First of all, they don't ALL happen in gun-free zones. We've seen the nuts do it in police stations, too.What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
But, to the question, are multiple murderers attracted to gun-free zones, they might be. That sounds reasonable, especially for the crazy ones who plan the job and are not stupid.
But the solution is where we differ. Doing away with gun free zones will cause more problems than it solves, just like guns do anywhere. Even if it would prevent the big incidents like the ones you mentioned, let's not forget we have an equivalent of the Norway tragedy EVERY SINGLE DAY in the U.S., and that's largly due to gun availability (or partly due to it).
Here's the solution. Every gun owner must be licensed. To qualify one would have to pass a battery of medical and psychological tests, in addition to the usual criminal background check. The medical board appointed to conduct these tests would have a policy similar to may-issue. They would have the power to exclude the unfit.
Now, try to be objective. I know how hard that is for you guys, but try. Forgettinig for a moment how difficult it would be to implement, and how expensive and how even depressed people have a right to bear arms, forget all the objections for a moment and answer me this.
Do you think a requirement like that would screen out some of the problem cases and prevent some of the tragedies? Yes or no.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Mass Shootings in Gun Free Zones
Over on TTAG, Brad was setting up his friends with a soft pitch. Of course they all hit it out of the ball park. Here's what I had to say.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"let's not forget we have an equivalent of the Norway tragedy EVERY SINGLE DAY in the U.S.,...Here's the solution. Every gun owner must be licensed. To qualify one would have to pass a battery of medical and psychological tests, in addition to the usual criminal background check."
ReplyDeleteJust like they do in Norway.
Yep, all the BS he just proposed was already implemented in norway. His "solution" was already in place and didn't stop the tragedy.
ReplyDeleteNo solution will prevent every tragedy like the one in Norway.
ReplyDeleteBut their laws made it more difficult, they slwoed him down, they reduced the weapons the shooter was able to procure, which probably saved lives.
gun violence, by comparisons:
first number is total deaths per 100,000 per year; second number is homicides, third number is suicides, fourth number is accidental deaths from firearms:
United States 15.22 7.07 7.35 0.59 1993 Krug 1998[3]
Norway 4.39 0.3 3.95 0.12 1993 Krug 1998[3]
I do not assert that more rigorous gun regulation is the only reason for less gun violence in Norway, but it is one of the reasons for it.
If we are going to discuss what enabled Breivik, and what posed an obstacle to him carrying out his plans we should be including this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/25debate.html?pagewanted=all
and this:
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2011/07/norway-tragedy-fear-and-loathingand.html
MikeB: “First of all, they don't ALL happen in gun-free zones. We've seen the nuts do it in police stations, too.”
ReplyDeleteThat was a movie. It was called “The Terminator” staring Arnold Schwarzenegger. There have been real life shootings in police stations, but I am not sure any qualify as “mass shootings” which means a body count of four or more. There is a reason it doesn’t get that far.
MikeB: “Do you think a requirement like that would screen out some of the problem cases and prevent some of the tragedies? Yes or no.”
Yes, but that will be accomplished by “screening out” large swaths of people- some of which happen to be unfit (I wouldn’t expect it to be much better than a random sample). If you are going to switch to “may issue” on ownership, the determining factor won’t be “being fit”, but rather the political climate of where the person lives. I will be stripped of my right to own guns.
Do you think a requirement like that would end up screening out some of the legitimate cases and prevent some self-defense with a firearm? Yes or no.
"But their laws made it more difficult, "
ReplyDeleteTheir laws made it so difficult he had to legally buy the guns instead of smuggle them as he originally planned.
Apparently, Monty Python and the ATF have joined forces and created Norway's gun laws.
Red Az, their laws made it more difficult; it took longer, cost him more, denied him the more powerful weapons, in both kind and quantity that he sought, and put him at significant risk of being caught BEFORE he carried this out, which was to some degree a deterrent, and is arguably a stronger deterrent to others who might contemplate such things. In other cases, if you look at the total picture in Norway it HAS led to arrests before a tragedy was carried out, where not having such laws would not have been a prevention.
ReplyDeleteSo----yes, this worked, not perfectly, but it worked fairly well in this case to limit the damage, and has worked extremely well in other instances to prevent such tragedies.
It's funny watching the gungoofs try to distract people with silly arguments.
ReplyDeleteWithin 48 hours of the Norway massacre there had been at least four mass shootings in the U.S. — in Texas, California, Florida, and Washington.
Obviously, NOT having gun control is more of a problem than HAVING gun control, but we can't let people realise that until its way too late.
Kinda like global warming.
"Red Az, their laws made it more difficult; it took longer, cost him more, denied him the more powerful weapons, in both kind and quantity that he sought"
ReplyDeleteCompared to what?
The guy may not have been able to buy a gunship, but his body count makes a good case against him being hindered, inhibited, or limited in any way.
In the pantheon of mass shooters, this guy sits on the top of the heap, besting even the deadliest American mass shooters who live under less stringent guns laws.
Dog gone: “…their laws made it more difficult; it took longer, cost him more, denied him the more powerful weapons…
ReplyDeleteSo----yes, this worked, not perfectly, but it worked fairly well in this case to limit the damage…”
Please explain how this situation would have been worse had it occurred earlier, or cost him less money (considering he was willing to die or spend the next 21 years in prison). Also explain how it would have been worse with a different weapon? What would that weapon be, and how many more would have died because of it? He explained that he wanted an AR-15, but instead he ended up with a different semi-automatic carbine that also has a detachable magazine and shoots the exact same cartridge.
Dog Gone.
ReplyDeleteHow exactly was he denied a "more powerful weapon"?
Shorter version of Dog Gone's comment.
ReplyDelete"Blah, blah, blah, blah"
Regardless of what else he spews the inconvenient truth remains. Strict gun control did nothing to stop him.
No surprise really, since gun control consistently fails to stop such atrocities.
"He explained that he wanted an AR-15, but instead he ended up with a different semi-automatic carbine that also has a detachable magazine and shoots the exact same cartridge."
ReplyDeleteYup, which pretty clearly shows that Dog Gone's contention that the murderer was "denied a more powerful weapon" is a load of crap.
Red Az wrote: "Dog Gone.
ReplyDeleteHow exactly was he denied a "more powerful weapon"?
He wanted more hand guns than he could legally buy, he wanted more and different ammo than he could legally buy, and the weapons he tried to buy in Prague were more powerful than what he could buy in Norway, and he could not own as many of the weapons he wanted. Further, he was trying to buy other weapons, like grenades, which he could also not find on the black market in Norway, in part because of how much more rigorously their laws are enforced, compared to places where there are greater problems with both illegal firearm and illegal drug activities - like Prague.
Read the damn manifesto; I provided the links.
You might find the list of other targets besides unarmed children of interest as well.
Listen all you self-proclaimed experts on Norwegian gun policy, I don't believe the amazing Anders passed the kind of medical and psychological screening I have in mind for you guys.
ReplyDeleteAnd, TS, when you said about may issue by the medical board, "the determining factor won’t be “being fit”, but rather the political climate of where the person lives." you don't know that. You're projecting your fear and paranoia onto it. We could set it up with proper oversight so that doesn't happen and the large swath of people who are denied are mainly the dangerous ones.
Mikeb302000;
ReplyDeleteThis:
" I will be stripped of my right to own guns."
also, by TS, is complete conjecture. There is nothing backing this assertion other than paranoid delusion.
The cowrardly piece of shit gunzloon in Norway couldn't even make a martyr of himself after he killed all those other people. No, he went to ground in an attempt to evade responsibility.
I had someone tell me, just last night, that it was Norway's fault that it happened, it was their stupid gun laws that CAUSED all those deaths. It is difficult to argue with anyone who suffers that sort of cognitive dissonance.
"He wanted more hand guns than he could legally buy, he wanted more and different ammo than he could legally buy, and the weapons he tried to buy in Prague were more powerful than what he could buy in Norway, and he could not own as many of the weapons he wanted."
ReplyDeleteBut he only has two hands and can only carry so much ammo. So it matters not how many guns or how much ammo he wanted. The laws really did nothing to hinder his massacre.
As for the grenades, you can't really buy those in any country save for third world cesspools. So again, the gun control laws did nothing to hinder him.
And the worst part of this tragedy is that because of people mikeb, this guy will be out of prison in 21 years, ready to pick up where he left off.
If it were up to me, this guy would be riding the lightning at midnight and the people of Norway would be that much safer.
Mike and Democommie, I do know this because I live under those types of discretionary laws for concealed carry right now. And guess what? I and everyone are denied. Every time. No, it is not conjecture, it is my reality. But you like it that way. Now you want to give that same power to medical professionals, and you want it to apply to gun ownership in general. What do you think is going to happen? If you really don’t think it is going to be abused, then you should stand up against the current abuses of may-issue CCW. You would try to get reform so that you could convince us all that a may-issue system can be workable and fair. But I don’t see that happening.
ReplyDeleteTS, Perhaps you're denied for good reason. Perhaps your little world is safer because of all the denials.
ReplyDeleteMikeB: “Perhaps you're denied for good reason.”
ReplyDeleteAnd you want that same reason to be applied for denying ownership. Guns are bad.