Something?

So yesterday we discussed the chorus of vapid calls for Washington to “Do something!” in the wake of a demented murderers actions in Newtown.  It’s expected from the usual suspects and I should have expected it when I clicked the link, but under his non-football thoughts in his weekly Monday Morning Quarterback column Sports Illustrated writer Peter King had this to say:

b. I don’t have an intelligent solution to the gun violence in this country, the violence that can allow an unstable man to murder 20 children with between three and 11 shots apiece from a semi-automatic weapon firing terroristic hollow-point bullets designed to inflict the most damage possible. But smarter people than I must have ideas what to do, while protecting the right of law-abiding Americans to bear arms.

We have to stop cowering to those opposed to meaningful gun reform, to those who blindly and obediently say, “Gun don’t kill; people kill.” That’s a nice slogan. It’s also ridiculously and cruelly blind to the events of recent months in America, where a movie theater, shopping mall and idyllic New England elementary school have been shot up by sick people — and, in the case of the Newton shootings, a sick person with access to the kinds of guns used in war zones.

c. Having said that, it’s obvious too that we have to address the mental health aspect of this, and to care better for those on society’s fringes. When our politicians are cutting budgets, as they certainly are on the eve of the fiscal cliff talks, they’d better be careful about slashing public funding for mental health in this country.

d. Your moves, President Obama, and leaders of the House and Senate, on both sides of the aisle. Be leaders. Do the right thing. Do something.

I say I should have expected it because, after reading his column a few times, King seems to be a doctrinaire liberal like most other media folks.  As far as NFL news goes he seems pretty plugged in.  I don’t really follow NFL news much anymore.  It’s pretty much just become a platform for endless advertising and players self-aggrandizing after every routine play.  I’m a much bigger college football fan than pro – for now, college football seems to be going the same route as the NFL when it comes to greed and superfluous celebrations – but do skim through his MMQB column occassionally.

At least he’s honest enough to admit he doesn’t have an intelligent solution.  Which is good because he doesn’t seem to have a real intelligent grasp on what government at any level is capable of actually achieving with regards to gun violence.  Mexico has far, far stricter gun control laws than the US (there’s only one gun store in the entire country) yet they have a much higher incidence of mass shootings.  How is that possible?

Being in Texas, I’ve heard a lot of stories about people crossing the border into Mexico who unknowingly have a couple of stray cartridges loose in the trunk of their car or under their truck seat.  These otherwise law-abiding and non-violent people are immediately arrested and thrown into jail for violating Mexico’s strict firearm laws.  Such arrests do nothing to reduce the staggering gun violence in Mexico, but they’re regularly carried out and draconian penalties meted out under the guise of public safety.

We must stop cowering to those opposed to meaningful gun reform.  I’m curious how King defines “meaningful.”  It satisfies the sensibilities of people on the gun control side of the debate?  It targets certain classes of firearm?  Certain types of ammunition?

Does Chicago have meaningful gun control laws in place?  Does California have meaningful gun control laws in place, they’re the strictest in the nation?  Connecticut’s gun laws are also among the strictest in the nation.  Does that make them more meaningful?

Meaningful is not a synonym for effective.

No law is going to stop a person who is determined to kill innocent, unarmed victims from killing.  As I mentioned yesterday, cocaine and heroin are prohibited by federal and state laws and have been for over a century.  Yet somehow both are readily available to anyone who wants them.  How would a ban on so-called assault weapons or large capacity magazines or hollow-point bullets be any more effective?

From there King elides to mental deficiency, which is the key factor in pretty much every mass shooting of innocent strangers we’ve seen in the US.  The courts have ruled that people cannot be held against their will unless they pose an imminent danger to themselves or others, so it is now very difficult even for families to institutionalize someone who isn’t wired correctly.  The answer isn’t more money as he recommends.  Is there any indication that lack of funding had anything to do with the murderer in Newtown?  Or Aurora?  Both came from well-to-do families who were fully aware of their child’s issues.

Besides mental health spending has to be reduced so we can ensure a steady supply of birth control and morning-after pills for affluent working-age females.  Priorities.

You can lead a crazy to psychiatric help, but you can’t make him medicate.  So sayeth the courts.  Privacy laws prevent sharing of information on people who voluntarily seek psychiatric help.  Until the courts decide that anyone showing unusual behavior should be stripped of their rights there is no possible legislative solution to treating the potentially violent mentally ill people in the US.

King ends with a plea, “Be leaders.  Do the right thing.  Do something.”  He’s offered no suggestions as to what the right thing is other than “something.”  Will “something” prevent another mass shooting?  It doesn’t matter.  Something must be done.

Without specifics, I assume he means spend more money on some federal program that will have no demonstrable effect on gun violence and eliminate some degree of freedom for the millions of Americans who would never even contemplate shooting an innocent human being.

Tragedy spawns the very worst sorts of laws in response.  The tragedy of methamphetamine use?  Treat everyone with a runny nose like a potential criminal.  September 11?  Another level of bureaucracy known as the Department of Homeland Security and, of course, treating every airline passenger like a potential criminal.  Punish the law-abiding in response to the twisted actions of a miniscule few.

What happened in Newtown obviously creates a visceral, emotional response in rational human beings.  However, emotional people tend to make very poor decisions.  The fact, the actual truth, of the matter is that these types of crimes are exceedingly rare and becoming rarer.  Yeah, it’s sickening that any human being could walk into an elementary school and methodically shoot 20 children.  If I’d been there I’d be one of the bodies on the floor.  Normal, rational, sane people put their own lives at risk to protect children from harm.

“Do something!” is the easy, predictable response.  And “do something” they will to much back-patting and preening.  It won’t work and they’ll “do something” else the next time.  Then heed calls to “do something” the next time as well.  Absent a total police state there’s no way to prevent an abnormal, irrational, insane person from killing.  But even a police state like the Soviet Union had its Andrei Chikatilo.

Stacking additional laws on top of our already very clear prohibition on murder isn’t the answer.  All we can do is pray for the innocent victims in Newtown and as individuals remain ever vigilant.

Update:  Good stuff from Ronald Bailey over at Reason Magazine.

I agree with President Barack Obama that “meaningful action” should be taken prevent future schoolhouse carnage. Meaningful action in this case would be fashioning schools that respect all of their students; protect them from bullying; foster enough mutual trust to curtail “no snitch” teenage culture; and offer students proactive counseling on how to handle their emotional challenges. But that’s a whole lot harder than grandstanding about banning assault rifles or violent video games.

Indianapolis Religious Radio Host on Tim Scott: 'Black Only in Skin Color'
Mom Compares Her 13-Year-Old Son To Mass Murderer Adam Lanza
  • jim_m

    It will be interesting to see if anyone bothers to finally help the mentally ill or if we will once more get bogged down in useless ideological attacks on guns. The one common thread with all of these incidents is that the individual was mentally disturbed and in many cases others around them were concerned but could do nothing. (ok that and almost every attack was in a “gun free zone”)

    Unfortunately, the left is completely uninterested in helping the mentally ill. they are only concerned with advancing their agenda. I would be surprised if you could find a single democrat cosponsor of legislation to address the mental health problems in this country.

    • ackwired

      Agreed. Are you aware of any one on the right that is sponsoring such legislation?

      • jim_m

        It’s too early for federal legislation but one dem, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper is asking for ” $18.5 million to help “redesign and strengthen” the state’s mental health services and support system.”

        This is just a pittance, but at least it’s a start.

        On the other hand the NYT has an article condemning the focus on mental health as “misguided”. I find that repulsive. It’s galling that with nearly all mass murders being committed by the mentally ill for anyone to suggest that focusing on mental health issues is wrong.

        • ackwired

          Hmmm…..we’re not starting to sound like big government, bleeding heart liberals, here, are we?

          • jim_m

            Actually, no. I am not in favor of government run mental institutions. I think that would be the worst of all outcomes. We should create an environment that fosters the return of private institutions by reforming laws that allow for people to be committed and promoting access to insurance that will cover it.

            This sort of solution does not require a government bureaucracy to run it. It just needs government to get out of the way.

          • ackwired

            10-4.

          • jim_m

            Actually, no. I am not in favor of government run mental institutions. I think that would be the worst of all outcomes. We should create an environment that fosters the return of private institutions by reforming laws that allow for people to be committed and promoting access to insurance that will cover it.

            This sort of solution does not require a government bureaucracy to run it. It just needs government to get out of the way.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Sounds more like people looking at a problem and going…

            “What’s a common factor that might point to the problem?”

            I approve of trying to troubleshoot something like this. What is common among all the folks doing this shit?

            Hmm. They own cars – but millions others own cars and (aside from the occasional case of road rage) that doesn’t seem to cause much trouble. Water? They’ve all had that at some point… as well as bananas. I know – haircuts! Hmmm, maybe not.

            (Yeah, trying for humor here.)

            If you have an isolated event, it’s hard to figure a solution or a way to prevent it because you don’t have enough data. Get two events, correlate the data, and you can possibly spot the beginnings of a trend. Get three or four – and you can start going “Hey – this might be a common factor among all.” – and you can start factoring out things that aren’t.

            For example, there’s roughly 150-200 million gun owners. If guns were actually the cause of the problem, (to use an epidemiological/disease based model) we’d see a whole lot more school shootings, and shootings in general. But there seems to be an inverse correlation – as the number of guns in the US increases, shootings seems to go down.

            So tentatively, it’s not the guns that are the source of the problem. Might be a contributing factor, but not the source.

            Violent video games? Culture of violence? That might be a contributing factor – but again, there’s millions upon millions who play those games and consume TV/movies/music that’s pretty graphic – and they don’t go out and emulate.

            So if it’s a factor, it’s fairly low-risk. Again – not a source.

            Mental illness? Common factor – very high correlation. But there’s a fair number of mentally ill folk out there, who don’t go *snap* and take off for the nearest school with as much firepower as they can find.

            Bananas? Eh. Lots of people eat them, doesn’t seem to drive ‘em crazy. (I was able to convince my son for a year or so that I thought bananas were poisonous – since pretty much everyone who had one before 1920 is now dead. Yeah, playing with his head. ;-) Evil daddy…)

            So you look at all factors, figure out what’s relevant, and then you try to figure out a least-disruptive, least-cost solution.

            In this case, looking at everything released, it’d make more sense to put money towards mental health than it would towards gun control.

            Unfortunately, in cases like this there’s an almost overwhelming urge to “DO SOMETHING!” quickly – and whether it’s the right thing or not is completely beside the point.

            Kids were killed with guns, so instead of asking whether guns are the problem or something else is – the thrust is to ban guns. It’s a quick and simple solution – which won’t affect things, but it’ll be visibly ‘doing something’. It doesn’t touch on the possibly icky conclusion that mental health issues need to be addressed – THEY aren’t something tangible that can be quickly addressed with legislation.

            We’ll have to wait and see – but I’m for spending the money in a manner that’d do the most good, not just for feel-good stuff that won’t do much.

          • ackwired

            Good post!!

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Thank you. I’ve made my living for the last 30 years figuring out ways to troubleshoot problems people have been having with computers. Often the ‘apparent’ solution just gets you into more trouble.

            I think most politicians couldn’t troubleshoot their way out of a paper
            bag – they look at a problem and figure out the fastest, most politically palatable course of action, and it doesn’t really matter if it solves the problem or not. What they need is to be seen as ‘doing something’ – and if that doesn’t do it they’ll try the same thing again on the next election cycle.

            But I think we’re past the point of ‘feel good’ legislation. We need ‘effective’ – and that clown circus inside the Beltway doesn’t want to give up the ‘feel good’ shit because that’s what gets them elected.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Sounds more like people looking at a problem and going…

            “What’s a common factor that might point to the problem?”

            I approve of trying to troubleshoot something like this. What is common among all the folks doing this shit?

            Hmm. They own cars – but millions others own cars and (aside from the occasional case of road rage) that doesn’t seem to cause much trouble. Water? They’ve all had that at some point… as well as bananas. I know – haircuts! Hmmm, maybe not.

            (Yeah, trying for humor here.)

            If you have an isolated event, it’s hard to figure a solution or a way to prevent it because you don’t have enough data. Get two events, correlate the data, and you can possibly spot the beginnings of a trend. Get three or four – and you can start going “Hey – this might be a common factor among all.” – and you can start factoring out things that aren’t.

            For example, there’s roughly 150-200 million gun owners. If guns were actually the cause of the problem, (to use an epidemiological/disease based model) we’d see a whole lot more school shootings, and shootings in general. But there seems to be an inverse correlation – as the number of guns in the US increases, shootings seems to go down.

            So tentatively, it’s not the guns that are the source of the problem. Might be a contributing factor, but not the source.

            Violent video games? Culture of violence? That might be a contributing factor – but again, there’s millions upon millions who play those games and consume TV/movies/music that’s pretty graphic – and they don’t go out and emulate.

            So if it’s a factor, it’s fairly low-risk. Again – not a source.

            Mental illness? Common factor – very high correlation. But there’s a fair number of mentally ill folk out there, who don’t go *snap* and take off for the nearest school with as much firepower as they can find.

            Bananas? Eh. Lots of people eat them, doesn’t seem to drive ‘em crazy. (I was able to convince my son for a year or so that I thought bananas were poisonous – since pretty much everyone who had one before 1920 is now dead. Yeah, playing with his head. ;-) Evil daddy…)

            So you look at all factors, figure out what’s relevant, and then you try to figure out a least-disruptive, least-cost solution.

            In this case, looking at everything released, it’d make more sense to put money towards mental health than it would towards gun control.

            Unfortunately, in cases like this there’s an almost overwhelming urge to “DO SOMETHING!” quickly – and whether it’s the right thing or not is completely beside the point.

            Kids were killed with guns, so instead of asking whether guns are the problem or something else is – the thrust is to ban guns. It’s a quick and simple solution – which won’t affect things, but it’ll be visibly ‘doing something’. It doesn’t touch on the possibly icky conclusion that mental health issues need to be addressed – THEY aren’t something tangible that can be quickly addressed with legislation.

            We’ll have to wait and see – but I’m for spending the money in a manner that’d do the most good, not just for feel-good stuff that won’t do much.

  • Carl

    Gun laws need to be changed. The time is now.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

      Why now? Can’t let a crisis go to waste?

      And exactly what common sense gun laws do you propose that can guarantee another spree killing will never happen in the US?

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        Take all firearms from the law-abiding, of course.

        Criminals don’t have to give them up, though – because criminals don’t pay attention to the laws in the first place.

      • Carl

        No guarantees to anything, but we can cut down the odds by going back to the 1994 assault rifle ban.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

        “…a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called “assault weapons”. The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban’s enactment.”

        Or are you in favor of the continued manufacture and sale of 30 clip automatic weapons for squirrel hunting?

        The really interesting aspect to all of this is that the laws we end up when all of this is over and the dust settles may be far more onerous than the 1994 federal ban.

        • Conservachef

          Did you even read the wiki article you linked? The 94 ban used “cosmetic features” to determine whether or not a rifle was an “assault weapon.” Yeah, let’s ban guns because they “look like military weapons.”

          Also, from your own link:

          The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
          studied the “assault weapon” ban and other gun control attempts, and found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”[7] A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence” and noted “due to the fact
          that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban … the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small….”[8]

          The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as “assault rifles” or “assault weapons”, are rarely used in gun crimes.[9]

          Hey, it didn’t work before, let’s do it again!

          • jim_m

            Carl has been asked multiple times to explain why he thinks the definition in the Assault Weapons Ban makes a rifle more deadly than other rifles of equal caliber. He refuses.

            Also, Not only did the Assault Weapons Ban not work nationally, but Connecticut passed their own version which is still in effect so the ban did nothing to stop this.

          • Carl

            Jim’s lying again. The 1994 federal ban on assulat weapons defined what an assault rifle is. What you or O or even Jim heliar thinkis irrelevant – it’s already been defined.

            But this is just another one of Jim’s lies. Jim feels gun laws are pointless and that dead children are just collateral damage to protecting second amendment rights.

            He’s “Pro-life” except when it’s a choice between lives and guns – the he’s “Pro guns”…..

          • jim_m

            EnoughCarl. You’re a lying asshole. you finally said that you held the definition of what an assault weapon is according to the Clinton ban. I then posted the definition in the ban and repeated my question on what you though was in there that made the rifles more deadly.

            I have never said that I want children to die. You asked me to link to where I said Steve was against the 5th amendment and I did.

            TIME FOR YOU TO PONY UP. POST A LINK TO WHERE I SAID I WANT CHILDREN TO DIE OR THAT THEY ARE COLLATERAL DAMAGE.

            I WANT TO SEE WHERE I EVER USED THE PHRASE COLLATERAL DAMAGE WITH REGARD TO THIS INCIDENT

            otherwise I request that Carl be given a timeout by the moderators.

          • Carl

            You claimed Steve said he “opposed the 5th amendment” – and you still haven’t shown where he used that phrase.

            Funny how you have a double standard like this – you run around claiming liberals say this – and Carl says that – lying repeatedly — and when you are challenged to prove what you say is true you reply by saying that’s your interpretation of what he said.

            Feel free to quote me accurately and in context, along with the other “liberals” on this blog, and I’ll be sure that I extend the same courtesy to you, Jim.

            You’re not asking me do something you’re not willing to do yourself, are you?

            Why — that would be hypocritical of you to do so.

            Kind of like your hypocrisy of claiming to be “Pro-life” and yet be against sensible laws that would require guns and ammunition be locked away from children’s access. If Lanza’s mother’s guns were locked away where he couldn’t get to them 20 children and 8 adults would alive today — but you see those deaths as just collateral damage to second amendment rights.

          • jim_m

            I posted the link to the comment he made. I explained my thinking Steve commented elsewhere on this issue and I explained it to him.

            YOU MUST SHOW WHERE I SAID WHAT YOU CLAIM I SAID ABOUT KILLING CHILDREN

            DO IT NOW JACKASS.

            Are you afraid that you are found out to be the very liar you claim everyone else it?

            Because if you fail here you are exactly that.

            Once more we see that you project on others what you really are. You are a vile racist and have been outed as that multiple times by multiple people. Now we see that you are making up things about what others say with the specific cause to defame them.

            PONY UP A LINK MR WEASEL.

            I have responded to your accusations now you must back them up yourself. Prove that I said children are “Collateral damage”

          • Vagabond661

            When it’s a choice between an intruder and my life or my family’s lives, yes I am Pro-Life and Pro-Gun.

        • jim_m

          From the same article you link:

          The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the “assault weapon” ban and other gun control attempts, and found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.” A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence” and noted “due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban … the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small….”

          Also in the same article:

          Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans. The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban. Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates

          But by all means keep on pursuing your ideological goals, despite the fact that they have delivered the exact opposite result you claim you are interested in. I am sure the reason they didn’t work is that they didn’t suppress the rights of law abiding citizens sufficiently.

        • retired.military

          Carl
          FYI
          1. Any rifle that can fire a 10 round clip can fire a 50 round clip if they made one for it. The clip mechanics and shape are the same. Only the capacity is different.
          2. Automatic weapons are not for sale to the general public
          3. 20 and 30 round clips abound. Go to a storage auction around any army base and I will bet you out of 10 units that you buy you will find at least one 30 round clip, and some body armor. (I have a friend who does this for a living and he sells the stuff all the time).

          .

          • Carl

            Explain the need for a 50 round clip. Or a 30 round clip, for that matter.

          • jim_m

            Does one have to have a need for anything? No one needs a ferrari. They make it far easier to break the traffic laws. But they use a lot of gas. Why not ban those?

            Lack of utility has never been a reason for banning anything.

          • Carl

            Yes, you have to justify the need or something that contributes needlessly to the deaths of many Americans, including the children murdered last week.

            Sorry, but your freedoms ends when someone else dies needlessly because of them.

          • retired.military

            Carl
            So you are saying we shouldnt drive cars because someone else died needlessly by a drunk driver? How about farmers. More people died farming last year than were killed in mass shootings. Should we ban farmers? Stop and take a look at what you are saying .
            People die from mountain climbing accidents. Does that mean that noone should be allowed to climb mountains? People die from diving accidents. Should people be denied the ability to dive. parachuting? stock car racing? construction jobs? Where do you draw the line?

          • jim_m

            My freedom does not end because someone else transgresses. I am not punished because someone else commits a crime. What you propose is despotism.

          • Evil Otto

            Sorry, but your freedoms ends when someone else dies needlessly because of them.

            Get back to me when you’re willing to ban alcohol, swimming pools, bathtubs, and automobiles.

            I probably shouldn’t be giving you any ideas…

          • herddog505

            This breaks new ground in the theory of civil liberties.

          • Carl

            Yes, you have to justify the need or something that contributes needlessly to the deaths of many Americans, including the children murdered last week.

            Sorry, but your freedoms ends when someone else dies needlessly because of them.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

            Carl, this isn’t particularly relevant one way or the other but just out of curiosity have you ever fired a gun?

          • Carl

            I’m a former NRA member and gun owner. I see no reason Americans need to own assault rifles.

          • retired.military

            Carl
            No offense but you sure dont talk like a gun owner. Or if you were one your knowledge of the issues is shall we say astonishingly small. most of your statements in reference to the subject make little if any sense.

            Also why should your rights to own a gun be curtailed by what someone else has done on the average of about once a year. That would be like making everyone ride a bike and taking away cars because someone got killed by a drunk driver.

          • Carl

            RM, no offense, bu what youre saying is I don’t talk like a gun nut/fanatic, and you’re right. I’m not one. But I am a former member of the NRA – and I’ve shot in competition in NRA -sponsored events. For me it was about skill, not killing.

          • retired.military

            Carl
            No, what I was saying is that you dont sound like someone who knows what they are talking about. Your repeated rants about a 30 round magazine rifle shows that you are somewhat clueless when the same rifle could easily shoot 10 rounds or 20. The same goes for pistols. A 9 round magazine is basically the same design for that pistol as a 30 round magazine. It is simply longer with a longer spring.
            I dont know if your statements are true. It is immaterial to the fact that your statements imply that you are speaking about something which you have no clue about.
            What I am stating above about magazines is something I learned in Basic and having never fired a weapon in my life before.
            You have called a gun lover when I am not. You have accused me of not caring about children when I do. You are not willing to have a decent conversation not only with me but with anyone else on the board.

            Carl
            Here is a simple question for you since for you it is about skill.

            Please tell me what type weapon you fired and at what distances and magazine size. How many grains were the rounds?

            Please describe one competition that you participated in.

            If what you said has the slightest bit of truth than you should be able to answer those questions.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

            Fair enough. I guess we’ll just have to disagree on that point. I see no problem with law-abiding citizens owning weapons with detachable magazines – which outside of some cosmetic items that have no bearing on lethality is how assault weapon is defined by the expired federal and current CT law.

            An assault weapon ban would have done nothing to save the victims at Virginia Tech. What’s your next common sense gun control law that would have prevented those murders?

          • jim_m

            BVO = just out of curiosity have you ever fired a gun?

            Carl = I’m a former NRA member and gun owner.

            Is it me or was that answer unresponsive?

          • Evil Otto

            I was think that it was just a flat-out lie. Carl doesn’t come across as someone who’s ever touched a gun before.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, it struck me as one of those hoaxes where the lefty goes to a TEA Party demonstration wearing some racist t-shirt and claims to be a republican.

          • Evil Otto

            Carl needs to be introduced to the phrase “anyone can be anything on the internet.” He’s shown no actual awareness about guns and doesn’t know the lingo, but suddenly he’s a former NRA member, competition shooter, and gun owner when pressed. I’ve noticed that lefties try this a lot… push them on taxes for the wealthy and they’ll claim they make six figures. Push them on guns and they suddenly reveal that they used to own guns and are members of the NRA. Push them on the military and they suddenly reveal that they used to be in the special forces. Yet they don’t demonstrate the slightest knowledge of any of it.

            Karl’s no different. Lying is just a means to an end for the left.

          • Evil Otto

            Carl needs to be introduced to the phrase “anyone can be anything on the internet.” He’s shown no actual awareness about guns and doesn’t know the lingo, but suddenly he’s a former NRA member, competition shooter, and gun owner when pressed. I’ve noticed that lefties try this a lot… push them on taxes for the wealthy and they’ll claim they make six figures. Push them on guns and they suddenly reveal that they used to own guns and are members of the NRA. Push them on the military and they suddenly reveal that they used to be in the special forces. Yet they don’t demonstrate the slightest knowledge of any of it.

            Karl’s no different. Lying is just a means to an end for the left.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            I think it’s an outright lie. Carl hasn’t demonstrated any knowledge of firearms to this point – and he hasn’t shown any willingness to learn.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            I think it’s an outright lie. Carl hasn’t demonstrated any knowledge of firearms to this point – and he hasn’t shown any willingness to learn.

          • jim_m

            Quick Carl tell us the model and caliber of the gun(s) you owned. How did you get rid of them?

          • Carl

            I’m a former NRA member and gun owner. I see no reason Americans need to own assault rifles.

          • http://twitter.com/jinx_mchue Severe Conservative

            Explain the reason for wanting to ban them. Will a ban stop criminals from using said clips? No. All a ban will do is punish the vastly overwhelming majority of law-abiding Americans for something they never did.

          • retired.military

            Carl
            As for “need”. The only reason is convenience. I can understand wanting to have the larger size clips especially when target shooting.

            BTW I have never heard of a 50 round clip. 35 yes, 100 yes, 30 yes, 20 yes, 10 yes. But not 50. I simply made up a number.

            Also loading a clip by hand can be a pain in the ass. I did it enough while in the army. They also have tools which attach to the clip where you can load 10 in the time it takes to load one round. They had them in the military. I dont know about civilian rifles as I have only owned one and that is the .22 that I have.

            I have to load both my pistol and 22 by hand now and I detest it. I could buy a speed loader to help with the process but as I said in the other thread I dont shoot often enough to really make it worthwhile. Try shoving 20 rounds in a 20 round clip (or even 10 in a ten round clip) and it can be frustrating and a pain.

            As for need. Why do we need cars that can go 120 MPH when the speed limit is 70 in most places. After all cars kill more folks than guns. Why do we need Excel 2012 when Excel 2007 is just fine for 99% of the population. Why do we need quart bottles of licquor when we can only drink a few shots at a time. A gallon of milk when you drink 16 oz at the most?

            Now I have answered your questions. I addressed your points politely and in detail. I request that you return the favor and answer my questions in the other thread. I saw your initial response and as I answered it I request your thoughts on the questions I asked.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            You might want to try one of these.

            http://www.amazon.com/Butler-Creek-22-380-Universal-Unloader/dp/B003ITKHM6/ref=pd_sim_sg_1

            It works very well. Might be more than you wish to spend, but it makes loading .22 magazines a breeze.

          • retired.military

            dTHanks

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            You might want to try one of these.

            http://www.amazon.com/Butler-Creek-22-380-Universal-Unloader/dp/B003ITKHM6/ref=pd_sim_sg_1

            It works very well. Might be more than you wish to spend, but it makes loading .22 magazines a breeze.

          • retired.military

            Carl
            As for “need”. The only reason is convenience. I can understand wanting to have the larger size clips especially when target shooting.

            BTW I have never heard of a 50 round clip. 35 yes, 100 yes, 30 yes, 20 yes, 10 yes. But not 50. I simply made up a number.

            Also loading a clip by hand can be a pain in the ass. I did it enough while in the army. They also have tools which attach to the clip where you can load 10 in the time it takes to load one round. They had them in the military. I dont know about civilian rifles as I have only owned one and that is the .22 that I have.

            I have to load both my pistol and 22 by hand now and I detest it. I could buy a speed loader to help with the process but as I said in the other thread I dont shoot often enough to really make it worthwhile. Try shoving 20 rounds in a 20 round clip (or even 10 in a ten round clip) and it can be frustrating and a pain.

            As for need. Why do we need cars that can go 120 MPH when the speed limit is 70 in most places. After all cars kill more folks than guns. Why do we need Excel 2012 when Excel 2007 is just fine for 99% of the population. Why do we need quart bottles of licquor when we can only drink a few shots at a time. A gallon of milk when you drink 16 oz at the most?

            Now I have answered your questions. I addressed your points politely and in detail. I request that you return the favor and answer my questions in the other thread. I saw your initial response and as I answered it I request your thoughts on the questions I asked.

          • Vagabond661

            Ever watch “Zombieland” Carl?

        • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

          The gun used by the killer did not meet the definition of “assault rifle” under the expired federal law or current Connecticut law which prohibits “assault rifles”. Care to try again?

          http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/how-do-we-know-an-assault-weapon-ban-wou

          Both laws ban the Colt AR-15 by name, but rifles not on the list of forbidden models are banned only if they have detachable magazines plus at least two of these five features: 1) a folding or telescoping stock, 2) a pistol grip, 3) a bayonet mount, 4) a grenade launcher, and 5) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor. The gun used by (the killer) was legal in Connecticut, so it did not meet these criteria…

          • Carl

            Yep, the gun industry, backed by the most powerful lobby in Washington, has done an excellent job of insuring that gun nuts have unfettered access to killing machines that contributed to the needless deaths of 2 children and 8 adults.

            Your point?

          • retired.military

            Carl

            The features listed above are absurd and useless.

            1. You can create a short stock simply by sawing off most of the shoulder butt. that negates 1 and 2 above.

            2. A bayonet mount. Not many people use bayonets and you can buy huge survival knifes and use duct tape if you really want to.

            3. A grenade launcher. No grenades for sale. You can simply throw pipe bombs easily made from gunpowder, pvc pipe, and nails.

            4. Flash suppresor / sound suppressor can be made from a 2 liter soda bottle, gallon of milk, or a pillow (just to name 3 things off the top of my head).

            .

            This just shows that polticians are not trying to do anything but cover their ass.

            As for most powerful lobby I think that title goes to the union lobby.

          • jim_m

            Actually it wasn’t even a grenade launcher but only a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades

            You can’t get the grenades so this was only ever a cosmetic device.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

            My point is your bandying about re-instituting the federal assault weapon ban as a common sense gun law that would have prevented this shooting. I asked for suggestions of common sense gun laws that would prevent this from ever happening again and what you’re proposing is in effect in CT now and it didn’t stop it this time, much less the next.

            I’m trying to have the conversation on gun control everyone claims we need to have in good faith but you’ve got to play that gun nuts shit like I’m half responsible for what happened in Newtown. How about this, you show me one instance in American history where prohibition ever succeeded. Until then, seriously, fuck off.

            You’re just peddling cheap, easy answers to a problem with no easy solution. There are already thousands of rifles with detachable magazines in private hands and maybe millions of large capacity magazines. Unless you’re planning to follow-up your proposed ban with seizures of weapons from law-abiding citizens your proposed assault weapon ban will not accomplish anything.

            And no, I’m not saying booga booga booga Obama’s coming for your guns. I’m asking what you intend to do about the thousands of “assault weapons” already in existence. A ban doesn’t suddenly make them inert.

            Beyond that, from a statistical standpoint most spree killings are committed with handguns. I guess you’re arguing those kids would be less dead if the shooter had used the Glock and Sig pistols he had with him? Or do those get banned also?

            If I thought banning certain weapons or magazines would guarantee this would never happen again I’d be willing to listen to “common sense” ways to keep them away from criminals. But we don’t live in a fantasy world where banning means impossible to get or magically makes the disfavored weapons already in existence disappear.

            A ban on assault weapons sales and high capacity magazines if it happened tomorrow wouldn’t really affect me. If it does happen you can pat yourself on the back and congratulate everyone else who thinks they finally brought and end to senseless gun violence. Until the next shooting. And then what?

          • retired.military

            Baron

            Look at the shattered tranquility thread. i address issues which have been raised numerous times in the past few days. Carl refuses to address any of them.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

            10-4. I’m happy to have this debate with someone who’s serious and willing to be objective about the reality of the situation. It seems as though Carl’s not that person.

        • retired.military

          “No guarantees to anything, but we can cut down the odds by going back to the 1994 assault rifle ban”

          And if that doesnt work? Complete confiscation?

          • jim_m

            It didn’t work last time. Already some on the left is demanding complete confiscation. That’s the end game even if they won’t admit it.

          • Carl

            And the right’s gun nut’s “end game” is to let as many children die needlessly as is necessary – protecting 2nd amendment rights trumps human life for them.

          • retired.military

            “And the right’s gun nut’s “end game” is to let as many children die needlessly as is necessary – protecting 2nd amendment rights trumps human life for them.”

            Citation required. Pony up NOW.

            As for SOME ON the left wanting complete confiscation
            ” Already some on the left is demanding complete confiscation.”

            citation required

            CNN Don Lemon

            ““We need to get guns and bullets and automatic weapons off the streets. They should only be available to police officers and to hunt al-Qaeda and the Taliban and not hunt elementary school children,” an emotional Lemon appealed.”’

            http://jpfo.org/kirby/kirby-confiscation-good.htm

            Those are just off a quick google search. YOur citation now please. SOmeone on the right stating what you wrote above or anything remotely like it.

            Here is a clip of Chris Matthews wanting to outlaw all semiautomatic guns (that only covers about 99% of the weapons available to the public).

            http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2012/12/18/chris-matthews-outlaw-semi-automatic-guns

            Still waiting to hear about your NRA competition there Carl.

            Oh and that citing where folks from the right wing claim to want what you accused them of.

          • Carl

            ” Already some on the left is demanding complete confiscation.”

            citation required. Pony up NOW.

          • jim_m
          • Carl

            Of course not. That’s just the canard weak-minded extremists use to scare up opposition to sensible gun laws.

          • retired.military

            Carl
            I have tried to ask you what you consider sensible. The only thing in response I get is “ban assault weapons” “ban the 30 clip guns”.

            If that is the best answers the anti gun crowd can come up with than no wonder we cant have a decent conversation on the subject.

          • retired.military

            Than what is the next step Carl?

            BTW you didnt answer my questions above about your NRA competition shooting.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            That’s the next step. You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs – and if the eggs can fight back you might not be able to make it at all.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            That’s the next step. You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs – and if the eggs can fight back you might not be able to make it at all.

    • 914

      That’s what your Obamasiah said about Hope and Change and the Arab spring.

      Those are working so well aren’t they?

      • Carl

        I’m sorry – I don’t have an “Obamasiah” so I haven’t a clue as to what you’re babbling about.

    • Phil Snyder

      I’m with Carl! Gun laws need to be changed! Each householder shall be required to own two weapons – a shotgun (pump action) and a pistol that fires bullets >= 9mm. They must also train with these weapons and pass an annual weapons test – including written and shooting tests. The individual householders must bear the costs to do this. Everyone who fails to do this will be subject to a fine of $10,000. The authority for congress to do this will be the interstate commerce clause – just like Obamacare!

      • herddog505

        I like the way you think.

    • retired.military

      Carl

      See my questions to you in the shattered tranquility thread. I would like to have a serious conversation regarding the issues.

  • Hank_M

    Do something?

    The rallying cry for those who think govt provides, protects and saves us from ourselves.

    No one can prevent evil like this from occurring. But evil like this can be mitigated if more people are encouraged to better defend themselves. Gun free zones are nothing more that feel good defenseless zones.

    Take an armed criminal and let him/her loose on a neighborhood. Tell them that
    every home on one side of the street has an armed citizen. Which side of the street do you think they’re going to go after?

    • Conservachef

      Why, they’d attack the well-armed houses. Criminals are nothing if not supporters of a fair fight… They’d also ring the doorbell and wipe their feet on the doormat before coming inside, and say please and thank you during the altercation!

      /sarc

  • retired.military

    I for one see little if anything done in the end. The story will be last weeks news pretty soon. A law may get passed but it will solve nothing and do less to help fix anything except for politicians to point to themselves and say “I passed this law, it didnt do anything but I tried”

    • Carl

      This needs to be addressed.

      • retired.military

        Obviously not by you since you dont even want to have a decent civil conversation about the matter. Insult others? yes. Cuss and scream? yes. have a rational discussion and exchange of ideas ? No.

        • Carl

          Whatever… definition’s vary.

          Like it or not, gun nuts are going to need to justify their extreme position in the coming legislative efforts to curb the out of control gun violence that is killing innocent Americans.

          Feel free to offer alternatives — something other than the usual scare tactics and predictions that Obama is goign “to confiscate all your guns “Booo! boogie boogie”

          But you know what, if you can’t come up a logical and practical way to stem these needless murders, then gun nuts are going to have to give up some rights, such as the right to own assault rifles.

          And I’m sure you’re going to miss those 30 clip-capable guns. Cause they are so important… more important than human life according to many on the right.

          • retired.military

            Again Carl
            30 clip capable guns are also capable of shooting 10 rounds and 20 round clips. The clips are constructed the same. this is what I mean when I say you are talking with no idea of what you are talking about.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

            It’s not like you’ve suggested a logical and practical way to stem these needless murders. Just reruns of laws that had no affect on gun violence when they were enacted previously. To me practical means it actually works. Still waiting on your suggestions…

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            That’s the thing about proposing reinstating the assault weapons crap from ’94. It’s going to solve all the problems – because it’s a potential law. It’s PERFECT – at least for the time being.

            If it actually gets enacted, it won’t have any effect… but that’s not going to matter. Any failures will be because it didn’t go far ENOUGH. So then amendments will be brought to the table – and once again the ‘if you care about the children, you’ll give up your guns!’ crap will be trotted out. The amendments will make it PERFECT – at least, for the time being.

            Until something else happens. And then, it’ll be necessary to take things even further – accompanied with weeping wails of ‘do it for the poor dead children!’. Something will get thrown together – and it will be PERFECT – at least for the time being.

            What the left always forgets is that words don’t affect reality. Passing a law prohibiting something doesn’t change the world. A drug dealer’s not going to tell his supplier to not include some guns in the latest shipment because they’re illegal. If anything, he’ll double the order because it’ll be profitable. (Not as much as his main product, but hey, a profit’s a profit!)

            Criminals don’t give a damn about the law. What criminals love are victims that can’t fight back, cops that take 20 minutes to show up, and a legal system that’ll punish the victim for any attempts to protect themselves.

            And the only folks who’ll voluntarily disarm themselves … are the law-abiding.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            That’s the thing about proposing reinstating the assault weapons crap from ’94. It’s going to solve all the problems – because it’s a potential law. It’s PERFECT – at least for the time being.

            If it actually gets enacted, it won’t have any effect… but that’s not going to matter. Any failures will be because it didn’t go far ENOUGH. So then amendments will be brought to the table – and once again the ‘if you care about the children, you’ll give up your guns!’ crap will be trotted out. The amendments will make it PERFECT – at least, for the time being.

            Until something else happens. And then, it’ll be necessary to take things even further – accompanied with weeping wails of ‘do it for the poor dead children!’. Something will get thrown together – and it will be PERFECT – at least for the time being.

            What the left always forgets is that words don’t affect reality. Passing a law prohibiting something doesn’t change the world. A drug dealer’s not going to tell his supplier to not include some guns in the latest shipment because they’re illegal. If anything, he’ll double the order because it’ll be profitable. (Not as much as his main product, but hey, a profit’s a profit!)

            Criminals don’t give a damn about the law. What criminals love are victims that can’t fight back, cops that take 20 minutes to show up, and a legal system that’ll punish the victim for any attempts to protect themselves.

            And the only folks who’ll voluntarily disarm themselves … are the law-abiding.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

        Okay, try this on for size – http://chartsbin.com/view/1454

        Mexico and Brazil have far more restrictive gun control laws than the US but have twice and four times the murder rate per 100,000 people as the US. How can that be?

        Are people less dead when they’re not killed with a gun?

  • Carl

    Here’s “something” – positive something in my view.

    Ted Nugent, right wing draft-dodger, pedophile and gun lover, has been fired…

    In addition to cancelling its popular “American Guns” reality show, The Discovery Channel confirmed to Raw Story on Tuesday that firearms enthusiast Ted Nugent will also not be returning to the channel in any form or fashion.

    Speaking to Raw Story in remarks specified as “not for attribution,” a spokesperson admitted that “Ted Nugent’s Gun Country” didn’t do very well when it aired in October, even with fellow firearms fashionistas. Nielsen Ratings placed the viewership at about 864,000 people in all. But the network’s decision is not just about the numbers.

    After Friday’s devastating massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary
    School in Newtown, Connecticut, the spokesperson said that Nugent would
    definitely not be returning to the Discovery Channel.

    Nugent and his allies at the National Rifle Association (NRA) repeatedly claimed that his hour-long Discovery Channel special was actually a planned “series.”
    The Detroit native and longtime southern rocker even told Armed America
    Radio listeners in October to “expect that there will be at least a
    dozen shows a year.” The channel’s spokesperson confirmed that this was
    never actually in the works.

    Nugent, who endorsed Mitt Romney for president, was investigated by the Secret Service earlier this year after he urged NRA members to “chop [Democrats'] heads off in November.”

    I left that last paragraph in to give Jim_m something to laugh about. he’s been so serious recently…

    Raw Story (http://s.tt/1xjGL)

    • Vagabond661

      And now for something from left field, here’s Carl.

    • retired.military

      Carl

      Will the secret service investigate dems who are calling for NRA members to be killed?

      http://www.examiner.com/article/texas-democratic-party-leader-blogger-calls-for-shooting-nra-members

      Do you find things like that funny?
      As for Ted Nugent. Who cares what he thinks? I give as much a flip about what he says that I do Roseanne Barr. If he wants to talk about singing I might listen to him but I extremely doubt it. Actors, singers and the like should stick to what they know.

      Why all the hate from the left Carl?

      • Carl

        We’re sick and tied of extremists on the right killing our children.

        it’s just that simple.

        • Vagabond661

          Seriuosly do we have to put up with this shit?

          • Conservachef

            It is starting to get old. Stuck on stupid, repeating the same thing over and over, throwing insults and vile insinuations like crazy. He can’t even have a reasonable discussion.

          • jim_m

            Not can’t. Won’t.

          • jim_m

            Not can’t. Won’t.

          • Conservachef

            Jim, maybe you give him more credit than me. I actually think he is incapable of reasonable debate. If he is, then he is doing a mighty fine job of hiding it.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            “throwing insults and vile insinuations like crazy.”

            That IS his idea of a reasonable discussion. You’re wrong, and he’s going to insult you until you see he’s right.

            Doesn’t work particularly well, I think, but that’s what he knows to do. Rather like trying to use a screwdriver as a wrench… doesn’t get the job done, but if all you’ve got is a screwdriver, that’s what you use.

          • herddog505

            It serves its purpose. Let’s remember: this is what lefties really are. It’s helpful to be reminded on a regular basis.

          • Vagabond661

            I can see people like chico or brucehenry on here because they will engage a debate with you. But Carl dumbs down any conversation he is in.

            He is like the Piers Morgan or Soledad of Wizbang.

          • jim_m

            More like the Candy Crowley, interrupting and interjecting falsehoods.

        • retired.military

          Carl

          As I have pointed out numerous times and you have refused to address numerous times.

          If someone wants to go kill a lot of folks than taking away guns isnt going to stop them.

          Also all those “extremists” pretty much all turn out to be mentally unstable. Here is a question. Why not get rid of all the mentally unstable folks since they are the ones which seem to be doing the killing? Note: I am not advocating for this I am simply asking you a question which I am sure you will refuse to provide a sensible answer (yet again).

          Also you wanted to rant on Nugent for what he said yet you have nothing negative to say about the dems which want to kill NRA folks who have broken no laws. Yet another glaring hypocracy to add to your long list.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Anyone that isn’t of Carl’s opinion is an extremist – plain and simple.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Anyone that isn’t of Carl’s opinion is an extremist – plain and simple.

        • http://twitter.com/jinx_mchue Severe Conservative

          I’d bet a lot of money that Mrs. Lanza was a Democrat and voted for Obama. I’d also bet that her son was, too. They probably enjoyed a lot of Democrat handouts.

  • http://twitter.com/jinx_mchue Severe Conservative

    Looks like Carl’s run off with his tail between his legs. He’ll be back, though, and will completely ignore the thrashing he received.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

      From what I saw in my e-mail last night, someone brought to Kevin’s attention that all Carl’s comments devolve into calling people racist or de facto child murderers. I believe Kevin drop the ban hammer on him. Me? I really don’t care since that’s SOP for pretty much every left-leaning commenter with whom I’ve ever tried to engage on the Internet.

  • Pingback: No easy answers, no cheap fix | Wizbang

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE