Here we go again - Empire State Building Shooting

[BYU 14]

WTF???

Several people shot outside Empire State Building - U.S. News (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/24/13455394-several-people-shot-outside-empire-state-building?lite)

[molson]

Another article said it was a dispute between co-workers. Though of course, the initial reports are often wrong.

[PackerFanatic]

I had seen that too - disgruntled employee targeting one specific person, injuries were mostly ricochets.

[PackerFanatic]

Either way - disturbed people doing disturbing things...

[BYU 14]

Either way - disturbed people doing disturbing things...

Agreed, I can't fathom getting a gun because someone pisses me off. I don't want to downplay anybody getting shot, but I hope it turns out to be one person being targeted vs. another random act of mass violence.

[sterlingice]

Can this server as the obligatory gun control comment so we move onto the next phase of these threads which is someone else complaining about "so and so is trying to push an agenda"?

At some point, we're going to have to have this conversation as a society but maybe we're just not ready for it right now.

SI

[cartman]

The only valid time for opening fire at the Empire State Building is if there is a giant ape climbing the side of it.

[ISiddiqui]

:(

Lord, in Your mercy.

[panerd]

Can this server as the obligatory gun control comment so we move onto the next phase of these threads which is someone else complaining about "so and so is trying to push an agenda"?

At some point, we're going to have to have this conversation as a society but maybe we're just not ready for it right now.

SI

I thought NYC had some of the strictest gun control laws in the country? Sometimes a nut and/or an asshole is just that. It's just not as interesting to focus on what causes a person to become such a piece of shit that they decide to take several other people down with them. This is the conversation that is often missing from these threads.

[lordscarlet]

I thought NYC had some of the strictest gun control laws in the country? Sometimes a nut and/or an asshole is just that. It's just not as interesting to focus on what causes a person to become such a piece of shit that they decide to take several other people down with them. This is the conversation that is often missing from these threads.

When you can just cross a state border, do gun laws in an individual state/city really matter much?

[JediKooter]

I thought NYC had some of the strictest gun control laws in the country? Sometimes a nut and/or an asshole is just that. It's just not as interesting to focus on what causes a person to become such a piece of shit that they decide to take several other people down with them. This is the conversation that is often missing from these threads.

They do. Ask Plaxico Burress.

[Rizon]

When you can just cross a state border, do gun laws in an individual state/city really matter much?

Nope, a lot of people I know get guns/ammo from Nevada, where there is basically no laws.

[molson]

When you can just cross a state border, do gun laws in an individual state/city really matter much?

Do we know that this guy drove over to Ohio this morning to buy a gun he could legally buy there but not in Manhattan? Isn't it more likely he was either a previously law-abiding guy who could have bought a gun anywhere, or he's a criminal who got his gun illegally?

I don't think the general gun shaming after after every single shooting is going to lead to any new legislation, it's just going to make people defensive and dig their heels in. The gun control people need leadership.

[sterlingice]

I thought NYC had some of the strictest gun control laws in the country? Sometimes a nut and/or an asshole is just that. It's just not as interesting to focus on what causes a person to become such a piece of shit that they decide to take several other people down with them. This is the conversation that is often missing from these threads.

It's not as interesting and under reported? Shenanigans. I really am clueless and tune out the "celebrity" aspect of news but because it's so ubiquitous you can't help but pick up some elements. How about that the Sikh temple guy was in a white supremacist band? Or that the Colorado guy was a university student and his mom was unsurprised when they released the name?

No, I'm pretty sure we cover those angles, too. But apparently there's a completely reflexive "no" to anyone who wants to talk about the gun part.

SI

[molson]

But apparently there's a completely reflexive "no" to anyone who wants to talk about the gun part.

SI

We must be on different Internets and FOFC message boards.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I hope it's not another crazy white dude. All these crazy-ass white dudes who are so into killing people are giving the rest of us non-crazy white dudes a bad name. Soon we'll be getting profiled.

[JediKooter]

Fucking whitey!

[lordscarlet]

Do we know that this guy drove over to Ohio this morning to buy a gun he could legally buy there but not in Manhattan? Isn't it more likely he was either a previously law-abiding guy who could have bought a gun anywhere, or he's a criminal who got his gun illegally?

I don't think the general gun shaming after after every single shooting is going to lead to any new legislation, it's just going to make people defensive and dig their heels in. The gun control people need leadership.

We don't know anything about him or how he got his gun. But the snarky comment was made about NYC's strict gun laws in regards to gun control. I'm just pointing out what a straw-man that is. This person could have bought a gun 10 years ago in another state, moved to NYC 5 years ago, and kept it under their bed. Local gun controls are going to do very little to prevent gun ownership when they can enter that jurisdiction based on legally obtaining that gun elsewhere without passing through some sort of border control. I'm in no way saying you should ahve to do such a thing, but if you want gun strict gun control it has to be national. Claiming strict gun laws are doing nothing in NYC is a pointless discussion.

[panerd]

We don't know anything about him or how he got his gun. But the snarky comment was made about NYC's strict gun laws in regards to gun control. I'm just pointing out what a straw-man that is. This person could have bought a gun 10 years ago in another state, moved to NYC 5 years ago, and kept it under their bed. Local gun controls are going to do very little to prevent gun ownership when they can enter that jurisdiction based on legally obtaining that gun elsewhere without passing through some sort of border control. I'm in no way saying you should ahve to do such a thing, but if you want gun strict gun control it has to be national. Claiming strict gun laws are doing nothing in NYC is a pointless discussion.

Actually the "snarky" comment's whole point was that we blame the shooter. But obviously someone who is willing to committ mass murder and/or suicide is going to be deterred by another law so no reason to talk about why they might want to committ mass murder and instead we should focus on more laws like NYC already has that prevented this to occur in NYC this morning.

[sterlingice]

Actually the "snarky" comment's whole point was that we blame the shooter. But obviously someone who is willing to committ mass murder and/or suicide is going to be deterred by another law so no reason to talk about why they might want to committ mass murder and instead we should focus on more laws like NYC already has that prevented this to occur in NYC this morning.

Yeah, guy is a nutjob. No one is denying that in the least. No one has suggested otherwise about the other shooters.

But we've now had quite a few perfectly innocent bystanders killed now and it would be negligent to not talk about. People fly planes into building, we take a look at security there. People use fertilizer to blow up a building, we take a look at security there. People drive recklessly in cars from talking on cell phones or drinking and we look at ways to curb that.

And I'm not saying that increased gun control is necessarily the right action. I made some real, concrete suggestions in another thread and welcome any debate on them. But like the previous ones: 1) it likely won't stop every incident, 2) is the medicine worse than the disease, and 3) we should always be looking to improve our quality of life so let's use this as a good chance to debate the merits of this as a whole. I know I've been particularly vocal on the mistakes we've made with regards to the TSA, for instance. But this automatic defensiveness of "let's not even talk about it" and complete dismissal is absurd.

I'm just going to let Jon Stewart make my point for me since he's a better speaker than I am:

<iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:416815" frameborder="0" height="288" width="512"></iframe>The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-23-2012/aurora---gun-control)
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/),Political Humor & Satire Blog (http://www.indecisionforever.com/),The Daily Show on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow)

"Look, this is the time to talk about all of it. Everything should be on the table. Anything that could have mitigated this terrible event. I'm not even saying gun control would do it, I'm saying it's gotta be part of the conversation"

We're adults and we can have this conversation without it devolving into "nuh-uh, I'm putting my hands in my ears", right?

SI

[molson]

"Look, this is the time to talk about all of it. Everything should be on the table. Anything that could have mitigated this terrible event. I'm not even saying gun control would do it, I'm saying it's gotta be part of the conversation"

We're adults and we can have this conversation without it devolving into "nuh-uh, I'm putting my hands in my ears", right?

SI

He's riffing on clips for yuks, but, the discussion is happening, clearly. Here and all over the news media. (well, except for that brief time we were banned from talking about it in that one thread). The current strategy for gun control advocates is just failing (if the goal is more and new legislation). If the goal is just general gun shaming and a blaming of rights, ideas, and unrelated individuals for every violent act in our big country, I guess they're succeeding there.

[lordscarlet]

Actually the "snarky" comment's whole point was that we blame the shooter. But obviously someone who is willing to committ mass murder and/or suicide is going to be deterred by another law so no reason to talk about why they might want to committ mass murder and instead we should focus on more laws like NYC already has that prevented this to occur in NYC this morning.

Obviously that should be looked at. But if guns were not accepted and relatively easy to acquire in the US, this guy would have his fists or a knife.. something that would cause far less damage. I know the "people can get it illegally" argument will get thrown out there, but if you look at countries like Japan and Korea which have very strict gun control laws the per capita murder rate by guns is very low. I don't know what the violent crime rate is by other methods, but clearly guns are far more effective than any other means.

[molson]

I know the "people can get it illegally" argument will get thrown out there, but if you look at countries like Japan and Korea which have very strict gun control laws the per capita murder rate by guns is very low. I don't know what the violent crime rate is by other methods, but clearly guns are far more effective than any other means.

Many fewer guns would surely mean much less gun violence, and probably less violence in general. I think that's the completely wrong approach though as far as rhetoric in the reactions to the shootings, because it's not realistic, and emboldens resistance to more realistic reform. Edit: The Anti-gun control groups are often mocked for being paranoid about the government taking their guns, but when the pro-gun control groups cite Japan and Korea as the answer, then I can understand the paranoia. If all anybody truly wants is reasonable gun control regulation, it makes no sense to try to attack and break down and vilify the gun culture here - because real significant change in terms of the gun culture and millions of guns already in circulation would take pretty radical changes.

[gstelmack]

Obviously that should be looked at. But if guns were not accepted and relatively easy to acquire in the US, this guy would have his fists or a knife.. something that would cause far less damage. I know the "people can get it illegally" argument will get thrown out there, but if you look at countries like Japan and Korea which have very strict gun control laws the per capita murder rate by guns is very low. I don't know what the violent crime rate is by other methods, but clearly guns are far more effective than any other means.

I posted stats on this for the US in the thread that spawned off the Colorado theater shooting thread. Feel free to head over there for a discussion. In the US, non-gun violence is also pretty high, although the point about innocent bystanders being more at risk in a situation like this with guns (as opposed to Colorado where the intent was to kill innocent bystanders) is a good one.

[BYU 14]

The shooter owned the gun for over 20 years and it was not purchased in NY

Johnson bought the .45-caliber gun used in the shooting in 1991 in Florida, two law enforcement souces told NBC News. He was not licensed to carry arms in New York, they said.

[molson]

The shooter owned the gun for over 20 years and it was not purchased in NY

He had no criminal record, was laid off last year, and went after his old supervisor with a handgun he's had lying around forever. Maybe this one can be about the economy and not gun control.

[sterlingice]

He had no criminal record, was laid off last year, and went after his old supervisor with a handgun he's had lying around forever. Maybe this one can be about the economy and not gun control.

True, if the economy had been better and he hadn't lost his job or was in another job, he may not kill anyone at all. And if the harassment claims (just going on the CNN story I quickly glanced over) had been acted on differently, maybe he doesn't kill anyone at all.

But if it was something else and not these things which triggered the event, if he doesn't have a gun, he kills one guy with a knife, car, or whatever and not another person while wounding 10 others.

SI

[molson]

But if it was something else and not these things which triggered the event, if he doesn't have a gun, he kills one guy with a knife, car, or whatever and not another person while wounding 10 others.



Maybe. But I still think you'd need pretty radical (and unrealistic) changes to the law to prevent a law-abiding guy with no record from legally just purchasing a gun. Maybe more waiting periods will prevent more angry gunless people from going in, getting the gun before they calm down and doing violence. I'm not against that. But I think the the impact on overall violent crime would be minimal or non-existent, relative to the attention the debate gets (and it'd be hard to isolate that as a factor as our violent crime rate keeps plunging as it is). I suppose it couldn't hurt, but it's just pretty much an irrelevant factor, IMO. In a free society, you can't prevent an ordinary person from doing harm, it's just a fact. Anybody on my floor could kill everyone else here via firearm with little problem, regardless of the state of gun laws.

[sterlingice]

It's very true. Frankly, if that was the case: legally bought firearm from guy with no criminal record- not much of a way to stop that one. That's how the system is supposed to work: you want a gun, you aren't nuts or a threat to others, you can buy a reasonable gun.

I still think a more robust debate about gun control needs to happen and these are opportunities to discuss.

SI

[panerd]

But if it was something else and not these things which triggered the event, if he doesn't have a gun, he kills one guy with a knife, car, or whatever and not another person while wounding 10 others.

SI

From what I can gather from news reports and a police spokesman I saw on tv at the gym the shooter walked up and shot the guy in the head and then police were notified and began shooting. It looks like a lot/all of the other people shot were shot by the police. I am not blaming the police one bit, we would be all over them if he killed like 15 more people. But the mass casualites may not be due to his gun spraying and killing a bunch of people which again puts this story at about the same level as far as gun control is concerned as just about every other shooting. (What was it 13 Chicago last night alone?)

[Logan]

Wow, shooter lived on my old block on 82nd St between 2nd and 3rd.

[molson]

(What was it 13 Chicago last night alone?)

13 shot in 30 minutes, 19 overall during the night. I think it's just less newsworthy when it's gang-related, instead of a guy with a suit and briefcase. Though I think you can do a lot more about the former (and every other major city besides Chicago has, and Chicago is still doing well violence-wise, historically speaking, just not as well as everyone else.). I'm betting a lot of the shooters in Chicago had criminal records and should have been in prison.

[lordscarlet]

From what I can gather from news reports and a police spokesman I saw on tv at the gym the shooter walked up and shot the guy in the head and then police were notified and began shooting. It looks like a lot/all of the other people shot were shot by the police. I am not blaming the police one bit, we would be all over them if he killed like 15 more people. But the mass casualites may not be due to his gun spraying and killing a bunch of people which again puts this story at about the same level as far as gun control is concerned as just about every other shooting. (What was it 13 Chicago last night alone?)

And if he had a knife would they have opened fire on him?

[molson]

And if he had a knife would they have opened fire on him?

You're imagining a fantasy world with no guns. I'd prefer that too. It ain't happening though.

[lordscarlet]

You're imagining a fantasy world with no guns. I'd prefer that too. It ain't happening though.

I'm imagining a world that exists in this world.

[JPhillips]

It's a good illustration of why arming everyone wouldn't make things better. These were trained shooters and they still sent several bullets flying past the target. Imagine what would have happened with a dozen regular guys started firing.

[Grammaticus]

I'm imagining a world that exists in this world.

What does this mean?

[molson]

I'm imagining a world that exists in this world.

Does that mean Korea/Japan again? That's the goal? That's what people more resistant to gun control sometimes think and they're mocked for being paranoid. I thought it's only practical, reasonable gun control laws that are the answer? But you want to purge millions and millions guns from private homes somehow? That's the only way we reverse our gun culture, and make us as gun-free as those countries, and it would take a few generations.

[gstelmack]

And if he had a knife would they have opened fire on him?

Yes, if he brandished it and walked toward them like happened here. There have been plenty of similar police shootings over the last several years.

[cuervo72]

And if he had a knife would they have opened fire on him?

New York Police Followed Training in Fatal Shooting Near Times Square, Officials Said - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/nyregion/police-fired-12-shots-in-killing-near-times-square.html?_r=1)

[Honolulu_Blue]

It's a good illustration of why arming everyone wouldn't make things better. These were trained shooters and they still sent several bullets flying past the target. Imagine what would have happened with a dozen regular guys started firing.

Agreed.

[Dutch]

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapage.png (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weapagetab.cfm)
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm

While it's true that guns are used quite a bit in homicides, I believe this is an indication of it's ease of acquistion and use. But the thousands of homicides commited on these charts are not there simply because of ease of use. They are there because one person genuinely (and for whatever reason) what's to kill another person.

If you take away the legality of guns (and handguns in particular as those are prevalent gun type in use here) the underlying conflicts are still there. And those conflicts are still going to happen. For one, guns will still be acquired and in mass. Making them illegal will certainly drive the price up, but like drugs, you won't be able to keep them away from the average criminal.

The criminally insane seem to prefer the path of least resistance (the gun) but if this option is unavailable to him/her, they will be forced to find more clever (and usually more lethal) measure to do their evil deeds...IED's for instance. I'd hate to think the abolishment of handguns leads to crazy people doing crap like that to get their point across.

[panerd]

NYPD: Empire State victims hit by police gunfire - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/nypd-empire-state-victims-hit-police-gunfire-180844387.html)

[Apathetic Lurker]

Nine people are going to be suddenly swimming in some taxpayer money.....

[molson]

Nine people are going to be suddenly swimming in some taxpayer money.....

It happened so fast and most of the injuries are pretty minor, but I guess they could get some quick settlements. But I don't think they'll break the bank or anything in the light of the video out there:

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/crime/2012/08/24/ac-nypd-surveillance-video-released.cnn)

[lordscarlet]

Does that mean Korea/Japan again? That's the goal? That's what people more resistant to gun control sometimes think and they're mocked for being paranoid. I thought it's only practical, reasonable gun control laws that are the answer? But you want to purge millions and millions guns from private homes somehow? That's the only way we reverse our gun culture, and make us as gun-free as those countries, and it would take a few generations.

I'm not representing anyone's opinion here but my own. I'm also not saying it is practical. However, that is what Korea/Japan (at least Japan) did. In the 70's they decided "no more" and disallowed buying guns. In addition, when a previous gun owner died, their guns were seized. I realize this is completely "un-American", but I think the results speak for themselves. I know most people won't agree with me, but I don't agree with the reasons that people use for why every American should have the right to own a gun.

You should also realize that I tend to argue to argue and I don't necessarily feel strongly about what I am discussing. :)

[cuervo72]

Yeah, I'm not sure it's all that practical. South Korea and Japan (and Britain) are much smaller countries and are geographically pretty secure. Two are islands/archipelagos, SK is on a peninsula where one border is, uh, somewhat locked down.

I'd also guess that we have a bit more wildlife than those countries. I'd imagine guns are useful in dealing with predators (coyotes), or even for protection in some areas. Not sure a knife or a taser or whatever would do you much good if you happened upon a bear, for instance. No, you're probably not going to encounter a bear in NYC. But it can happen in other places.

[Autumn]

Yeah, I'm not sure it's all that practical. South Korea and Japan (and Britain) are much smaller countries and are geographically pretty secure. Two are islands/archipelagos, SK is on a peninsula where one border is, uh, somewhat locked down.

You think we have a lot of guns in the United States because of a geographically insecure location? You think that we are more likely to have to face invading troops in our country than South Korea? For real? I'm not arguing the gun issue one way or the other but I don't see any way to argue that the reason we have more guns here is for some sort of national defense. The U.S. is a global superpower largely because we have no need to worry about our country being invaded. If Koreans want to argue for private gun ownership, however, I"d be hard pressed to say a word against it.

[cuervo72]

Not a matter of defense. We just can't possibly control things from getting in. We can't prevent drugs from being smuggled in, we won't be able to stop guns either.


edit: And from a defense standpoint, I won't argue that the issue would be to ward off paratrooping communist invaders. But there are areas where people live out in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, where really there's no other line of defense. If something happens, no neighbors or cops are going to be able to help them in time. Those folks have a decent argument for keeping arms.

[molson]

I'm not representing anyone's opinion here but my own. I'm also not saying it is practical. However, that is what Korea/Japan (at least Japan) did. In the 70's they decided "no more" and disallowed buying guns. In addition, when a previous gun owner died, their guns were seized. I realize this is completely "un-American", but I think the results speak for themselves. I know most people won't agree with me, but I don't agree with the reasons that people use for why every American should have the right to own a gun.

You should also realize that I tend to argue to argue and I don't necessarily feel strongly about what I am discussing. :)

Fair enough, I respect that perspective. It seems there's been a lot of pining for a Japan/Korea minimal level of gun prevalence, and points made about "if that guy had a knife instead of a gun", but then a simultaneous stated 2nd amendment support/insistence that they only want "reasonable" new gun control regulations. (assault weapon ban, longer waiting period, closing the gun show loophole.) Those things are disingenuous together, but not when your stated goal is an actual breakdown of that gun culture. I don't think it's realistic, but I understand the desire for it.

Edit: My 2-minute research about guns and Japan speaks to changing attitudes as well as gun laws, obviously you need both, and probably, the culture change is much more important than the laws. Criminals don't follow laws anyway, and if you banned all production of new guns (something that would never happen here, and which, many gun control advocates are still in denial/deception about being the goal in the first place), you'd still have no gun shortage for at least 30-40 years, not including what gets smuggled in from Mexico and Canada. And the attitude/culture would be a much tougher and longer sell here than Japan, which had banned all guns at various times over the centuries.

[JPhillips]

(something that would never happen here, and which, many gun control advocates are still in denial/deception about being the goal in the first place)

Don't ya just hate it when liberals stereotype people?

[cartman]

Molson, where are you seeing this big call for a Japan/Korea approach? You've mentioned it several times, but that doesn't come up at all in my various news/info sources.

[molson]

Don't ya just hate it when liberals stereotype people?

I said "many". Not sure what else I can do to make you happy. Let's try, "Some indeterminate number of which I can never be exactly sure but which I suspect, based merely on my opinion and observations, is substantial based on the inconsistency of the viewpoint otherwise - i.e, if you express that inconsistency, you're either in denial, you're lying, you don't comprehend the inconsistency, you have some other explanation for the inconsistency that you care not to express, or I'm simply incorrect that there's an inconsistency".

[molson]

Molson, where are you seeing this big call for a Japan/Korea approach? You've mentioned it several times, but that doesn't come up at all in my various news/info sources.

Just because the calls of reasonable gun regulations don't appear to address the shootings that always precede them. Like I was saying, the stuff about how peaceful other countries are, how killers would do much less damage with knives than guns, the reaction to every noteworthy shooting regardless of the nature of the gun involved or whether the person had a criminal record. The reasonable gun control measures debated - gun show loopholes, assault weapons bans, don't address the issue of a law-abiding citizen having a gun for 20 years and then using it, or a law-abiding citizen legally acquiring guns through the proper channels that would exist even if we had regulations that are currently being debated, or for that matter, a criminal breaking gun laws and acquiring one illegally.

The "solutions" don't address the problems, IMO (I haven't heard any argument that they do, but I'm open to them). So what's the point of the gun shaming/calls for unrelated gun control regulations, or even worse, "more gun laws" generally? I think it's mostly an understandable expression of frustration - we can't get mad at the perpetrator because he's dead or too crazy to know what he did - so let's get mad at rednecks who own guns, and the state of law. The amazing thing is, even with all this rhetoric, Obama is on record - no new gun laws are in the offering (nobody appears to be mad at him for that, or at liberal legislators for not pushing this, but whatever.) It's not a practical discussion, and the sides aren't even that far apart - it's just idealogical banter/trolling.

[cartman]

So you automatically make the jump that the bulk of people calling for some sort of change to gun laws want to emulate Japan/Korea?

[Marc Vaughan]

Criminals don't follow laws anyway
I've heard this argument in the US a lot for not restricting gun distribution.

However the way I've always looked at things is that - yes criminals by their very nature don't follow the law ... however that doesn't mean they're stupid.

If someone is in a country where you require a gun to intimidate people and rob a grocery store then they'll use it regardless of the risk of being shot by police or someone else - however if you're in a country where you can probably do it using a baseball bat and minimise the chance of harm (& length of jail sentence) then chances are they'd take that option.

In England gun crime is far lower than in the US - it doesn't mean that crimes don't happen, but most don't involve them because criminals are aware that if they start pull guns then the police will turn up with them also ....

[molson]

So you automatically make the jump that the bulk of people calling for some sort of change to gun laws want to emulate Japan/Korea?

I didn't say bulk, but I think many do (let's just say "some", if that's less inflammatory.) Once people get into how much less damage people could inflict if only they had knives instead of guns (commonly discussed here), I start to wonder what's going on, because those reasonable laws aren't going to make our country one where the criminals only have knives instead of guns.

Edit: Let's take the recent shootings that have brought the discussion up again - Tuscon, Aurora, Sikh temple, Empire State Building. Let's throw in the Chicago gang crime wave. Which of the reasonable regulations being discussed would have prevented or mitigated any of those incidents? The closest one I can come up with that one of the weapons the Aurora shooter used may or may not have been subject to the assault weapon ban - I've heard conflicting stories on that, but there was a slightly modified version of that the same model that WAS legal under the assault weapon ban. Whether the modified version would have resulted in fewer casualties, I have no idea, I'm not a gun expert, but from what I've read, most of the modifications were cosmetic. I'd love to that THAT discussion, and maybe that could lead to gun laws that made sense, but it seems the response more emotional/reactionary - "if someone got shot, SOMETHING must be wrong". I don't buy the premise that in a free society, every act of violence is a statement about the correctness of a particular gun control legislation, especially when the proposed legislation has nothing to do with the act of violence. Any time there's any shooting on the front page of CNN.com, there's this same type of rhetoric.

I'd say the point raised by Marc above, that I responded to below, may very well be responsive to the Chicago crime wave - I have no idea how many of those shooters have, or should have been, already been convicted of violent crimes, or gun crimes, but I'm guessing, at least a few have. Should they have still been locked up? Felons should be getting at least a few years for every weapon they're found in possession of. It's a slam dunk case. That stuff, we can, and have, cracked down on, and the violent crime stats reflect that success (and we should crack down even more). The crazy/disgruntled previously law-abiding shooter? That's a trickier deal. Maybe there's answers in the mental health arena. But if you're adjudicated as dangerously mentally ill now, you're not allowed to have weapons. But that adjudication doesn't happen until after the violence occurs.

[molson]

In England gun crime is far lower than in the US - it doesn't mean that crimes don't happen, but most don't involve them because criminals are aware that if they start pull guns then the police will turn up with them also ....

I certainly agree with severe penalties for any gun-related crime, whether or not the gun is actually used. I also agree with severe penalties for unlawful gun possession (and there is a TON of unlawful gun possession in the U.S. that isn't policed very effectively - there are a LOT of felons in the U.S., and none of them are allowed to possess a firearm for any reason, including hunting - and that actually extends to some misdemeanor violent crimes like misdemeanor domestic battery.) To the extent that's a deterrence, great, though there's a wide difference of opinion in the U.S. in terms of whether harsh penalties deter criminals. And even if it's not a deterrence, it keeps those inclined to illegally possess guns, or commit gun crimes, locked up, which is good too.

Edit: Does the UK punish gun crime more harshly than the U.S., or are you just saying people in the UK are more influenced by the deterrence? It's hard to say on the first point, the U.S. does of course imprison a ton of people, but I'm not sure our gun possession penalties are very substantial.

[cartman]

I didn't say bulk, but I think many do (let's just say "some", if that's less inflammatory.) Once people get into how much less damage people could inflict if only they had knives instead of guns (commonly discussed here), I start to wonder what's going on, because those reasonable laws aren't going to make our country one where the criminals only have knives instead of guns.

Again, how are you making the logical leap, that some (more than a minuscule amount, but not bulk) are wanting to make the country one where criminals only have knives instead of guns? I'm sure there is a minority that would like that outcome, but that is a narrow group that doesn't apply to the full spectrum of ideas to make the current situation better. It sure does make your argument easy, but doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.

[JPhillips]

I just think that someone so concerned with liberals unfairly tarring opponents with the views of extremists would be more careful about doing the same.

[molson]

Again, how are you making the logical leap, that some (more than a minuscule amount, but not bulk) are wanting to make the country one where criminals only have knives instead of guns? I'm sure there is a minority that would like that outcome, but that is a narrow group that doesn't apply to the full spectrum of ideas to make the current situation better. It sure does make your argument easy, but doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.

The knife/gun thing comes up a lot, it has in every shooting thread we've had, as have reflections upon how these situations would be less violent without guns. It's possible I'm overestimating how often, someday if I'm bored I'll take a look back.

Edit: And what about my other point - what's the purpose of debating gun control regulations in response to acts they wouldn't prevent?

[cartman]

Just because someone brings up the point that there haven't been passer-bys hit by knife crossfire doesn't mean that they want the US to emulate Japan/Korea gun laws.

[molson]

Just because someone brings up the point that there haven't been passer-bys hit by knife crossfire doesn't mean that they want the US to emulate Japan/Korea gun laws.

No, it doesn't necessarily mean anything, which is why I asked the question, and lordscarlet said he did. He could have a very rare viewpoint on that, that's true.

[molson]

I just think that someone so concerned with liberals unfairly tarring opponents with the views of extremists would be more careful about doing the same.

I didn't do the same, I qualified the comment, but if I offended you, I apologize. Edit: I certainly am not a fan of how non-liberals are portrayed in the political threads and I wouldn't want to repeat that error. I really have no idea what any individual or any group of people really think about guns and what their desired gun laws would be, but my real criticism anyway was about the non-responsive rhetoric that came from the recent shootings. When proposed legislation (or really, just ideas for proposed legislation) doesn't address the wrong that's being responded to, I think it's a fair question, though it's not fair for me or anyone to assume with certainty any particular explanation for the discrepancy. So I've tried not to do that, but if you think I crossed over into that, it was a mistake.