Comment history

tstauffer says...

Do you have a link to reporting that shows the rifle wasn't used? All the reporting I've seen -- just checked AP, CNN, Fox News -- has the rifle in the school; there was, apparently, a shotgun left in the car. I'm sure AP would be very interesting in running a correction if they got such a fundamental fact wrong.

tstauffer says...

*Why is it that liberals insist on requiring everyone think and act the way they do?*

OMG is that happening?! Those *bastards*!

*Why does Bloomberg regulate the size of sodas one can legally buy in NY? It must make him feel better about the situation, but it doesn't fix the problem, people can still buy multiple sodas.*

Putting aside the rest of that diatribe for a moment, this is actually an interesting point -- Bloomberg's limiting of the size of sodas is based on the theory of "psychological defaults," which suggest that people will tend to limit them to the options that they're given and don't go to extraordinary lengths to subvert those options. Sure, they *could* buy two sodas to get 32 ounces of sugar water; but, they probably won't. Statistically.

You know.... science.

The majority of mass murders over the past 50 years have purchased their guns legally. In the past ten years, it's become remarkably easy to purchase guns that are fundamentally designed for killing as many people as possible within legal limits.

So, there's a good chance that by making it more difficult to purchase these weapons, we would reset the psychological default and find them choosing less-deadly weapons. That could be part of a more comprehensive strategy to limit these mass murders -- and, perhaps, a number of other gun deaths along the way.

Oh, and it's something that more than "liberals" are worried about. Newtown has got a lot of people wondering if there wouldn't be a better way to handle things. You might want to figure out a better way to convince them than name-calling.

On Assault Rifles: Only at Walmart

Posted 20 December 2012, 4:27 p.m. Suggest removal

tstauffer says...

Here's the basic idea. I think you'd find that there's broad-based support for the practice of placing U.S. Marshalls on airplanes after 9-11, even from people who are generally against the idea that more guns equal fewer shootings.

Following that model, you might end up with the same support of, for instance, encouraging former cops, returning soldiers and vets to get placed in schools around the country, where they could get tactical training for dealing with these situations if they were also qualified to teach.

Likewise, teachers without the background but with the interested in carrying might be able to get some vigorous level of certification that would make people feel safe with the idea of that teacher having gun in schools.

But gun-owners like yourself seem to believe that simply allowing the gun in the classroom is going to either have a deterrent effect or is going to mean the successfully shooting and disabling of a well-armed intruder in a way that stops the shooting. And some of us are hard-pressed to follow that logic without a little more evidence.

A couple of thoughts:

(1) studies have shown that drawing a gun for personal defense actually increases the likelihood that you'll be shot; it makes sense that a determined shooter is going to begin by shooting the person they think is most likely to be armed. For instance, a determined schools shooter might focus on shooting the teacher first while he still has the element of surprise. (I apologize for the gruesome thought.)

(2) If you're not going to test and license gun owners for competence and you're going to have "will issue" laws on the books for conceal carry, then you're going to have to put up with the idea that we're totally aware that gun owners can act like this:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Et33bbA0GeM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So, while it's comforting to know that you feel confident that armed citizens in gun-free zones is the answer, some folks might end up requiring just a little more study on the matter.

tstauffer says...

@bubbat - I don't think you have your facts right. While a number of mass shootings have happened at schools, colleges and malls, etc., that might have been posted "gun free" a number of them have also occurred out of doors, at corporations and companies, in multiple locations, etc. (Link below is only since Columbine, and its seems at least a few weren't in "gun-free" zones.)

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/1…

Beyond that, though, the real question is whether there's anything **causal** that suggests (a.) that mass shooters choose locations exclusively because they are gun-free or (b.) that armed citizens stop mass shootings. If both of those things are unequivocally true, then the solution would clearly be to get rid of gun-free zones and encourage as much conceal-carry as possible.

Unfortunately, I think both suppositions would fall short.

First, (a.) I don't think it's been shown to be causal that mass shootings always happen in gun-free zone because the shooter believes they won't be challenged; if you look more closely at the history of mass shootings, you'll see that many shootings occur in places where people have a personal connection or perceived grievance. (And, as mentioned, they're not all "gun-free.")

While it's not impossible to imagine that a shooter might choose a school because he thinks he won't be shot quickly there (possible with Newtown), it's also easy to imagine that he's going into the school because of a grudge (Columbine). An irrational guy with a semi-automatic and a bag full of bullets can feel pretty powerful; and, it appears for many mass shooters, the event itself is a form of suicide.

Second, (b.) do concealed weapons owners stop tragedies from happening or limit their effect while the shooting is taking place? The answer appears to be -- *rarely*, and almost only when they have formal training in their background. (I believe the only cases we have of armed citizens who *weren't* off-duty cops were both cases where the killer was subdued while trying to flee.)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_…

(continued)

tstauffer says...

@bubbat Who are the "anti-gun" appointees? I'm not saying you're wrong, but the piece says that Biden is heading an "administration-wide" effort to look at what needs to be proposed in the coming weeks.

tstauffer says...

I love how that comment starts with "what a ridiculous conclusion to have reached" and ends with the suggestion that the only thing that would work is arming the entire country; presumably against their will? Or as a requirement of their job?

Hard to see how that's somehow that antithesis of "ridiculous" in a country that currently has almost no barriers to gun ownership and yet fewer than 40% of households own one, with the percentage dropping over the past three decades. The numbers on people interesting or willing to conceal-carry are clearly much, much lower. Probably not the solution, although it might make a great science fiction novel.

tstauffer says...

I tell you, the Library Lobby seems feistier than the Gun Lobby today. :)

On Hinds Could Increase Library Access

Posted 18 December 2012, 6:44 p.m. Suggest removal

tstauffer says...

I think for the assault weapons ban to be more effective this time around we might have to put more teeth in the law -- not so many legacy loopholes.

But, Bubba is right -- we probably have to think further outside the box on a new set of laws to limit this violence. I think for the laws to be more effective the real solution would be stricter registration of firearms and licensing of owners (kinda like voter ID), universal background checks and considerable limits on the availability of modifications and kits, ammo purchases over the Internet, in Wal-Mart from part-time employees who leave the cages unlocked, etc.

We need to make gun ownership and gun/ammo sales a professional endeavor that is the domain of the licensed, trained, registered and responsible.

It's time to treat gun ownership as if it was at least as much of a responsibility as owning and driving a car.

tstauffer says...

Nice... here's a great example of Wal-Mart doing nothing to popularize the AR-15... it's an AR-15 in its Black Friday ad, apparently.

http://gunmartblog.com/2012/11/12/walma…

As a bonus, gunmartblog decided to run it excitedly with the line "Suck it, Mr. President."

Ah, those classy, law-abiding gun owners.

On Assault Rifles: Only at Walmart

Posted 18 December 2012, 1:58 p.m. Suggest removal

tstauffer says...

@scrappy --

(a.) the budget proposals focus on tax rates because the "fiscal cliff" is timed to begin hitting at the beginning of the year when the Bush tax cuts are set to expire. So, by necessity, that is what they're focused on.

(b.) there's been a boom in domestic oil and gas production -- some argue an all-time high -- that lead to the labor shortages you're talking about. And a lot of the boom in natural gas is because it's now more competitive with other fossil fuel options.

(c.) the leases that were cancelled in 2009 were in Nine Mile Canyon, Arches National Park and Dinosaur National Monument, already had a Federal judge's injunction as they hadn't been properly cleared with the National Park Service. It could easily be argued that the Bush admin was irresponsible in granting them, pushing through some pork late in their administration.

(d.) The Keystone Pipeline is designed to move Canadian oil (not U.S.) to our refineries in the South. Obama encourages the construction of the southern portion of the pipeline in March and is set to consider approval of the international portion as it's been rerouted to deal with earlier objections.

(e.) Discretionary spending is down considerably under Obama including the $917 billion (over 10 years) in cuts in the DCA 2011. The money being spent these days is on defense and security, entitlements and interest on the debt. Just take a quick look at something like this -- <a href="http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederal…">http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederal…</a> -- might be a useful reference before going off on a rant about "Obama's spending." Only 1/3 of discretionary spending is spent on non-defense/security, thanks to two wars and entirely new departments (Homeland Security) under by George W. Bush. It's time to understand the dramatic re-set in our budget in the past 12 years.

(f.) Your friends "grossing" over $100k (do you mean "netting") and paying $30k in taxes won't see their tax burden increase under any "fiscal cliff" proposal I've seen.

On Taxes: Obama vs. Bush Rates

Posted 3 December 2012, 10:50 a.m. Suggest removal