Lessons We Should Learn from Rep. Gifford's Shooting

I do think that banning magazines of that capacity for handguns would be appropriate. You just don't need 30 shots in a pistol. Not for anything.

I've also toyed with the idea of making a year or two of military service compulsory, and not just for men. This would guarantee firearms training in a controlled environment, as well as a good psychological screening environment. Of course, that'd also run the risk of training our gang-bangers and wife-beaters, and I imagine it would cost a fortune.

I do disagree with your statement about 'this kind of violence', though. Because 'this kind of violence' wasn't 'gun violence'. This wasn't a gang shooting. It wasn't an abusive husband. It wasn't kid's playing with daddy's toys. I'll agree we may well have more of all of the above as it concerns guns, and possibly in general (though I'd like statistics for gang violence). It was a homicidal madman. I don't know for certain, but I doubt we get more homicidal madmen on a pro-rata basis. One thing that I've pointed out to others is that the gun, while it defined the nature of the crime, wasn't the most dangerous tool he could have chosen. He could have used a bomb. He could have used an SUV. In places that have much tighter gun control, madmen have. They have also used knives and swords. Hell, they've used those tools in the US even when guns were available.

I'm not trying to say that guns in the hands of madmen aren't bad, but I want to show that this type of thing is categorically different, and that in this type of scenario, the outcome is generally very bad no matter what type of weapon is used.

 

So I guess you find yourself amusing? That makes two of us.

Yes, I'm sure YOU would. Except that is not correct. I agreed with the other parts of your post. You just didn't like what I had to say. I suggest you just get over it and move on so we can continue the real debate.

So now you think it is necessary for you to insult the lawyers on our board as well? While insisting you are "reasonable?" But I'm sure in your own mind you are reasonable. Yet, it's probably true that most everyone believes that of themselves. It kind of goes without saying.

The problem here is that it CAN be a solution. Other countries have restrictions that we don't have and they don't have the gun violence that we have, as DMC has already pointed out. Now you may be right. But we won't know for certain until we at least try to put some common sense restrictions on guns. The thing is in the countries that have tough restrictions, they have tough penalties for breaking those restrictions.

I gave you the example back of drugs. You don't know how many people don't use drugs because of the laws, just as we know there are people who use drugs despite the laws. And if we can cut down on the violence, even if we can't stop it completely it is still a big win. If we save the life of one child, or citizen, it is worth it, IMO.

It can be PART of a solution. Thinking only in absolute terms is self-defeating, as some have already suggested to you.

 

Actually, I guess it is somewhat amusing that I’m taking part in the conversation, sure. I’ve expressed on a couple of occasions my opinions about the inanity of some of the debates that occur here, and I generally slip out before I let myself get into a 5 page dialogue that ends up being less about the topic at hand then about always trying to appear that you have the upper hand in the discussion. It’s not that I can’t engage in such a debate, but that I generally don’t feel it’s worth my time. It was you who took the time to explain that “this is just how we roll in the Alleys” (paraphrasing, of course). And even though you said some things about me that weren’t overly complimentary in that particular post, I let it all slide, and laughed it up.

For you, on this fine day, I’m making an exception and "rolling the Alley way". Feel honored.

Honestly, I’m not bothered by what you had to say. You never disagreed with anything I said, you just acted like you disagreed (what I referred to as violently agreeing).

Again, all you really did was agree with me, so what is it you think I need to get over? I merely pointed out, once you explained your intention, that your original post wasn’t a clear reflection of that intention. I still feel that way. If you do not, then on this we differ.

Now then, if you’re concerned with continuing the real debate, why did you even bother to post this reply? More Alley etiquette mayhap? Never let the other guy get the last word?

Why are you trying to twist this into an insult, and when did I call out the lawyers “on these boards”? In my job I constantly work closely with lawyers and there are many of those I consider to be friends. In my experience the most effective lawyers are those who are the most unreasonable. They push and push and push until they get their way, until they win. They maintain their composure and remain professional, but underneath that they are barracudas.

That said, my personal philosophy about lawyers (not the people mind you, but the role) is that the quality of my day is inversely proportional to the number of lawyers I’m dealing with. Now THAT might be insult worthy, but that’s not how I intend it. I work in a technology support role and lawyers regularly make my life hell (as well they should, because their job is to make sure I don’t open my company to risk). A good lawyer gets my highest respect even if occasionally I want to claw his or her eyes out. I’ve said as much to many a lawyer. None of them have gotten offended by it before.

Anyhow, I’ll agree to stop talking about your post if you will.

Call me a pessimist if you like. I consider myself a realist in this case. There aren’t many countries out there with 300 million people in them, and we’re just way too big to control everyone. Minimize the number of occurrences? Sure, I believe we can do that. Stop them from happening altogether (i.e. solving the problem)… well, I don’t see it happening in our lifetime.

I agree completely on this point.

PART of a solution and THE solution are 2 completely different things. My engine is part of my car, but it is not my car. A solution SOLVES a problem. Minimizing tragedies is indeed part of a solution, but the solution is that thing or collection of things that result in the problem actually being fixed. I'm really just speaking to the dictionary definition of the word "solution" more than I am being a defeatist, as I already clarified. Or in my mind, being reasonable.

 

China comes to mind. That may not be the best example, but over there it is a matter of "control." India is interesting because they are really tough on guns, and they don't have much gun violence, but they have a black market in guns. But don't get caught with one in those countries.

Nope. It's not a matter of the last word, but the best words.

It wasn't my intention to be insulting, only that the Alley can be, well, a strange place, especially if you begin to get that personal and question motives. Baronius was only arguing his points and defending them vigorously. That is perfectly acceptable in the Alleys and a large part of what goes on here. The problem for me was that I like both you and Baronius, but you were especially hard on him. Still, I wasn't trying to be insulting towards you, at least not much. Also, the mods will put the hammer down if things go too far. But mostly they give us a bit of freedom.

Wearing seatbelts in a car may or may not prevent you from being killed, but they are PART of a safety solution. And people still put them on, or at least smart people do.

 

Agreed that those are the ones to look at, but the cultures are so different that the comparisons certainly aren't 1 to 1. We're huge, and are obnoxious about our freedoms. That creates a dynamic that, I think, is significantly different than China and India.

Ha! And who gets to determine that. Answer: everyone who posts here.

For what it's worth, I wasn't insulted. I enjoyed your post. And, I think I needed to hear it. I guess I was hard on him, but my intentions were at least noble (in my mind, that is). As he as called me out on more than once, I am yet just another opinionated American who thinks he has the answers for other people's problems. I have *mostly* stopped trying to influence him to jump out of the frying pan, since he clearly enjoys being there.

I agree with this. When I claim that something is part of a solution I don't mean that it's not worth doing. I put my seat belt on, and I make DAMN sure my kids do. I have already said that tighter restrictions on purchasing guns is a good thing. It won't solve the larger problem, but I believe it will help.

 

Yes! I just thought that was one of the basic personality traits any would-be lawyer must demonstrate before being accepted into law school?

 

What does the size of the country have to do with implementing a possible solution? Especially in a Federal System, like the US has, where the task can be divided easily down in to more manageable levels. The EU has 500 million people in it, yet many countries there are able to control gun usage much better - and before anyone says it, I know the EU is not one country, but people have the freedom to move from one EU state to another (with limits) just as they do with the US federal states.

 

There aren't many countries completely free of mad mass-murders in their history, regardless of size. Even high control nations like China have their mass-stabbings or occasional loon who manages to get a gun. There was a string of them earlier this year, with men charcing into elementary schools with knives, swords, or kerosene. I don't know what exactly sparked those, but I'll bet at least a few were psychotic.

The size comes down to the realization that you can never rule out the possibility. Thus, you can only have a % chance that something occurs, a % chance that someone misses something, a % chance that something goes wrong. The more people you have, the more chances that one of them will be crazy and want to kill people, thus the more chances that someone will miss something. It applies the same way to length of time. If you ran a country forever, for eternity, I think we can all agree that it would be impossible for you to prevent a madman going on a killing spree forever. Sooner or later, it would happen. But we can work to make sure it's later rather than sooner.

 

It appears that gun crime is most rampant where the most guns are available. It would probably help lower that when you keep guns out of the hands of the unhinged. Considering that the second amendment is cherished and anchored in the constitution, it will not go away, never mind how good or detrimental its consequences nowadays are. America will not implement a policy based on rational debate about empirical data and effects. This is ideological. So the solution will be probably something like background checks, and (hopefully) mandatory gun training, and a system that flags folks with mental disorders (which will be difficult to implement considering doctor-patient confidentiality).

Re 'clip' (that you insert into the magazine that is fixed within the gun) - that's the wrong term - it is (interchangeable) magazine. Get the two terms wrong and it becomes apparent you don't know anything about guns. Gun folks will not take you serious. That has practical consequences for a discussion.

For most 9mm handguns 15 rounds is about standard. The US Army stadard side arm Beretta 92 has 15 rounds. The first Glock, model 17, had a magazine size of 17 rounds, add one round in the chamber that makes 18. The gun the shooter used, iirc a Glock 19, has 15 rounds.

What the shooter used was a Glock with an extended magazine, which allowed him to spray out about 30 to 34 rounds without having to reload. I had less magazine capacity on the Uzi I used in the army. It's a lot of firepower, and only very short of a submachine gun (which you don't fire on full auto anyway), and the relatively lower firing rate only increases relative accuracy. It begs the question why something like that is necessary for either recreation or self defence. If it is necessary for recreation, the broad liberty oriented view so expressed would probably compell one to legalise marijuana and opium as well.

 

I don't think I agree with you on what a 'rational' debate would look like. I agree that the idea of limiting who can get guns (beyond the unstable/criminal) isn't likely to come up, but that's not because people aren't being rational. It's because people (or, at least, the experts) rationally realize that that would run the risk of creating it's own problems. Also, doctor-patient confidentiallity shouldn't be too much of a problem for this. You're almost certainly talking about a court ruling, which means the court could order their own mental evaluation in order to inform that ruling, which means they don't have to worry about confidentiality.

Actually, the two are interchangable terms these days. One may be the official technical term (and I'm not even sure about that), but the gun folks I know call them clips regularly. So, apparently, do at least some providers.

The simple answer is that it isn't, and hopefully that'll be noted. If you're simply shooting for fun, you can take the time to reload. Really, you can. If you're trying to defend your house from intruders, 10-15 rounds should be enough. If not, you need to visit the range more, and another 15-20 rounds probably won't help you much.

 

That is long gone, thanks to health insurance companies. Your doctor and you must now turn over all your info to third parties, and in fact I had to sign a disclaimer that he could do just that, but which was a bit disguised as standard insurance "fine print" at my doctor's office. None of that is confidential, except from probably what you suggest, the "all-powerful, tyrannical government."

 

It's sloppy language. No excuses.

 

Clip may be sloppy but it's an accepted term that's been used in the US for over 30 years. I've even heard Marines use clip and magazine interchangable with pistols.

 

Oh, that is so depressing.

 

That's language, Ragusa. It changes. I'm sorry.

 

It is good that you apologise since it is probably your fault

 

Language change should not be depressing! It is invigorating and bracing and makes life worth living. Viva la differance en langue!

 

Not necessarily. Sometimes languages just devolves and loses first clarity and nuance (in that distinctly vague, kinda like sort-of-ish way) and then meaning. And that is depressing. Demise. Decline. The horror!

You see, I took the tram today and was listening to my co-commuters ... but no worries, I drink minestrone currently, not booze.