Slog Comments
So If a Classroom Filled With First Graders Had All Pulled Out Their Guns and Pointed Them at Adam Lanza...
1
The merest patina of reasoning is all that's required. I'm confident that this will satisfy many who really, really want to remain pro-gun-at-all-costs.
3
And a big special thanks to Chris Kyle's corpse for so thoroughly debunking the whole 'everyone's polite at a gun-range' bullshit.
5
Fact: Beck and his idiot guests are representative of all gun owners in the US.
As long as we are throwing around anecdotes, here is a case of a principal stopping a school shooting with his own gun:
http://lubbockonline.com/news/101297/LA0…
The NRA generally does a terrible job speaking out for gun rights, and their handling of the tragedy in Newtown was extremely poorly handled. That said, they are right when they say that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. It's so obvious it sounds dumb, but it's true. Why would you call the cops in response to a shooting? They are the good guys and they have guns. Any talk by somebody like Beck or his guests about armed kids is purely idiotic, but it doesn't change the fact that force must be met with force.
Yes, Lanza killed himself, as most spree shooters do (there are a few notable exceptions however). They generally do so when confronted by the reality of law enforcement closing in, which is what happened in VA Tech. But the sooner you can meet the shooter with an opposing force, the sooner you can bring the situation to an end, likely saving lives. Saying that Lanza killed himself so there is no point in considering ways to stop him sooner is a stupid response to a stupid point from Beck.
As long as we are throwing around anecdotes, here is a case of a principal stopping a school shooting with his own gun:
http://lubbockonline.com/news/101297/LA0…
The NRA generally does a terrible job speaking out for gun rights, and their handling of the tragedy in Newtown was extremely poorly handled. That said, they are right when they say that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. It's so obvious it sounds dumb, but it's true. Why would you call the cops in response to a shooting? They are the good guys and they have guns. Any talk by somebody like Beck or his guests about armed kids is purely idiotic, but it doesn't change the fact that force must be met with force.
Yes, Lanza killed himself, as most spree shooters do (there are a few notable exceptions however). They generally do so when confronted by the reality of law enforcement closing in, which is what happened in VA Tech. But the sooner you can meet the shooter with an opposing force, the sooner you can bring the situation to an end, likely saving lives. Saying that Lanza killed himself so there is no point in considering ways to stop him sooner is a stupid response to a stupid point from Beck.
6
I call bullshit on David Barton, the right's bullshitter emeritus, who has been called out for making shit up before.
7
Current thinking among Barton debunkers is that his anecdote is actually a Louis L'Amour story.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodd…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodd…
8
I imagine Lanza would be quite surprised, at least. This rhetoric is getting insanely stupid.
Just here on Slog I have been accused of being both a gun nut who relishes kids dying to perserve the 2nd amendment, and an anti-gun zealot who wants all guns banned and the 2nd amendment abolished.
It is becoming very difficult to maintain a nuanced, non black and white political position anymore with how low the discourse has sunk. If you are not an extremist, no one takes the time to listen to you anymore.
Just here on Slog I have been accused of being both a gun nut who relishes kids dying to perserve the 2nd amendment, and an anti-gun zealot who wants all guns banned and the 2nd amendment abolished.
It is becoming very difficult to maintain a nuanced, non black and white political position anymore with how low the discourse has sunk. If you are not an extremist, no one takes the time to listen to you anymore.
9
@5
That's debunked here. The principal wasn't an armed civilian, he was an Army Reservist, and the shooting was already over.
You can look at every one of these incidents, and the best you can do is argue that trained police, security guards, and members of the armed forces could help in a shooting. None of them are your random armed citizen with delusions of heroism. Unqualified civilians are actually the ones dropping their guns and letting them accidentally go off in crowds, or shooting the wrong person. Hence, "well regulated". It takes more than putting a gun in your hand to make a difference.
You have to be trained. And you have to have been fundamentally competent to be worth training -- most gun lovers are incompetent fuckheads. Why do you think the NRA is so vehemently against mandatory training? They know most of their gun fetishists couldn't pass.
That's debunked here. The principal wasn't an armed civilian, he was an Army Reservist, and the shooting was already over.
You can look at every one of these incidents, and the best you can do is argue that trained police, security guards, and members of the armed forces could help in a shooting. None of them are your random armed citizen with delusions of heroism. Unqualified civilians are actually the ones dropping their guns and letting them accidentally go off in crowds, or shooting the wrong person. Hence, "well regulated". It takes more than putting a gun in your hand to make a difference.
You have to be trained. And you have to have been fundamentally competent to be worth training -- most gun lovers are incompetent fuckheads. Why do you think the NRA is so vehemently against mandatory training? They know most of their gun fetishists couldn't pass.
12
@9 - Thanks for the clarification on that incident. As I acknowledged in my original post, anecdotes don't have a lot of value. That said, maybe he was done shooting, maybe he wasn't, some versions of the story suggest the student may have intended to go to a different location and possible target others. Either way the principal likely would have have been able to stop the armed student from leaving if he wasn't armed himself.
I fully support gun owners having a substantially higher level of training. The ones that do are not the ones you generally hear about, but there are certainly a lot of people who have guns that make no effort at training and being responsible. Mass shootings are statistical outliers and it's difficult at best to find meaningful data. I have never argued that civilian concealed carry is a cure-all for mass shootings because they are so rare that the chances of somebody carrying will be in a position to help is very unlikely. Not to mention mass shootings usually happen where people are legally prohibited from carrying, keeping the law abiding gun owners out. That said, responsible concealed carry has other benefits and may help in some very limited situations.
Mandatory training is a difficult proposition because it is a barrier to a constitutional right. I certainly took a few classes when I purchased my first gun and would tell others to do the same. But if a training requirement is designed to be intentionally cumbersome and difficult, it becomes akin to a poll tax or other obstacle to exercising rights. If it could be done properly I might be able to support something like a drivers license requiring a test for guns, but in the past such programs have been intentionally overbearing. This is one reason I would support teaching gun safety in high school, but most anti-gun folks seem to take the just say no/abstinence only approach there.
More...
I fully support gun owners having a substantially higher level of training. The ones that do are not the ones you generally hear about, but there are certainly a lot of people who have guns that make no effort at training and being responsible. Mass shootings are statistical outliers and it's difficult at best to find meaningful data. I have never argued that civilian concealed carry is a cure-all for mass shootings because they are so rare that the chances of somebody carrying will be in a position to help is very unlikely. Not to mention mass shootings usually happen where people are legally prohibited from carrying, keeping the law abiding gun owners out. That said, responsible concealed carry has other benefits and may help in some very limited situations.
Mandatory training is a difficult proposition because it is a barrier to a constitutional right. I certainly took a few classes when I purchased my first gun and would tell others to do the same. But if a training requirement is designed to be intentionally cumbersome and difficult, it becomes akin to a poll tax or other obstacle to exercising rights. If it could be done properly I might be able to support something like a drivers license requiring a test for guns, but in the past such programs have been intentionally overbearing. This is one reason I would support teaching gun safety in high school, but most anti-gun folks seem to take the just say no/abstinence only approach there.
13
Correction: "Either way the principal likely would NOT have have been able to stop the armed student from leaving if he wasn't armed himself. "
14
@12
Again, it says "well regulated". The First Amendment doesn't say that speech or religion should be well regulated. That is a particular burden which we see only applied to arms. The argument that there can't be any hurdles to gun ownership because they would infringe a right is completely blown out of the water by the fact that the Second Amendment doesn't say you have an unrestricted right to arms. It says Congress can set limits.
In the last 40 years or so the NRA has lobbied for a new interpretation of the Second Amendment that simply expunges the entire "well regulated" clause. How crazy is that? Taking pieces of the Bill of Rights you don't like and blindly pretending they don't exist.
It's time to return to the traditional interpretation that served us for 200 years, and bring back the whole Second Amendment. Not just the parts that the gun loons want to hear.
Again, it says "well regulated". The First Amendment doesn't say that speech or religion should be well regulated. That is a particular burden which we see only applied to arms. The argument that there can't be any hurdles to gun ownership because they would infringe a right is completely blown out of the water by the fact that the Second Amendment doesn't say you have an unrestricted right to arms. It says Congress can set limits.
In the last 40 years or so the NRA has lobbied for a new interpretation of the Second Amendment that simply expunges the entire "well regulated" clause. How crazy is that? Taking pieces of the Bill of Rights you don't like and blindly pretending they don't exist.
It's time to return to the traditional interpretation that served us for 200 years, and bring back the whole Second Amendment. Not just the parts that the gun loons want to hear.
16
I've used this in every argument with gun nuts and they all just blank stare. You mean a gun isn't any threat to someone who wants to kill themselves? How do these people have brain activity?
17
@12, teenagers shouldn't be handling guns in schools. It's not abstinence, it's common sense. Also, being male and young is considered a huge risk factor for gun violence, so yeah. And by yeah I mean no.
18
@12, 13, amnt: Tell us your thoughts on the recent incident where the teacher talked a shotgun-wielding student into turning over his shotgun...?
20
Who on earth would buy the fatuous nonsense that "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," anyway? Even leaving aside the kindergarten-level moral definitions, a good running tackle from behind is prima facie a lot more effective than conjuring the miraculous appearance of John McClane.
21
Can we please stop using "Good guys" and "Bad guys" in this discussion? It dumbs it down, and makes it appear that it is black and white, which it is not.
22
for more about Barton's armed students of the 1850s, see blog entry "Is David Barton Now Getting his ‘History’ from Louis L’Amour Novels?" by Chris Rodda over at freethoughtblogs (dot) com
http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/0…
http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/0…
23
Look, in the end, no sane hunter or sane adult wants large magazine assault weapons in the hands of loony tunes.
24
@21, well, according to @5's link, it was Satanism that prompted that shooting. Satan's pretty much a bad guy. Case closed.
25
Has anyone seen this guy identify precisely when and where this alleged attempted shooting happened? Or is this an NRA urban legend? Surely it would not be too hard to track down information if anything close to what he described had happened.
26
@5: "They (spree shooters) generally (shoot themselves) when confronted by the reality of law enforcement closing in, which is what happened in VA Tech." Yes and No.
There seems to be an appeal to going down in a Bonnie&Clyde-style "blaze of glory", but at the last minute (like bridge jumpers) many just can't kill themselves. And yet, they ARE able to commit "death by cop" which is to not follow the simple instructions, "Put the gun DOWN! Do not leave the area!" A line is drawn, the line is crossed, (hopefully only) those cops with a clean shot fire the weapon, and the shooter is dead.
There seems to be an appeal to going down in a Bonnie&Clyde-style "blaze of glory", but at the last minute (like bridge jumpers) many just can't kill themselves. And yet, they ARE able to commit "death by cop" which is to not follow the simple instructions, "Put the gun DOWN! Do not leave the area!" A line is drawn, the line is crossed, (hopefully only) those cops with a clean shot fire the weapon, and the shooter is dead.
27
@9: "You have to be trained." +1
If your child needs an appendix removed or your sister has cancer, don't you want the the doctor to have (1) training, (2) supervised practice, and (3) past experience?!? And there is a calm environment in an OR, other people to notice a mistake, and no chance of a scalpel ricochetting off a wall and killing anyone.
All police should have (1) and (2) and of ones I know, maybe 40% have (3). The armed civilian, even one who's shot thousands of rounds at the range, doesn't.
If your child needs an appendix removed or your sister has cancer, don't you want the the doctor to have (1) training, (2) supervised practice, and (3) past experience?!? And there is a calm environment in an OR, other people to notice a mistake, and no chance of a scalpel ricochetting off a wall and killing anyone.
All police should have (1) and (2) and of ones I know, maybe 40% have (3). The armed civilian, even one who's shot thousands of rounds at the range, doesn't.
28
@27: So if some tweaker decides to break and enter my house and happens to have a 9mm on him (never happens - I know - gun nut!), I should sit tight and let him do what he wants because training?
Sounds good. When/where do I turn my shit in?
Sounds good. When/where do I turn my shit in?
29
@28: Your house is a sliiiiiightly different situation than a school full of kids. You miss at home, you just broke your TV. You miss at the school, you just killed a kid.
Although, for the most part, if someone's got a gun pointed at you and you don't already have one of your own in your hand and pointed at him, yeah, you should pretty much sit tight anyway. Trying to play hero when someone has the drop on you is a great way to get killed.
Although, for the most part, if someone's got a gun pointed at you and you don't already have one of your own in your hand and pointed at him, yeah, you should pretty much sit tight anyway. Trying to play hero when someone has the drop on you is a great way to get killed.
30
@28
If you really believed that you are under that much threat in your home, why would you be unwilling to make the effort to take a class and pass a test? The more you amp up the drama, the more ridiculous it is that a basic demonstration of competence is too much to ask.
You'll learn to drive a car and get a license in order to avoid taking the bus to work. But to save your family's lives, it's not worth the effort? Too busy? No.
Either having a gun is important to you and you're willing to work a teeny tiny bit to get one, or else you don't give a shit. If you don't give a shit, what's the loss?
If you really believed that you are under that much threat in your home, why would you be unwilling to make the effort to take a class and pass a test? The more you amp up the drama, the more ridiculous it is that a basic demonstration of competence is too much to ask.
You'll learn to drive a car and get a license in order to avoid taking the bus to work. But to save your family's lives, it's not worth the effort? Too busy? No.
Either having a gun is important to you and you're willing to work a teeny tiny bit to get one, or else you don't give a shit. If you don't give a shit, what's the loss?
31
@30 ftw!
Also, did that guy say that there have only been two accidental shootings in 200 years?
"Two accidents I have seen in 200 years of everybody having guns. It just doesn't happen."
He needs to read a newspaper. There's an accidental shooting nearly every day.
Also, did that guy say that there have only been two accidental shootings in 200 years?
"Two accidents I have seen in 200 years of everybody having guns. It just doesn't happen."
He needs to read a newspaper. There's an accidental shooting nearly every day.
32
@30: I've taken many classes, practice frequently, and have a very secure setup at home following best practices around gun safes and separation of guns and ammunition.
And so have more or less all of the people I know who own guns.
Which is why having 80M+ of us described as "incompetent fuckheads" is so delicious, coming from people who have a not very hidden agenda of putting themselves in charge of an important area our lives because they don't like our opinions or presumed politics.
And so have more or less all of the people I know who own guns.
Which is why having 80M+ of us described as "incompetent fuckheads" is so delicious, coming from people who have a not very hidden agenda of putting themselves in charge of an important area our lives because they don't like our opinions or presumed politics.
33
You know what I've realized about all this "I should be able to defend myself" talk?
Defensive strategies never work without offence. In military strategy, if you spend all day, every day defending against an enemy onslaught, eventually they're just going to find a weakness, exploit it, and destroy you. You have to successfully repel an attack, then go out and wipe out your enemy to have any chance of victory. In this case, America has to do something to stop the endless mass shootings, the murder-suicides, the road-rage homicides, the muggings, the gangs, and in general, all the crap that kills more people than war. America has to work to solve this problem at the source, not wait passively and arm everyone in the belief that it's the only way to stop bad things from happening. This is a losing strategy, any way you look at it.
Defensive strategies never work without offence. In military strategy, if you spend all day, every day defending against an enemy onslaught, eventually they're just going to find a weakness, exploit it, and destroy you. You have to successfully repel an attack, then go out and wipe out your enemy to have any chance of victory. In this case, America has to do something to stop the endless mass shootings, the murder-suicides, the road-rage homicides, the muggings, the gangs, and in general, all the crap that kills more people than war. America has to work to solve this problem at the source, not wait passively and arm everyone in the belief that it's the only way to stop bad things from happening. This is a losing strategy, any way you look at it.
Comments (33) RSS