WDBO.com reports on a terrible shooting that left three dead in Florida. Like something you see in the movies, the enraged ex-husband came around with a gun and killed the new husband, the ex-wife and himself.
Nothing was mentioned about his criminal record or where the gun came from. But short of presuming he was just another legitimate gun owner gone berserk, I'll say this was not a gang-related drug shootout, which is supposed to account for the majority. So, what the heck, I may as well say it. This was another legitimate gun owner gone berserk.
It's cases like this that prove gun control works. Laws that make it harder for people like this go get guns make it less likely that something like this will happen. It's simple.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I agree, this should not have happened. So how do we screen them out? Also, how do we prevent the "90%" of regular people from having their rights trampled?
ReplyDelete"Trampled" is too strong. "Inconvenienced" is batter.
ReplyDeleteWhat gun control law would have prevented him from acquiring a gun?
ReplyDeleteWhenever gun violence is mentioned, the gunloons are quick to remark that some number of these are suicides--as if suicides are ok and don't really count.
ReplyDeleteWhat goes unmentioned is the fact that in the US, many suicides are part of murder-suicide. So, yes, there's a suicide but usually after the suicidee has taken with him one or more unwilling partners.
--JadeGold
kevin: I agree, this should not have happened. So how do we screen them out? Also, how do we prevent the "90%" of regular people from having their rights trampled?
ReplyDeletemikeb: "Trampled" is too strong. "Inconvenienced" is batter.
As I have pointed out previously, this type of story and mikeb comment is NOT about "screening out" anybody but rather in making it so difficult to comply with gun control laws that a significant portion of the "regular people" who do own guns would be discouraged from doing so.
mikeb is wrong again when he describes that as "inconvenience" for those who do own guns. Americans WANT very much to own guns, and it will take more than "inconvenience" to discourage them from doing so to the degree that those like mikeb hope for.
"suicides are ok and don't really count."
ReplyDeleteSuicides are OK. They are part of that whole freedom of choice thing. No one should be forced to stay alive against their will.
Suicides are OK. They are part of that whole freedom of choice thing.
ReplyDeletemmmm...no. Unless we're talking about end of life issues (e.g., terminal illness) , most suicides can and should be prevented. Because it is usually a response to an emotional or mental health issue. IOW, you can't expect someone whose reasoning ability has gone haywire to really make a decision based on freedom of choice.
--JadeGold
FishyJay is absolutely right. Part of my idea is to diminish the number of gun owners in the country significantly enough that the 10% who do this stupid shit will be proportionately diminished.
ReplyDeleteThis is based upon the idea that to a large degree you can't predict these things and no particular law will prevent a specific individual from getting a gun.
However the same strict gun laws that would accomplish that diminishment would also directly impact on many cases which we read about in the news.
AztecRed has made this incredible point many times before. Incredible is the only word for it because in fails to consider that most of these suicides are not operating with free will at all.
ReplyDelete"Suicides are OK. They are part of that whole freedom of choice thing. No one should be forced to stay alive against their will."
Thanks, mikeb. That's much more honesty than we see from most of the gun control advocates that make the news (or write on HuffPo).
ReplyDelete> diminish the number of gun owners in the country significantly enough that the 10% who do this stupid shit will be proportionately diminished.
ReplyDeleteIt appears you would have to diminish the gun supply by 150,000 to stop one gun crime over a one-year period.
http://callejonextrano.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-many-guns-are-used-to-commit-crimes.html
It's probably time to retract your 10% calculation.
WallPhone, Thanks for the following amazing comment.
ReplyDelete"It appears you would have to diminish the gun supply by 150,000 to stop one gun crime over a one-year period."
Before I retract anything I think someone should nominate you for spin doctor of the year.
Sadly, I was superceeded earlier for that nomination.
ReplyDeleteIf there are 80 million gun owners, and 10% (8m) are involved at least once in a reported gun crime during a given year, then that would make a minimum of eight million gun crimes a year.
The liberally estimated number is closer to two million--one quarter thefts, one quarter violent crime. The majority of those two million are by multiple-felony offenders who aren't even allowed to be gun owners anyway.
WallPhone, Did you make up this part?
ReplyDelete"and 10% (8m) are involved at least once in a reported gun crime during a given year,"
You didn't get that from me.