Look, I also would like to see these people with obvious warning signs, after the fact, have been prevented from obtaining firearms.

But how do you do it without A) violating the due process of law and B) creating a registry of firearm owners?

Right now, people who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution are prohibited from possessing firearms.

Now, we could either create more opportunities for this to happen, by requiring, or at least offering more mental health screening, or you could make it a law so that in order to possess firearms you would have to undergo a mental evaluation. But if you do this, you create a de facto registry of firearm owners, which significantly undermines the ability of the people to serve as a counter to federal military power, as is the intent of the second amendment.

Personally, I think what is needed is more access to health care in this country. If it did not cost people a fortune to go to the doctor then hopefully more people would go. But, if people knew there was a possibility of being labeled as mentally incompetent or being involuntarily committed to an institution, there is the possibility that a lot of people would be afraid to go to the doctor.

It was not so long ago in this country that people were routinely institutionalized that were not even mentally ill. Perhaps their parents though they were too promiscuous. Here is an article that Google turned up:

http://www.mentalhealthstigma.com/thepsychwars.html

I'm afraid of the unintended consequences of making it easier to declare people mentally ill.