CNN EDITORIAL: Gun control or carry permits won't stop mass murder

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/opinion/fox-mass-murder/index.html

SNIP

If one thing is predictable about mass shootings, however, is that they will spark arguments from gun control advocates and gun rights groups alike. Both sides of the gun issue will probably view this tragedy as one more example of why more or less gun control is the answer ... and both sides will be wrong.

Tighter restrictions on gun purchasing -- for example, eliminating multiple gun sales and closing the gun-show loophole -- may help reduce America's gun violence problem generally, but mass murder is unlike most other forms of violent conflict.

Mass killers are determined, deliberate and dead-set on murder. They plan methodically to execute their victims, finding the means no matter what laws or other impediments the state attempts to place in their way. To them, the will to kill cannot be denied.

Mass shootings have been exploited just as effectively by pro-gun groups to promote legislation allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons in public places. Concealed-carry proponents suggest that an armed citizenry would deter criminals or at least reduce the death toll.

While logical in theory, in the chaos of the moment, few gun owners would be prepared to mount an effective counterattack. And in a crowded setting, such as the movie theater clouded with tear gas and smoke, it would be virtually impossible to distinguish the bad guy with a gun from the good guys with their guns.

SNIP

It is also unreasonable to expect that we would begin a campaign to round up all the guns or all the potentially dangerous people who might have access to guns. Mass murder is regrettably one of the painful consequences of the freedoms we enjoy.

Let it be noted that there have been several mass shootings that have been stopped by an armed citizen, including two school shootings. All in all, it is a fairly well balanced article.

[Politicalboi]

1. Can't one own a lot of guns legally?

Yes. I know mass killers will still kill, but to make it okay to own a shitload of guns just makes it easier. And the fact that it is ALLOWED, only makes it less crazy to some. It's funny the RW always talk about having condoms available will make the kids have sex, but when it comes to easy access to a lot of guns they don't mind. It's their fucking right.

[krispos42]

2. You don't need a shitload of guns to commit mass murder

You need 5 good shots.



Common definition of a mass murder is 5 or more victims.

[Johnny Rico]

3. Define "a lot" of guns, please.

What do you think is the maximum number of guns a citizen should be allowed to own?

[Marinedem]

11. Wasting your time.

Whenever anitgunners are asked to provide this magical arbitrary number, they wiggle out.

Same with mag capacity.

[GreenStormCloud]

4. Owning a lot of guns does not make mass murder shooting easier.

Suppose you owned 15 guns. (That isn't a lot, I have about 10.) Trying to carry all those guns to your murder site is a lot of weight and somewhat clumsy, likely to invite attention too soon. Two or three is the most that I have read about a mass shooter having at the time. Most of the time they have only one. The Luby's killer had just one. The trick is having lots of ammo and being able to reload in a real hurry.

Loughner had just one gun, and tried to solve the ammo problem with an extended 33 shot magazine. However, such magazines tend to be unreliable, likely to jam on the 30th to 33rd rounds. His appears to have had a failure to feed jam on the 32nd round, disabling his gun and allowing him to be tackled by an older woman. If he had been using standard magazines as Cho did at VT, and as the Luby's killer did, he could have instantly reloaded before anybody could react to his empty gun, which is what the other killers did.

[Higgs boson]

5. Some of the hysterical gun-control advocates remind me of the guy who took his car to the shop

and said "my brakes don't work, make the horn louder"...

[ThePhilosopher04]

33. May be the dumbest analogy I've ever read ...

Restricting access and/or banning certain weapons outright will most certainly have a positive affect on gun related crimes and deaths ... I agree it won't stop them all, but to suggest it won't make any difference, or at least partially address the problem is pure ignorance, stupidity and denial.

If it were up to me, you'd get one musket since we're strict constructionists and all.

[gejohnston]

34. Actually

It may be "common sense" but there is no evidence that is will.

[Clames]

41. This may be the dumbest assertion I've ever read...

Restricting access and/or banning certain weapons outright will most certainly have a positive affect on gun related crimes and deaths ...

Not one shred of evidence supports this. Ignorance, stupidity, and denial is right...

[Higgs boson]

42. Okay, and you get one quill pen.

Deal?

[Euromutt]

6. Slight correction: the Luby's killer had two guns

A Glock 17 and a Ruger P89, to be specific.

There are quite a few incidents in which a shooter brought a bunch of guns, but they almost always end up using only one or two of them. The guy from Washington state who shot up that Jewish community center near LA and then murdered a Filippino postman had half a dozen guns or more in his van, but he ended up using one each at each sub-incident (an Chinese Uzi knockoff carbine at the community center, and a Glock 26 for the postman).

[GreenStormCloud]

38. Thanks. N/T

[4th law of robotics]

7. Try shooting five guns at once

one is sufficient for a spree killing.

Any more and you might look "badass" but you aren't particularly more dangerous.

All a gun count limit would achieve is to annoy hobbyists that are of no harm to anyone but a clay pigeon.

[spin]

9. There are an estimated 80 million legal gun owners in our nation. ...

Occasionally one of these millions runs amok and uses his weapons to cause a tragedy. Fortunately such incidents are extremely rare but that doesn't alleviate the pain and grief that the victims and their families suffer.

I realize that there are good arguments on both sides of the gun control issue. I'm not sure that opposition to allowing an individual to own a "shitload of weapons" is one of the better augments that the pro-gun control side can use.

Individuals who enjoy the shooting sports often own a large variety of firearms. Hunters often own rifles, shotguns and handguns. Target shooters frequently enjoy shooting the same variety of firearms. Collectors often purchase a large variety of sometimes rare firearms for enjoyment and hope that the value of their collection will increase over time and often their collection does prove extremely profitable.

I primarily enjoy target shooting handguns but I do also own a 12 gauge double barreled coach gun, a .22 caliber target rifle and a Swedish Mauser Rifle. Most of my handguns are best suited for target shooting and I own many of these handguns in different calibers including .22 Long Rifle, 9mm, 38 special, .38/.357 magnum, .45acp and .44 magnum. All my weapons have only punched holes in paper and have never killed or injured a living creature. I could point out that none of my firearms would qualify as an "assault weapon" but I have no problem with those who chose to own such weapons. I acquired my collection during 45 years of shooting.

Since I have a concealed weapons permit I have three handguns primarily dedicated for carry which I also use for home defense. All are small and light five shot revolvers. One is an extremely light snub nosed S&W revolver in .38 caliber and is my favorite as it is extremely easy to carry in my pants pocket. Another is a S&W .38/.357 small frame revolver with a 3" barrel which I sometimes carry in the cold months in Florida when I can cover a holstered weapon with a light jacket and the 9mm is a fairly rare S&W revolver which I have in a lock box 10 feet from where I am sitting as I type this post. It offers an advantage for carry or self defense as it can be reloaded much faster than most revolvers as it uses a device called a full moon clip. This is fairly technical point but if you have any interest you can watch this video:

Does the fact that I own such a collection of firearms make me far more dangerous than an unstable individual with serious mental issues or a criminal who uses only one or two firearms in his chosen profession?

I will totally agree that firearms are extremely dangerous items and I have personally suffered a tragedy in my own life that was caused by the misuse of one of these weapons. It was ruled as a suicide but was probably the result of an accidental shooting caused by mixing alcohol with handling a loaded weapon. This incident involved an individual who I had personally trained in firearm safety and shooting. Many people considered her to be an extremely good shooter and were impressed with her ability to handle a firearms in a safe manner. She apparently was in the middle of an argument with her husband over their financial situation in our difficult economy and in order to gain leverage put a revolver to her head and cocked it. It discharged and she now is merely ashes in a container. She totally ignored three lessons that I tried to teach. One was to never mix alcohol with handling a firearm, the second was to safely store firearms properly in a locked box or safe and the third was never to point a loaded weapon at anything you do not wish to destroy. She also possibly saved her life with the same firearm as she used it to stop an intruder breaking into her home.

Firearms are inanimate objects and how they are used is totally up to the person who is holding the weapon. The number of such weapons that a person owns is relatively irrelevant. In any society that allows the civilian ownership of firearms it is obvious that these weapons can be used for both evil and good. If you support the argument that
allowing civilians to own firearms is wrong than you will support legislation that leads to draconian gun control and the eventual ban of all such ownership. If you feel that while firearms are dangerous items in the wrong hands but can save lives in the right hands and can be legitimately used for sporting purposes and for collecting as well as legitimate self defense, you will find yourself on on side of the argument that opposes draconian gun control measures.

Many people view this as a black and white issue (no racial connotations suggested). I personally feel the issue is largely over shades of gray. Civilian ownership of these weapons both costs lives but also saves many.

As I have stated there are good arguments of both sides of the issue. I just feel that limiting the number of weapons any honest citizen can own is largely irrelevant.

[Euromutt]

8. I'm always skeptical about the "blue on blue" argument

That is, the one that "it would be virtually impossible to distinguish the bad guy with a gun from the good guys with their guns." It strikes me--and while I acknowledge this is speculation, I see no reason why it would less valid than the author's speculation--that only one armed individual is going to be aiming and shooting at people without guns. In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, the two students who responded independently didn't end up pointing guns at each other.

That said, that doesn't mean armed citizens are necessarily a panacea. In a crowded environment like a movie theater on opening night, even if you can identify the shooter, getting a clear shot is a very dubious proposition.

[Hoyt]

10. Restrictions on toting will change how people look at guns.

It will make them less appealing to potential future purchasers, get some off the streets, and perhaps PROVE members of our society can live without guns strapped on.

[Marinedem]

12. Yep.

Making something taboo only ever reduces interest.

Wait.......

[Hoyt]

13. It's worked for cigarettes, etc. We can tax the damn things too. Guns

Guns are not taxed enough in this country. Those who buy and have them need to pay for shootings, not those who don't. Make them get insurance too.

[Marinedem]

16. Well...

I guess you can pass whatever laws you want to in your fantasy land.

[Hoyt]

18. It is though with NRA and other right wing groups owning Congress.

[DBoon]

31. laws are useless against criminals

we should own and carry guns to defend ourselves instead of depending on the police.

Never rely on the government to do anything is the lesson here.

If laws against firearms won't work, neither will any other laws or forms of government action meant to improve our well-being.

"Where seconds matter, the police are there in minutes" denies the legitimacy of organized law enforcement.

If you can't depend on enforcement of law to regulate social norms, then forget about public health, public education, health and safety regulation and the like.

You and your gun are all you have.

Which is why the argument of gun advocates is inherently brutal and reactionary. Thomas Hobbes imagined a society that the gun advocates desire.

[gejohnston]

32. false arguement

and very over simplistic. Actually pretty fucking absurd. On the bright side, it is better thought out than the anti gun trolls that are among the regulars. Not saying you are a troll, simply saying most of the stricter control advocates here are. Most of the drive bys are too. But if you want to debate, you need a better game than that.

[GreenStormCloud]

39. No it doesn't deny the legitimacy of law inforcement.

The saying, "When seconds count the police are only minutes away." recognizes a painful truth. Between the time when you call 911 and the arrival of the police you are on your own. Typically violent crime happens in seconds. The police will not be able to be there in time to stop you from being victimized, possibly fatally. You have to protect yourself until the police arrive.

[permatex]

35. Gee Hoyt

how well is the war on drugs going?
Why the fuck do I have to pay for someone else's criminal use of a firearm?

[CokeMachine]

45. Does that apply to children also?

I don't have any children and my taxes help pay for parks, schools and many other things that I don't use. I'd pay some extra sales tax on firearms if that money was dedicated to firearms education and/or training.

[Atypical Liberal]

48. You should vote for Romney. He's all for taxing regular Americans, too.

Insurance, on the other hand, is cheap. I've never had an insurance company even ask if we have firearms.

The fact is, people who are well off enough to buy insurance aren't likely to be involved in criminal undertakings.

[Tejas]

14. YUP, and restrictions on PORN and BOOZE and...DRUGS!

Hell yeah dude, you're on to something awesome there. Restrict drugs and people will lose interest. It's worked like a charm in..uh...in...um...oh yeah, Antarctica.

[Hoyt]

15. Tejas, are you saying those "law-abiding" gun carriers wouldn't follow laws.

Throw some manufacturers, gun distributors, gun buyers, etc., in jail.

Burn gun abusers like Zimmerman.

More later, I'm having home invasion.

[gejohnston]

17. have your #10 can of beans ready?

baked beans work the best.

[pipoman]

19. The more I read your writings,

the more I envision my judgmental great uncle...slightly different views on who should be hunted down, but the same kind of thinking...he thinks there should be open season on "teh illegals"...

[Hoyt]

21. A lot of gun culture are bigoted. Bet your uncle is a "gun lover" too.

[pipoman]

22. LOL

YOU are talking about "bigoted'? The definition of bigoted is....well..appropriate on so many tragic levels...LOL

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

Notice how the only time race is brought into the definition is in an example of the meaning of the word 'group'? Funny how it sounds like a bigot is someone who, " is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance".

Now read these lines..

"Throw some manufacturers, gun distributors, gun buyers, etc., in jail.

Burn gun abusers like Zimmerman."

LOL...

Maybe I'll go get a link to thread the other day when you were looking at pictures of people you had never met and know nothing about deciding based on a picture they should arbitrarily be stripped of their civil liberties...

Get Off My Lawn!!!1!1!! LOL

[Hoyt]

23. I have admitted to be "bigoted" with respect to guns, and what they mean to many of the bigots that

carry and otherwise abuse them.

[pipoman]

26. Now that's liberal thinking right there..

[Hoyt]

28. Yeah, guns everywhere we go is such a progressive cause.

[gejohnston]

29. so do you prance around with

a can of beans or two down your pants?

[shadowrider]

37. If he does, I bet he's popular with the women until

they find out he's just compensating.

[Hoyt]

40. Nope, and I don't practice on silhouette targets, etc., with my alternative self dense items.

[Higgs boson]

43. We already see what your self dense items are.

[Hoyt]

44. Better than strapping a gun or two on to venture out into public, and polluting society.

[permatex]

36. I notice that the only time race is introduced into a discussion here

is by you. Why is that Hoyt? Not saying your a racist, (wink, wink) but your the only one who introduces the race card.

[Hoyt]

24. So your unk is a gun "enthusiast", another hit in my "research."

[pipoman]

25. I don't even have a great uncle that I know of..

more a caricature I have in my mind..

[Hoyt]

27. Tell truth, he has a bunch of guns, even in your mind.

[CokeMachine]

46. We must be related.

I seem to have that same uncle. Everything or anyone he doesn't associate with must be immediately prohibited or super regulated. He's a big fan of gun control (except cops and border control). He won't step into a house that contains a gun. I'm fine with that -- it keeps him away from me.

[Tejas]

20. Probably, so I nominate you as #1-badass-door-breacher.

"Throw some manufacturers, gun distributors, gun buyers, etc., in jail.

Burn gun abusers like Zimmerman"







Now THAT'S the Hoyt I knew was hiding behind that cuddly exterior, show em what you're made of big boy!

[4th law of robotics]

47. "Burn gun abusers"

Seems like we need match-control if there are any more like you running around.

[Tejas]

30. Seems to work fine in Mexico?

oh wait...