Google+ Followers

Blog Catalog

Monday, June 9, 2014

The American Slaughter

Here we go again, America. It happened again, just yesterday:

So 20 children--innocent, grade school children--were slaughtered, assassinated, in mere moments all that long ago and what did we do? What did America do?

Not a damn thing.

Changed nothing. Zip. Zilch.

In the meantime, between then and now, more shootings, more killings, more assassinations of innocents. College campuses, more children, all kinds. Heck, even a member of the House of Representatives.

And while so many think this is either okay apparently or just not that bad or wrong or repugnant, let's never lose sight of this:

No other civilized, industrialized, educated, First World nation in the world lives or has incidents like this, let alone repeated ones, the way we in our country, here in the US does.

It is shameful.  It is irresponsible. It is, in fact, repugnant.

And that we have done nothing, to date, and that we continue to do nothing whatever about this is an obscenity and additional tragedy.

Face it, gun freaks, we're never taking your guns.

We know that. You should know that but the fear helps you whip up more frenzy and gun purchases, doesn't it?

But losing more and more of your fellow Americans--innocents, in this case, police officers--concerns you not a whit?

Work with us, for Christ's sake, for anything and everything that's good, work with us. For the good of America and for the safety of most Americans, let's reign in the weapons just a bit. There's only three things we really need to do. They are:

1) Do a background check on ALL for-profit purchases, including gun shows, for criminal history;

2) Do the same for mental stability and finally,

3) Put a top limit, per clip of 10 shots to any and all weapons, nationwide, starting now. You'd still have your weapons and we'd have a smidgen of restraint.

It's not complicated. It's very possible. They'd be effective, they'd be helpful and they'd be productive.

They'd be for the good of the nation and for the people.

Lots of data here:  Homicide | Harvard Injury Control Research Center


Anonymous said...

"1) Do a background check on ALL for-profit purchases, including gun shows, for criminal history;

2) Do the same for mental stability and finally,

3) Put a top limit, per clip of 10 shots to any and all weapons, nationwide, starting now. You'd still have your weapons and we'd have a smidgen of restraint."

Guess what? We already have all that, and more in NYS. And guess what, it hasn't made a damn bit of difference, except to inconvenience law abiding citizens...

Sevesteen said...

1. What do you mean by "for profit purchases"? How are gun shows different than anywhere else?

1a: If you want background checks, use a form that can't be turned into registration--allow a firearms owner ID card or concealed carry license to buy without a check, as long as there's a background check with the license.

2. Recently laws have been proposed that would allow family and friends to report someone as unstable which would cause an immediate ban on that person having guns. Is that what you are talking about? What mental health issues would trigger a ban, how long, and what due process protections would your version have?

3. What percentage of crimes have been committed that required 12 or more shots without a chance to reload? If it isn't necessary to have more than 10 round magazines, would that apply to the police?

M said...

1) Any commercial purchase is a for-profit purchase, including gun shows, of course.

2) It's not that I want background checks at all. It's that we need to start making sure people with mental health issues don't get access to weapons and innocents end up shot or, worse, killed. And a form that can't be turned into registration is fine.

3) What we do is put the "mental health issues" and mental stability up to mental health professionals. A family member turns someone in, it's turned over to a mental health procedure that makes sense, that is based on mental health standards and yes, that is as quick and responsible as it can be.

4) A clip of 10 bullets maximum only makes sense. Anything more than that doesn't serve any good purpose. Because the weapons "enthusiasts" and supporters would flip out if, God forbid, the police can have clips larger than theirs, larger than 10 and besides, a black market would no doubt pop up, offering the larger clips to civilians so, sure, fine, keep the police at 10, too. We'll throw them a bone.

Sevesteen said...

OK, what's a commercial purchase? I'm not a dealer--if I sell one or two guns a year do I have to run background checks? Does it make a difference if it is at a gun show or to a friend or family member?

The point I'm trying to make, and that lots of people aren't aware of is that the rules at a gun show are identical to the rules anywhere else. Dealers have to do background checks even at a gun show. Non-dealers don't...but the BATFE isn't very forgiving about inaccurately claiming "private sale".

I would agree that we need to treat mental health differently...but I'm reminded here of the old Barney Miller episode where Wojohowitz was declared mentally unfit to carry a gun...turned out that the psychologist didn't think anyone should have guns.

A maximum of 75 horsepower only makes sense. Anything more than that doesn't serve any good purpose. Because race enthusiasts and supporters would flip, police cars will also be limited.

Nobody needs to post or publish more than 10 articles per week.

Declaring "only makes sense" does not make it so, it's still a ban based entirely on emotion rather than logic.

Reduced capacity magazines are virtually no insurmountable drawback to anyone contemplating a crime who is willing to plan just a little. Find things to hide behind when reloading before beginning to shoot, carry an extra gun, tape some magazines together, use a shotgun that can be topped off at every shot while remaining ready to fire.

I would be surprised to find even 1% of gun crimes where 10 rounds were needed. Not quite as silly as banning bayonet mounts or barrel shrouds but close.

Mo Rage said...

Commercial purchase--a sale made for a profit. Come on, you know what we're speaking of here. If you sell enough weapons to register as a commercial dealer, it would apply to you, the same way with selling cars. If you sell enough, you must register as a commercial dealer, simple as that.

And what's most important about gun show purchases is that theree is a huge gun show loophole and far too many weapons are being sold there without background checks.

Your Wojohowitz comparison is irrelevant to the point of absurd.

So now you post things about horsepower and articles, as though that has anything whatever about the hundreds of people being killed in our nation every year? Again, irrelevant. The proposals are beneath you and the conversation.

Bigger clips got 20 grade school children and 6 adults killed in Newtown.

Sevesteen said...

Once again, you dodged the question--what ISN'T a dealer, who (if anyone) should be able to sell without doing a check? What do you want to change to close whatever you consider the loophole?

Quite a few medical professionals are anti-gun...What prevents an anti gun therapist from declaring anyone who wants to carry a gun too paranoid to be trusted with a gun? Or is that the goal?

The Sandy Hook loser reloaded at least 5 times anyhow, a few more would have made little difference, maybe he'd have had to switch to the handgun he carried while he reloaded. A criminal needing to reload during a crime is rare and limiting magazines to 10 rounds would make no detectable difference.

I'm not serious about regulating horsepower, but it makes at least as much sense as regulating magazines.

Mo Rage said...

You say I dodged the question "once again" and it's patently, blatantly untrue. The first thing I did in my response was answer that.You apparently don't like it but that clearly doesn't mean I didn't address it or you.

There is always the human factor, frankly, and that's unfortunate. We have to rely on professionalism and facts, as in all situations.

You should know the goal is to keep the mentally unstable from shooting and/or killing innocents, period, as is not only happening but repeatedly happens of late.

So now you're defending the Sandy Hook shooter and say it would be at least okay, if not better, if he could have reloaded less and shot more. That is stunning. Let's keep in mind he slaughtered 20 innocent, beautiful grade school children in only moments, could we? And please don't say that's not important.

I know you're not serious about regulating horsepower. The fact is, it was a nonsense mention. Allow me to point out, horsepower doesn't kill people in America the way weapons do, to state the obvious.

Sevesteen said...

I can find the part where you say someone who sells lots of guns should be a dealer, and do background checks. I can't find the part where you say anything about people who aren't dealers, who only sell a single or a few guns, whether or not you think they have to do checks. You spend far more time saying "I said that already" than you do...actually saying that.

As far as I can tell from this, you don't know the laws for a gun show, even in broad overview. If you believe dealers at a show should do background checks, but accept that individuals selling small numbers of guns don' are describing current federal law. If current law already does what you are asking for, what does "gun show loophole" mean to you? If current law is lacking, what do you want to change? Is there some other definition of gun show loophole that I'm missing? Specifics matter, just like you and I have different ideas of "end the drug war", merely repeating a catchphrase and saying "You know what I mean" doesn't help me understand what you mean.

Or is it just a vague phrase you can repeat to show you care?

I'm not defending any spree shooter. I want them all to get the help they need before they get violent...but if they start shooting (or stabbing, or whatever) I want them stopped as soon as possible, by whatever means possible, only taking the safety of innocent bystanders into account. A policeman I know said that the amount of time before someone shoots back at a spree shooter is the number one factor in how many victims, and I've seen nothing to refute that.

I'm pretty sure I've asked this before...but other than the Giffords assassination attempt, can you find a spree shooter in a place where guns were not banned? Can you find a spree shooter who kept killing once someone shot back at him? (not counting the person shooting back getting killed) I haven't found either. How about the number of school shootings before and after the gun-free school zone act?

I would like to end all unjustified violence. I'm willing to discuss effective measures of ending school shootings...but not at all costs. I'm not willing to turn schools into prisons, for any kid who is different or unpopular with teachers to be harassed, singled out and "evaluated", even if that means we miss one every now and then. I'm not willing to restrict freedom of the press, even though I believe that over-coverage of these crimes creates copycats, and that if these were reported as 'this happened today, name withheld, next story' and otherwise ignored, these shootings would be sharply reduced.

Sure, talk about the 20 pretty white kids, don't talk about facts. Don't talk about how often 20 Chicago kids are killed one by one, with nearly the strictest gun laws in the country. Is it because their deaths are spread out over a little more time, or because they aren't pretty enough?

If we are going to violate the constitution, can we at least do it in a way that will be effective? I'm not willing to throw the bill of rights away (be it first, second or fourth amendments) just because we "have to do something". I want at least some evidence that the "something" is likely to work. "maybe if he had to change magazines a few more times, the kindergartners would haven been able to overpower him" isn't enough.