The city of Chicago, bedeviled by street gang violence, refuses to give in to ever more restrictive court rulings against enactment of sensible gun safety laws. The Supreme Court’s misguided 2010 decision ended the nearly 30-year-long ban on handguns in Chicago. In January, a federal judge ruled that the city’s ban on retail gun shops was unconstitutional.
In a surprising act of Constitutional Defiance "The Old Grey Lady" (NY TIMES) has allowed its "Editorial Board" to issue a manifesto condemning the Supreme Court decisions, the rights of "The People", and the Constitution itself.
Instead, it lauds Rahm Emanuel's recent efforts to regulate the right of his cities' law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment Rights by legislative fiat.
Instead of rolling over, Mayor Rahm Emanuel responded this week with some reasonable proposals designed to pass constitutional muster while upholding the city’s basic obligation to protect citizens. This time, zoning regulations would be used to limit gun shops to less than 1 percent of the city’s geographic area, with tight auditing of the shops, sales limited to one handgun per customer per month, a 72-hour waiting period to buy handguns and the simple videotaping of gun sales to deter buyers from using false identification.
[emphasis added]
The 'reasonable proposals' ... reminiscent of the satirical "A Modest Proposal" published by Jonathan Swift in 1792 (in which he suggested that the poor and starving Irish eat their own babies) ... which Emanuel has proposed are that not only the legal purchase of firearms be so curtailed that not only may gun stores face onerous restrictions on doing business, but that prospective buyers also be limited in the free exercise of their rights.
Apparently, in the view of the NY TIMES Editorial Board, the term "Rolling Over" refers to acceptance of the constitutional rights of his constituency. Defiance, on the other hand, means ... what?
It seems that the "Maverick" is honored in both New York City and Chicago ... as long as that defiance is aimed at the Constitution of the United States, and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.
The plaintive cries from the citizens of Chicago, who only want the means to defend themselves, their families, and their property from the daily assaults by criminals and drug dealers/users, are dismissed without comment.
(MANSFIELD, TEXAS) - Firefield Quad Rails have been known not only for their incredible affordability and solid, sturdy construction, but also their matte black finish for a seamless, streamlined look. Shooters now have the ability to customize their AR-15 with two new colors available in the Firefield Quad Rail line: Dark Earth and Olive Drab. These military-inspired shades offer more than just customization; they are also a strong proponent of concealment. With either the Dark Earth or Olive Drab color, shooters can hone in on their targets with the confidence they'll remain hidden.
Was it only a year or two back, when The Shooting Wire was a valuable reference for information of The Shooting Sports?
Now I no longer bother to read all the details, and often don't even read the Feature at the end of the daily blog.
Frankly, I don't care which firearms-related company is looking for another marketing manager, or (later) who has been hired.
I'm rarely interested in the whiz-bang gizmos that shooting-related dot com is promoting.
The sorry fact is, the email-based website has degenerated from a source of useful (or merely interesting) information to a shill for their advertisers.
Don't get me wrong: I like it that they continue promoting Juniors and Ladies who have joined the 'shooting community". Even though I'm not always in the things that their FEATURES section has to say about ... oh, tactical issues, for example ... I understand that there are other readers who consider this a valuable asset. I GET that my narrow range of interest can't always be the sole content of a website which seeks to provide information to a much wider audience.
And yes, they do need to advertise; it costs them money to present this forum (although viewer participation is not their primary concern), and I don't begrudge them their efforts to expand their readership, and provide articles of interest to a wide range of readers.
I also recognize that by publishing articles about the tasking and hiring of personell, they are providing a valuable service to the folks in the Industry who are supporting the website.
It's just that ... I don't care. Most of it bores me. I still maintain my (FREE!) subscription, and will probably will continue for as long as it is available.
Every week, there is less 'interesting' content.
In a dead-tree gun magazine, there is enough variety that if I flip over a few pages, it doesn't take away from the general interest. My vague discontent is based on the fact that I find myself flipping over 90% of the content, and often I file the issues entirely unread.
This is not the sign of a contented readership.
I accept that your website gets a helluva lot more readership than my poor attempts at blogging. On the other hand, I'm not getting payed for the quality of my content. I have no advertisers, and I'm not a professional writer. So ... should my opinion count for anything?
Well, I am a subscriber. So far. You tell me whether my opinion matters.
Sorry, Shooting Wire; I admit to being fickle and bored.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel introduced a proposal Wednesday that would require all gun sales in the city to be videotaped, as part of a plan to allow gun stores back in Chicago under very tight restrictions. The measure, which would also ban gun stores near schools and parks, was introduced Wednesday at a city council meeting without discussion. It was then referred to the council’s Public Safety Committee. A vote on the proposal has not been scheduled. The move comes in response to a January federal court ruling that deemed Chicago’s longtime ban on gun stores unconstitutional. The court gave the city six months to approve store restrictions while lifting the ban, setting a deadline of July 14 for the new plan.
Oh, that's going to help a LOT!
Are there more than three gun stores in Chicago yet?
If Rahm has his way ... there won't be any.
There's no discernible justification for this new twist in Gun Control Logic (forgive the oxymoron). It won't make anyone safer.
What it will do is make it more expensive and difficult than it has to be for Chicago residents to purchase legal firearms.
What it will do is add a lot of new and expensive restrictions on anyone who tries to open a gun store.
Video taping, lighting, access, records keeping (not just sales reporting, but maintaining ALL of the videos created), etc.
Some of his proposals are, although intrusive, not outside the realm of possibility. Training for store employees to "identify potential gun traffickers". (I would love to see the syllabus!)
Many shop owners ... perhaps most of them ... already record customer activity in their stores. The regulations for storage, cross-referencing, and other complications have not been announced.
Of course not.
What HAS been announced are Chicago-specific regulations:
A 72 hour waiting period on the purchase of any handgun
A 24 hour waiting period on the purchase of a shotgun or rifle
A limit of one firearm per month, per buyer
Store records subject to a quarterly review
There's also a ban on gun stores "gun stores near schools and parks"... although the definition of "near" has also not been announced. It's odd that this is included, since these are the two most common areas where gang-bangers with illegal guns are likely to be found.
The Democratic mayor's plan, which is likely to be controversial, would aim to significantly limit any gun dealer who wishes to operate in the city.
If he could continue the ban, he would. This is the best he could to to make it difficult for honest citizens to acquire legal firearms.
Mayor Emanuel's plan to rid the city of "illegal firearms" has not been announced.
Rahm .... you own Chicago, and all of your serfs are looking at you. They're asking themselves why you're holding up the wrong finger.
(By the way, some of the threads in the COMMENTS section of The Wire are interesting, suggesting that there are thinking people of good purpose on both sides of the issue. And of course, there are the Usual Suspects who can't spell, can't think, but believe their opinions entitle them to make Ad Hominem attacks on their opponents anyway. "The poor will always be with us.")
Instead of watching Rahm Emanuel drag Chicago through the morass of mindless "Gun Control" laws, you should be watching 100 of the greatest movie quotes in history.
House Democrats are considering attaching an amendment to an appropriations bill that would force stricter background checks for gun purchases. Democratic whip Steny Hoyer said top democrats are in "discussions" on an amendment but have not decided what the language would say specifically.
Apparently, the point is to enact new requirements for dealers to report purchases of multiple "Assault Weapons".
Which has ... what? .. to do with insane clowns? (Except that one "It's All About Me" spoiled rich kid provided the impetus, and another proposes a do-nothing law with possibly less justification.)
What a bunch of Maroons!
You do realize, I hope, that this means our selected group of representatives will have to start all over the odious and imperfect definition of the term "Assault Weapons".
It's 1994 all over again.
No wonder Hoyer was not prepared to say what "the language would say specifically". They don't know. They don't have a clue. They have never had a clue ... but they do have an agenda.
No, their agenda is not to "Stop Gun Violence!".
Nor is it actually "Gun Control" (although it does have smatterings of "Yes, we ARE going to take your guns away -- we're not going to call it that, and we won't do it all at once but in small steps)."
What it is, is that they want to get re-elected.
Toward that end, they have to appear as if they are actually "Doing Something".
Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, said he was not hopeful Congress would ultimately act. "I continue to hope so, but I continue not to have high expectations because of past performances." Hoyer said of chances that Congress could pass "meaningful" legislation on background checks.
OOOoooooo that's interesting. Let me count the ways:
House Democrats are determined to pass (one or more) new Gun Control Laws
They don't know what the law(s) will be
They don't know what an "Assault Weapon" is
They don't think the bill will pass ... whatever it is
They DO know that their Democrat constituents expect them to "Do Something"
This is to be proposed specifically because of the Santa Barbara shooting last Friday
If you don't think the bill is going to past, why waste our time with it?
Check me if I'm wrong, but if you're going to propose a new federal law, shouldn't you have an idea of its purpose? Shouldn't it relate to the incident which generated the inertia to pass new laws?
He said the amendment would likely be an effort to strike the “prohibition on requiring gun sellers to report on multiple sales on assault-type weapons.”
Didn't the attacks in Santa Barbara involve pistols, knives and a Black BMW? What has that to do with "Multiple sales of assault-type weapons"??? Weren't the 'instruments of mass murder' legally obtained?
I'm just an over-the-hill, broke-dick nerd from a small town in a forgotten state, so what I think may not mean much to Lord Hoyer. But it seems to me that the guy is just a whore trying to make a buck and keep her his corner in the Red Light District of D.C.
There comes a point in which Congressional reaction to societal solutions should logically include actions which address the issue.
This political practice of throwing mud and money to stop madmen from mayhem is fast approaching the point at which it's hard to tell which is the most insane ... the perpetrator or the politician.
Right now, I wonder if the best solution isn't to pay less attention to the mad men with the guns, and more attention to the Hookers with the votes. No, I don't think that Politicians who use a national tragedy to advance their political careers should be executed according to the laws of their state for Capital Crimes.
Lethal Injection is too humane for these congress critters. They deserve to spend a few days in stocks, where The People can throw sour fruit at them.
Then make them go out and work for a living, like the rest of us.
“What will it take to get Congress moving on responsible gun safety laws? What will it take to keep guns out of the hands of seriously mentally ill people? How many more Sandy Hooks, Auroras, Stocktons, Columbines, Virginia Techs, and Isla Vistas must we have?” Schiff said. “With each of these tragedies, the fabric of our country is torn a bit more. Are we ready to say enough is enough? Will our Congress listen if we do?”
Politicians speak out on the issues of the day; vehemently, and usually for the purpose of seeming to be "Doing Something". We need to take their statements with a grain of salt, because anyone who actively seeks public office is an egoist, and frequently a liar. Not that I am calling Rep. Shift a liar ... I'm just saying that the response seems less thoroughly considered than might be wise.
Let us assume that Representative Shiff is better than than his contemporaries, and is sincere in his statement.
SALON has performed admirably its duties toward advancing the Liberal Leftist program of attacking the Second Amendment, while enjoying in full the liberties of the First Amendment.
In today's article, it features Ad Hominem arguments which dismisses gun-owners as fearful, insecure, immature, sexually frustrated, socially incompetent, and a tool of the notorious gun-maker shill .. the National Rifle Association. The Santa Barbara whack-job is posited as the poster boy for the NRA, and it manages (in the 3rd paragraph) to squeeze in the long-disputed argument that "if you have a gun in your home, you are 43 times more likely to die from it, than to be saved by it". (See the previous article "43 times" for the details of this disputation by the Center for Disease control, 2004/)
The gun industry, through its direct marketing and through industry front organizations like the NRA, has settled on a marketing scheme they’ll never openly admit to but which is completely evident in their press releases, advertisements and other marketing materials. They target men who have high levels of insecurity when it comes to issues of masculinity and power, and suggest that buying guns will make them feel powerful and manly and chase those insecurities away. The centerpiece of the pitch is the fantasy of putting down a home invader. Anxious men are encouraged to believe there’s a high chance that someone will break into their home—their castle—for some raping and pillaging, and that they can play the role of the brave and stalwart hero by shooting the invader. (A corollary pitch is the power fantasy of armed resistance to some vague government “tyranny,” where the insecure man gets to imagine himself as a brave resistance fighter, his masculinity put beyond a shadow of a doubt as he gets to play at being a revolutionary.)
That a gun in the household is far more likely to cause an accident, or be used for suicide or interpersonal violence than to fend off a home invader doesn’t matter. It’s a fantasy of masculinity, used to paper over insecurities, and facts cannot compete.
Rave on, SALON. We're amazed that you didn't accuse gun-owners of buying high-value sports cars to compensate for our inadequate penis size. *(Was that because of penis envy?)*
Oh. We don't, do we. Instead, we tend to buy big cars like SUV's and pick-em-up-trucks .... having nothing to do everything to do with the need to have cargo room to haul our insecurity-blankets and big guns to the hunting grounds, and game back home for the dinner table.
Admittedly, the meat we bring home (game, silly boy, not what you're thinking!) is probably more expensive than grain-fed beef from the Chicago Stockyards, but it's a cultural thing. You wouldn't understand.
We're willing to travel thousands of miles for a good hunt, and then cut and wrap both steaks and roasts for the big old freezer in the garage. Admittedly, we usually save the cut-offs for the local butcher to make into hamburger, sausage, or whatever form we most favor. Some of us like to ... oh, I'm sorry. You don't eat meat, do you Salon? Sorry ... you wouldn't understand the difference between venison-burger and tofu. Hey, it's all protein; so what if you choose to have some illegal alien harvest your soy-beans. At least you don't have to get your hands dirty scavenging dinner.
But you don't like us, SALON, because we play with guns. Yes, truly, we do. Some of us like to shoot in competition, such as Practical Pistol and IDPA and bulls-eye shooting. It's like playing darts, except you get the loud, rude noises. And the company of people who have similar values. \
Yes, competition; it's not just "A Guy Thing" ... women compete, as do children (under close supervision .. but then, everybody who competes is under close supervision.)
Some people just go out to the wildnerness and shoot holes in tin cans. It's called "Plinking", and it's a lot of fun. Most of us gun-owners have guns which have never been used to hunt. The overwhelming majority of us have guns which have never been pointed at a living being. Darts, noise .. you get the picture? It's fun, and it doesn't hurt anybody.
Salon, if you want to point fingers at anybody, try .. oh, I don't know ... high school football. Wow! Now there's a dangerous sport! Every year, young men are killed playing football.
I shoot in Practical Shooting Competition, which is a world-wide sport. So far (since the 1970's), nobody has ever died while practicing this sport. You think shooting is dangerous? How about helmet-to-helmet contact in any state you would care to name.
Do people die from gunshot? You bet they do. Usually, someone was breaking a law. Or they were terminally stupid. (eg: "Hey Bubba, Watch This!)
But you, Salon, choose to point out the imagined falacies of gun owners who you think are ridiculously over-concerned about home invasions. Which you suggest never happen.
Guess what? They do happen ... every frigging day. If you live in New York City you probably don't worry about that very much. Because you stand a better chance of being mugged in you wander into the 'wrong neighborhood'. How many locks do you have on your doors? Three? Five? Six? Do you have that little brace from the door to the floor which prevents anyone from breaking your door down? Do you set it every time you come home?
I bet you do. You're just so fearful, insecure and paranoid, and I bet your multiple door-locks will help you "chase those insecurities away".
A curse on you, and all your descendants .... if you are capable of having any. Everybody is aware that bad things happen to good people. We who own guns are not willing to expect the police to arrive before the door breaks down.
Count your own security procedures, before you point the finger at others. And by the way, do you play darts in your nightly tavern forays?
Maybe you could understand. You just don't want to admit it.
If you have a gun in your home, ARE you (as Kellerman claims) "43 times more likely to die from it"?
The CDC has historically been biased in favor considering gun ownership, and injuries/deaths resulting, as a disease. This is the reason why CDC has been prohibited for the past ten years from researching the subject; they have exhibited a political bias toward skewing their research toward a pre-determined conclusion.
(Center for Disease Control study: February, 2004)
Some of the research conducted to date has found a higher risk of a violent death in homes with handguns and unlocked and loaded guns (13, 17, 19). However, many studies have either not examined the risk associated with specific firearm-related characteristics (e.g., type of gun or storage practice) (14, 15, 18, 23, 24) or have found no significant differences (16). In our study, the risk of dying from a firearm-related homicide or suicide was greater in homes with guns, but this risk did not vary by specific firearm-related characteristics. Simply having a gun in the home increased the risk of a firearm homicide or firearm suicide in the home. Whether certain types of guns or storage practices confer greater or lesser risk, or reflect recall and reporting biases when studied, is unclear. Previous research suggests that proxy respondents and nonusers of firearms are not always knowledgeable about the number or types of guns in the household or the storage practice and may be inclined to give socially desirable responses (27–29).
Note that the study is paying close attention to the question of "Homocide vs Suicide" ... which is not differentiated in the Kellerman study. In other words, if you are bent on suicide, and there is a gun in your home ... you are more likely to choose that vehicle. More on this later.
LOS ANGELES — Just days after a 22-year-old killed six college students and himself near the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara, state lawmakers are championing legislation that would permit law enforcement officials and private individuals to seek a restraining order from a judge that would keep people with a potential propensity for violence from buying or owning a gun. The process would be similar to the one currently used for restraining orders in cases of domestic violence.
This is not a surprising response to yet another massacre. And on the surface, it sounds like a "Reasonable Restriction" on firearms ownership. We all know that there are people out there who are too loony, or too out-of-control, to be trusted with a firearm.
Who decides who they are?
Assuming that this legislation is accepted and enacted .. who has the time to review each 'restraining order' to determine its validity?
But California, which already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, could go even further. The legislation, known as a gun violence restraining order, would allow people to notify courts or law enforcement officials if they are concerned that a family member or friend is at risk of committing violence. Gun control advocates have recently started pushing for such restraining orders in statehouses across the nation, expanding on similar laws that have passed in Connecticut, Indiana and Texas.
Oh. Right. A "family member", or a "friend".
Who vets these people, who call themselves "friends" of the accused? Is there a judicial hearing involved? Are witnesses called? Who speaks for the accused?
Darrell Steinberg, president pro tem of the California Senate, said in an interview on Wednesday that he was not familiar with the details of the restraining order legislation, though he foresaw concerns being raised about civil liberties. Such a bill “would have to be very carefully crafted, because you do not want the law to get into the middle, or just to be used as a pretext or excuse for leverage in an intergenerational family fight,” he said. “You could see the potential for abuse.”
On the other hand, Mr. Steinberg said: “There might be circumstances where it is appropriate for this additional protection. I think this is worthy of a real serious conversation.”
[emphasis added]
Well, finally somebody speaks up (however he qualifies his warning) about the possibility for abuse of this measure.
Abuse? Oh my yes.
A very close friend of mine was married to a lady who had 'issues'. She once pulled a gun on him in their home, and threatened to shoot him. Subsequently, she spent time as a resident at a "mental health care institute", and was later released.
Later, she died.
But ... weeks after the death of his wife, my friend was visited at his office by a Deputy Sheriff. He was served with a restraining order. Under state law, any person can initiate a restraining order upon their spouse without need to prove claims of abuse, or any other situation on which the restraining order has been based. My friend objected; he noted that his wife was dead. The Deputy replied: "It doesn't matter. You got to sign the order anyway." As it seemed to be a moot point, my friend signed the order and the Deputy left. There were no subsequent consequences.
Open Letter To Mike Lupicia, contributor to the NY Daily News:
I would have addressed these comments to you personally, were it possible. But you don't have any link to your personal address here, and the NYDN doesn't have a convenient link for personal comments. So I do apologize in advance for this IM-personal "Blogger" approach.
I do understand your pain in reaction these egregious murders. Partly because of the "Impersonal" tone of the murderer's testimony, and even more because of the random nature of the attack, I am as appalled as you are. I know you won't believe it, because I am a Conservative Constitionalist who believes in the value of the Second Amendment. I'm one who thinks that the Second Amendment .. which recognizes my right to 'keep and bear arms' ... is equivalent to you belief in the First Amendment ... which recognizes your right to express yourself in public.
The First Amendment allows both of us to say how we feel, what we think. We don't necessarily agree, however, on validity of the Second Amendment as fervently as we agree on the validity of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
You think that the 2nd Amendment allows too much freedom to American Citizens. You think that there are some people who just shouldn't be allowed to own and carry firearms.
It may surprise you to learn that I agree with you.
(A small note about my personal background: I teach a class in firearms safety for people who wish to participate in competition. Some of the people who show up at my classes have no business having a firearm. Still, they have the right, so I show them how to do so safely , to the best of my capability .. which includes 30 years of experience in competition, and over 50 years of experience bearing arms.)
---
In my opinion, this young man ... this CREEP .. should never have been allowed near a firearm!
But that is hind-sight. If you had known him a week before, would you have made the same judgement?
I'm not sure I would; and honestly, would YOU have been able to discern that he was capable of murder?
I don't think I would, but it's impossible to be sure. Would you have? Again .. impossible to be sure. Neither of us are likely to have been willing to make the judgement against his culpability, until he had proven himself unworthy of our mutual approbation.
In hindsight, and seeing the videos of his final days .. I wouldn't have allowed him near my daughters, my grand-daughters, or anyone I know.
Do we agree that he's a Creep? I think so.
No wonder he couldn't get a date! It's not a "Woman" thing. It's just judgement .. in his case, faulty at best. But who had seen his video statements before, except his family, and the police to whom they had reported his aberrant behavior?
You? You, who are so critical about the current laws, but have no alternatives to suggest except perhaps that NOBODY should be allowed to possess a gun? Do you think that Criminals would obey that law, while there are 200+ million guns in this country for them to steal?
If you mandate the confiscation of all guns, how many do you think would be submitted meekly to the mandage of the government?
Three?
(Assuming that you and your two friends own three guns between you.)
----
It's true. The process is flawed. How would you change it?
Would you make all firearms forbidden to all Americans? There are 190 millions of Americans who own firearms, and have never been a danger to their friends, family and neighbors. Would you deprive them of their rights?
How would you do that? Would you confiscate their legally owned firearms, even though they have never shown any signs of aberrant behavior? That would be on a par with not allowing their to own knives, with which to cook their food; or to own an automobile, with which the commute to work every day.
Yet this ... person .. used a knife to kill three people, and his automobile to attack several other people.
Extended to their logical absurdity, you might make the case that knives and cars are necessary to the normal requirements of every day living, even though they are demonstrably "weapons of Mass Destruction".
If you would, let's talk about ...
RHETORIC:
If I suggested that "If Guns Were Outlawed, Only Outlaws Would Own Guns!"
I'm reasonably certain that you would dismiss this statement as "Sheer Rhetoric!"
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"?
"Balderdash! The job of the police is to protect us." "The right of The People shall not be infringed?"
"That was about flintlocks, not Assault Rifles!" "A man's home is his castle?"
"I know where you're going, and that's just more NRA justifications for putting guns in the hands of madmen!"
"If you were attacked by this E, Rodger creep, and if you had a gun, you could defend yourself?
I know you cannot respond to this; you cannot even read the question.
But if you could, I would ask you .. what if you were one of the people who were attacked? Would you feel comfortable knowing that guns are always available to people who had no respect for the law .. who would in fact disobey the law joyfully because it only added to the joy of killing you or someone you loved .. and yet you had the option of picking up a gun and fighting this person to defend yourself or your family ........
What if he attacked not you, but someone whose health, peace and well-being was more dear to you than your own life?
Which would you choose?
To go quietly into that good night?
Or would you rage, rage against the night?
You can say that this would never happen. But we have just seen that it COULD happen. Without cause, without any justification. Randomly against the most vulnerable among us.
What would you do?
What would you have ME do, under the same circumstances?
Would you deny me my right to defend my children? My grand-children?
There are no sure safeguards against madness, but it does not change the fact that it's too simple for sick people to get guns — legally or illegally — especially the kinds of semiautomatic weapons that Elliot Rodger used in his shooting rampage in Isla Vista, Calif.
So this is Memorial Day in 2014, when we are supposed to remember and honor those who died serving this country and end up mourning the latest to die at the hands of a madman with guns in America, this time in Isla Vista, Calif., near the campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara.
Once again, the only true gun control in America is when the shooter finally puts one of his guns to his own head and blows his own brains out.
Wayne LaPierre, the gun nut who runs the National Rifle Association and is so often the face and voice of that association, likes to say that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, as if the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the late Dawn Hochsprung, could have saved herself and those children if she’d just been packing.
But the reality of a country that gets lousier with its own stupid gun culture by the day is that too often we have to wait, after more killing, for the bad guy with the gun to stop himself.
That is what finally happened with Elliot Rodger, 22, after six more innocent people were slaughtered, the last four — including the shooter, who had to kill some people because he couldn’t get a date — with semiautomatic weapons that always make the killing good and fast.
You are already hearing that the background checks for which gun control advocates practically have to beg for in America really don’t work, because Rodger passed background checks and purchased his SIG Sauers and Glock 34 legally. You are hearing that it’s a waste of time to put limits on magazines and ammunition, because here was this horny college kid with 41 10-round magazines in his possession; and that the killing started for Rodger with him knifing three people to death.
It makes you think all over again that those who preach sanity on this subject are doing nothing but shouting at the ocean, or just trying to be heard over the sound of more gunfire.
It happens at UCSB this time. The vigil for the dead this time is held in Isla Vista at Anisq‘Oyo’ Park. This is what the school’s chancellor, Henry Yang, says on Memorial Day weekend, 2014, now that gun violence finally finds its way to his school, his town, as it tours the country like the old Ice Capades:
“We are here to share our sorrow, shock and pain.”
ELIZA HALLABECK/APSandy Hook Elementary School Principal Dawn Hochsprung, who was killed in the Newtown massacre.
But there is no longer any shock when it happens again. How can there be? It is the last week of May in Isla Vista. It was the first week of April in Fort Hood, when Ivan Lopez started shooting. It was supposed to be about Lopez being turned down for leave. Elliot Rodger finally snapped after being turned down for dates. Adam Lanza slaughtered elementary school children in Newtown and not college kids the way Rodger did. Lanza’s psychotic break had occurred long before he walked through the doors of Sandy Hook with his Bushmaster rifle, another real good gun for real fast killing.
Obviously there are no sure safeguards against madness, especially if the shooter uses this kind of rampage as a form of suicide, willing to go out guns blazing, sick little Facebook posts and videos sometimes left behind. But it does not change the fact that it is far too easy for these people to get guns, legally or illegally, especially the kinds of guns that Elliot Rodger used to kill the people he killed and wound 13 others.
Mother Jones, which has done such fine work and told the truth about guns for a long time, reports that since 1982 in this country, there have been more than 70 mass shootings, across 30 states, and that nearly three dozen have occurred since 2006. They occur in malls and movie theaters and at Army bases and the Washington Navy Yard and Sikh temples and elementary schools and college campuses.
The numbers say that so many of these guns used on innocent people, dead because they went to work or went to school, were purchased legally. It means that the real insanity in the greatest country in the world, the one for which my father and all those like him fought, is this:
That we are somehow sane on the subject of guns.
We think we can police the rest of the world while the rest of the world looks at us like the Wild West; while those here who say this is all a way of protecting the Second Amendment are the ones making a mockery of its original intent, and ideals.
This is Memorial Day 2014 then. We mourn more dead college kids along with those who laid down their lives for our freedoms, mourn more innocents gunned down on the real modern battlefield:
I would have addressed these comments to you personally, were it possible. But you don't have any link to your personal address here, and the NYDN doesn't have a convenient link for personal comments. So I do apologize in advance for this IM-personal "Blogger" approach.
I do understand your pain in reaction these egregious murders. Partly because of the "Impersonal" tone of the murderer's testimony, and even more because of the random nature of the attack, I am as appalled as you are. I know you won't believe it, because I am a Conservative Constitionalist who believes in the value of the Second Amendment. I'm one who thinks that the Second Amendment .. which recognizes my right to 'keep and bear arms' ... is equivalent to you belief in the First Amendment ... which recognizes your right to express yourself in public.
The First Amendment allows both of us to say how we feel, what we think. We don't necessarily agree, however on validity of the Second Amendment as fervently as we agree on the validity of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
You have made the entirely valid statement that: "that the background checks for which gun control advocates practically have to beg for in America really don’t work, because Rodger passed background checks and purchased his SIG Sauers and Glock 34 legally. ".
September 20, 1969, through September 20, 1970, I spent my leisure time in the Republic of South Vietnam.
The last four months, after the First Infantry Division was transferred back to the states, I was the "Labor NCO" in the Admin Company of the 25th Infantry Division. It was a soft job, except for the cockroaches who would chew through a package of Marlboro's overnight, even though I put it on the 2x4" brace that framed the NCO hooch I was staying in there. Three hots and a cot .. man, that's living!
Before that, they tried to put me into the position of Tank Commander in a war-wagon that I never even learned the nomenclature of, let alone how to "command" it.
Before that, they put me into a field job where I was tasked with doing what I knew how to do best: running a very small unit on night ambush. We set up booby traps, we stayed at 50% security all night, and during the day we roamed the boonies looking for ... well, trouble. It was a soft job, like the other two mentioned above. Unfortunately, the 25th INF. didn't really understand the 'small unit tactics' that I had learned in my Real Job, so they just shunted me back to the base camp. And that was fine with me, I had enough of drama by then; I remembered that I liked daily showers, I just didn't remember what they felt like.
-----
Before that, I was the Platoon Sergeant of Third Platoon, Lima Company 1/16, First Infantry Division. Also known as The Big Red One.
("No Mission Too Difficult, No Sacrifice Too Great: Duty First")
---
I use to observe Memorial Day by going to the nearest War memorial at 11pm with an unbroken pack of Marlboro cigarettes, and a six-pack of Budweiser beer. I'd drink a beer, smoke a cigarette, then leave the other opened pack and rest of the 6-pack on The Wall.
Now, I'm too fucking old to stay up that late and sneaky-pete around in the dark.
The push for gun control after the Santa Barbara attack
As usual, the media news stories got fundamental facts wrong here. Of particular interest, half the people killed here were stabbed to death. Also, you won't hear this much in the news, the magazines that the killer used were also apparently limited to holding no more than 10 rounds (note that the Sheriff said that all the magazines were legal under California law). Obviously neither point fits the gun control check list.
Here at Geek Central, the editorial policy is:
"Rant 'til your fangs fall out; then click 'publish'."
Fortunately, with the good research skills and the input of more information (being a good writer probably helps, too), John Lott has provided a much more nuanced, pithy and accurate picture of the "Mr Rodger's Shooting" at UCSB.
Initial reports didn't mention that of the six people killed during the rampage, the first three were men who were killed by being stabbed ... repeatedly .. to death in what investigators called "a gruesome scene".
Of the other three fatalities, only one was a female student. That suggests that Mr. Creep's online manifesto was was even more bullshit than we thought. He wasn't after the girls that wouldn't date him, he was just on a murder spree. (Okay, we already had figured that out, hadn't we?)
And there were all those people he attacked with his car. WTF? How are the Hopolophobes going to handle that Unfortunate Truth? Wasn't it the mere fact of firearms possession that drove him to madness? Apparently not. Maybe there's a good case to be made here for "Beemer Control".
Firearms Automobile Manufacturers should be sued for not controlling their product more strictly at the retail level. Shouldn't the dealer at Santa Barbera Beemer Shop & Racing Emporium be held responsible for vending a deadly weapon to an obviously out-of-control purchaser? Did they do a background check? Didn't the Manufacturer provide guidelines on who they should allow to buy their Assault Car?
And by the way, who needs a car capable of driving more than 65 miles an hour? (Oh ... the full-auto attacks were on city streets? Never mind.) But still .. who needs a gas tank that will carry more than ten gallons of gas? If he had to stop to refill his tank, somebody could have jumped him, maybe taken his car keys away. That would have fixed him!
Ultimately, the facts bear out your original suppositions: that wasn't about societal injustice, latent homosexual tendencies, or "retribution". This was "It's All About ME!"
And that's all I have to say about that.
Except ... our hearts go out to the families of the victims, and we hope they sue the people who sold him the knife.
ELIZA HALLABECK/APSandy Hook Elementary School Principal Dawn Hochsprung, who was killed in the Newtown massacre.