Monday, January 2, 2012

Our Early Entries in the List of 2012 Gun Violence Incidents
- Another MASS Shooting

This is another one; another mass shooting by one of the gun nuts, this time in Colorado.

I would like to encourage our readers to consider the number of people who die tragically every year because of the bad decision to kill and injure made by people with firearms, specifically, and with dangerous weapons - NOT screwdrivers, spatulas, or plumbers helpers (in other words REAL tools) - generally.

The devastatingly high numbers of those people who are killed, including unarmed men, women, and children, and the increasingly high numbers of law enforcement officers in the performance of their duty, is enormous.  The number of credible, verifiable instances where a firearm saved the lives of someone in the hands of a civilian (as distinct from a member of law enforcement or the military in the course of their duty) is rare; the numbers are so low as to be negligible.

We are, all of us, held hostage by the gun culture and the gun nuts who insist and demand we have no EFFECTIVE regulation, no REASONABLE efforts to limit, restrict or prevent crazy people, drug users, or (effectively) criminals from having access to firearms.  We do not do nearly enough to prevent gun violence.  There is no plausible, OBJECTIVE need for weapons on the scale of what we have now in this country, and LEAST of all for the purposes of self defense or armed resistance to our lawful government.

We are held hostage by people who misuse and falsely define freedom, in a fantasy that in their minds equates to a power they do not in fact have.  It is the tyranny of the weak and delusional over the rest of us who are NOT making our decisions on emotional, not-objective and not factual grounds.

EVERY SINGLE ONE of the people who commit gun violence believe that it is desperately important that THEY have a firearm, that it makes them more powerful in a situation where they lack power and resources, and each and every one of them is convinced that they are correctly using the violent capability of that weapon properly, even when they subsequently kill themselves. They have sufficient conviction of their rightness, of the importance of that freedom to use lethal force against others, to kill or injure others.


They are oblivious and unpersuaded of any argument, no matter how valid, to the contrary, because their decisions and premises are not based in rational thought, but in emotions, particularly paranoia, defined as an unreasonable

There are too many gun deaths in this country, and NONE of the statistics on how many gun owners or how many guns we have negates those deaths, the injuries, or those who experience the threats made by gun owners.  All of thees problems are greatly reduced by simply having far fewer guns, and by far stricter thresholds for gun ownership, and FAR more rigorous securing of those firearms they possess.

We pro-guns with stricter accountability and regulation refer to those of you who object to and obstruct reasonable and effective regulation as 'gun nuts' and lunatics / gun loons, because you demonstrate paranoia, which has as common defining characteristics an unreasonable estimation or assessment of danger and risk to the reality, and an obsession that is not grounded in fact of some form of persecution or threat -- in your case, the notion that unknown, random bad guys are going to assault you on the street, or break into your homes, putting your life and limb at risk at some unknown or unexpected time in the future.  The bad guys are not specific individuals, the time is completely unspecific and open ended, the location for this risk------everywhere.  The defining belief - that these people intend to harm you, maybe even kill you.

Wikipedia describes paranoia in the following:

Paranoia [ˌpar.rəˈnoɪ.ə] (adjective: paranoid [ˈpar.rə.noɪd]) is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself. False accusations and the distrust of others also frequently accompany paranoia.
Historically, this characterization was used to describe any delusional state. In modern colloquial use, the term "paranoia" is sometimes misused to describe a phobia. [1] The general lack of blame in phobia disorders sharply differentiates the two. In other words, fearing that something bad or harmful might happen does not in itself imply paranoia. Rather, there is an irrational fear of malice by others (excepting rare cases of schizophrenia).
and from

From the World English dictionary, I am using the term not in its most technical or diagnostic sense, but in the following informal sense because of the lack of correlation to actual risk of needing to respond with lethal force:
3. informal  intense fear or suspicion, esp when unfounded
The following definition is from the site medical dictionary,  and the meaning I'm using is the second one, but both apply. Part of the appeal of paranoia is that the belief that someone targets you for harm implies you are more important than those who are not targeted; it is part of the emotion involved, the self-importance of gun lunacy.

para·noia definition

Pronunciation:  /ˌpar-ə-ˈnȯi-ə/
Function: n
1 :  a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations    2 :  a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others
The alternatives to a more rigorous threshold, to testing, to regulation and limitations on gun ownership are week after week after week, month after month, year after year, of individual shootings and mass shooting incidents like the mass shooting in the following article.

It is time that we, the hostages of the gun culture lunatics, to take back the power, that we limit the carrying of firearms to those who have a valid and OBJECTIVE need to do so, instead of some irrational, delusional, hysterical fear but do NOT have a realistic expectation of risk that justifies going armed with lethal force, accompanied by greater amounts of higher quality training and demonstrations of proficiency, with periodic follow ups to see that bot the need and their capability remains high.

Fewer guns equates to less gun violence, far fewer mass shootings, and generally FAR fewer crimes committed with firearms.  That is worth the limitation of regulation.  Prevention is cheaper. better, and far more effective than hoping for retribution afterwards.

From and the AP:

New Year's shooting at Calif. condo leaves 4 dead

updated 1/1/2012 8:54:58 PM ET
An early morning New Year's shooting left four people dead at a condominium near San Diego, authorities said Sunday.
Police responded to a 911 cellphone call of shots fired in Coronado, a wealthy seaside suburb of about 24,000 people on San Diego Bay. Officers found a man in the doorway of the condo. The bodies of two men and a woman were discovered inside the condo.
San Diego County sheriff's Lt. Larry Nesbit said homicide investigators have not determined how any of the four died, though Coronado police officers who were first to arrive believe the man found in the doorway was shot.
"They checked and he had no obvious signs of life. They tried to make contact with anyone else that might be inside the building and they got no response," Nesbit said.
A SWAT team sent in a robot to the first floor and later searched the second and third floors, Nesbit said. The three dead bodies were found in "different parts" of the three-story building.
The Naval Criminal Investigative Service was on scene, "in case any of the victims were members of the military," Nesbit said. NCIS spokesman Ed Buice said its investigators were participating in the probe, which was being led by the Sheriff's Department.
The victims' identities hadn't been confirmed.
Asked if the deaths are believed to be a murder-suicide, Nesbit said, "I'll let it infer what it does. We're not going to say that. Although it's very early in the investigation, we don't believe there are any outstanding suspects."
Nesbit said the 911 was placed by a male passer-by who heard gunshots. Authorities received a search warrant Sunday afternoon to enter the three-story condo, which remained cordoned off.
Neighbor Julie Kansy said was awoken at 2:15 am by six pops — three, followed by a short break, then three more.
"At first I thought it's too late for fireworks," she said. "Then I thought it was somebody being stupid and firing shots in the air."
The condo sits a few blocks from the famed Hotel del Coronado and a block from the main street, which is lined with boutiques and restaurants. Curious passers-by asked police what the commotion was about and expressed shock and surprise.
Coronado is home to Naval Air Station North Island and is a haven for Navy retirees. Homicides are extremely rare in Coronado — just one was recorded in 2010.


  1. dog gone,

    Can you explain something to me?

    Citizens who arm themselves against violent crime are responding to the 1.2 million violent crimes reported to law enforcement agencies in 2010.

    You publish comments on this blog in response to about 360,000 violent crimes where the criminals used a firearm ... and an additional 17,000 or so suicides involving a firearm in 2010.

    If citizens who are taking action based on 1.2 million events annually are paranoid ... what does that say about your actions based on about 376,000 events annually?

    Now consider residents in the city of Baltimore, Maryland for example. According to 2010 FBI Uniform Crime reports, the population was 639,929 and there were 9,316 violent crimes. That is one in 69 people. If you consider a typical family of four people, then about 1 in 17 families had at least one family member who was a victim of violent crime in 2010. If you consider that crime rate over the course of just 4 years, then about 1 in 4 families (of four people) had at least one person who was a victim of violent crime. That isn't paranoia in my book, nor in the book of any other rational person.

  2. Who did you say is paranoid?

  3. Yes, Crunchy, but how many of those guns are really, truly used to fight crimes?

    You could add in the amount of locks installed on doors and windows. You could add in alarms sold. You can add other crime prevention methods.

    But, you chose to use firearms, which as you lot like to point out are indiscriminate.

    So for every one of those firearms which are bought by people who intend to use them against a criminal.

    How many are used to kill or harm a family member?
    How many end up being used for suicide?
    How many end up being stolen?

    Now, think about that last one. Isn't it the contention that most crime guns are stolen? Isn't it really a stupid idea to buy something which may end up being used against you?

    Quite frankly, there are far better means of protection for you and your family than a firearm.

    Especially if the one in four people who is victimised happens to have been a victim of a stolen firearm.

  4. Passive defenses are only effective if the criminal doesn't have any staying power. The strongest fortress can be breached. I prefer to have an active response, in addition to locking my doors.

    And despite the whimpering of the article, we gun owners are neither paranoid nor irrational. Your own statements show that you want to take away from us what we have--types of guns, types of magazines, the ability to carry in public, and on and on. You want to leave the few acceptable gun owners (in your eyes) with toys. Yes, toys, because in the event of such a disaster as your program being fulfilled, gun owners would have to leave their guns locked away and inoperable for anything but going to the range--for which they'd have to have a license. They'd have to buy ammunition on site and return any unused rounds. Their homes would be subject to inspection without warning. And so forth.

    You think that's paranoid? I'm quoting examples of what's done in other countries with the kind of repressive laws that you desire. And I'm quoting your own statements.

  5. Laci The Dog said...
    "Quite frankly, there are far better means of protection for you and your family than a firearm."

    Not for this family

    "Especially if the one in four people who is victimised happens to have been a victim of a stolen firearm."

    Stolen firearms don't commit crimes, it's the thug with the stolen firearm that commits the crime.

    So, let's assume that there is a requirement that all firearms be locked in a safe, what would stop criminals from breaking into homes and torturing the homeowner until the firearms are given up?

    How about regulations that make it so difficult to own a firearm that only 1/10th of one percent can own one? That's not working out so well for Mexico where the entire country is held hostage to the drug cartel.

    How about instead of demonizing firearms, we teach firearm safety in schools like we do with young drivers?

  6. Laci,

    Those are good questions. I'll try to come up with a realistic number of times that armed citizens would use their firearms defensively. I'll assume that armed citizens should only have used their firearms (versus other possible defenses) which is the best case number for my side of the debate. I will further assume that violent crime happens to armed citizens just as often as it happens to the general populace. Both assumptions are probably somewhat inaccurate but they are a starting point.

    If you had your wishes, whatever that may be, how do you think that would change violent crime against citizens? Specifically:
    (1) How much would your solution reduce violent crimes against citizens where the criminal used a firearm?
    (2) How many criminals, that would have used a firearm, would simply use other weapons to commit violent crimes?
    (3) How many more violent crimes would criminals inflict with other weapons since no one was armed to resist them?

  7. Another question is what do we mean by "violent crimes."

    Wouldn't that include a number of situations for which a gun is not called for? Or do you want to blow away every person that offends?

  8. MikeB,

    When I am referring to the term "violent crime", I am referring to the commonly referenced use of the term in a legal context. The main four categories of violent crime are:
    (1) sexual assault
    (2) murder
    (3) aggravated assault
    (4) robbery

    The legal definition of sexual assault and murder should be totally obvious.

    Aggravated assault is the crime of physically attacking another person which results in serious bodily harm and/or is committed with a deadly or dangerous weapon such as a gun, knife, sword, ax or blunt instrument.

    A robbery is committed if in the course of committing a theft someone uses force against any person present with intent to overcome his physical resistance or physical power of resistance or
    threatens the imminent use of force against any person present with intent to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property.

    Notice that all definitions are definitions of crimes. And all legal standards apply to people responding with non-lethal or lethal force/weapons. If an armed citizen points their gun at someone because someone insulted them, that is aggravated assault and it is a crime. (And they are no longer an "armed citizen"; they are a criminal.) If a criminal approaches an armed citizen holding a club and threatens the citizen ... and the citizen then points their gun at the criminal to defend themselves, the criminal has committed aggravated assault and the armed citizen has not. If a frail 80 year old man with no visible weapon tells a healthy, fit 30 year old man that he is going to punch the 30 year old man in the nose, the 30 year old man cannot legally (justifiably) point his gun at the frail, 80 year old man, much less pull the trigger.

  9. No crunchy, you are using the term violent crime in the statistical accumulation sense.

    Violent crime is a crime that involves- to quote the DoJ -
    "those offenses which involve force or threat of force."

    Cruncy, I refer yo to the Bureau of Justice statistics

    Firearm and crime statistics

    Thumbnail percent of violent crimes involving firearms chart, links to full chart After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm.

    Percent of violent crimes involving firearms, 1993-2008

    Thumbnail Reported firearm crime trends chart - links to full size chart After falling to levels last experienced in the 1990's, gun crime reported to the police stabilized

    Crimes committed with firearms, 1973-2004

    Gun Violence
    How Prevalent is Gun Violence in America?
    Trends in weapons used in homicides

    Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics

    Data table [opens in pop-up window] | Text description [opens in pop-up window]

    In 2005, 11,346 persons were killed by firearm violence and 477,040 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm. Most murders in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns.

    In 2006, firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 42 percent of robbery offenses and 22 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rapes. See table 19 "Violent Crime," from Crime in the United States, 2006.)

    Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075, after which the figure steadily fell, leveling off in 1999 at 10,117. Gun-related homicides have increased slightly each year since 2002.

    Given how many of the guns we have in this country get into the hands of criminals versus the tiny tiny incredibly RARE instance where someone like yourself is armed and actually uses that weapon in a good case of self defense, it is patently absurd that you arm yourself.

    It would in fact make a much greater difference in violent crime if we eliminated guns, not armed more people with more guns. THAT leads to higher rates of gun crimes,including intentional homicides and suicides.

    On top of that we have all the gun accidents. Without having the stats at my fingertips, I'm confident that just the number of ACCIDENTS with firearms each year is multiple times higher than the successful use of firearms in self defense.

    If self defense is what you really care about -- armor up, fortify your house. Focus on defense, not on offensive weapons.

  10. Dog Gone,

    You are both a hypocrite and a fool. You carried a handgun for your own defense, and yet you tell others that they have no reason to do so. In fact, you call them dangerous for doing what you did. You then fill the screen with links about violent crime and fail to address Capn Crunch's actual points.

    The good news? We have the same right to carry a gun as you do in most states in this country.

  11. dog gone,

    The numbers you mentioned from the Bureau of Justice look similar to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports that I have cited. (I suspect one agency supplies the data to the other.) The nice thing about the FBI reports is that they are available through 2010.

    I didn't see you specify a summary of those numbers but maybe a blog is just not the proper forum for that. I believe some simple numbers are necessary to establish the cost and benefit of firearms ownership.

    As for firearm accidents, I will find an appropriate credible source with that number. I am almost certain that accidental deaths from firearms is less than 1000 annually in the U.S. I don't recall seeing a number about accidental firearm injuries.

    Whatever the number/s, keep in mind that some fraction comes from hunters who shoot each other. I only point that out because hunters voluntarily engage in an activity with a known risk of injury ... and with a known huge benefit in terms of food harvest, recreation, and animal population control which limits animal-vehicle collisions. For example I only heard of one hunter accidental death in my state this year. And the remaining hunters removed something on the order of 300,000 deer from the population. Given that there are 10s of thousands of car-deer collisions in our state every year -- some of which have to cause incredibly serious injuries and/or fatalities -- there is an obvious huge benefit.

    I have to focus a lot of effort on business this week so I will check in again some time next week.

  12. I think there's a problem with the definition of "violent crime." Isn't it true that in different contexts it includes different things? Isn't that one of the ways the pro-gun crowd manipulates the comparisons between the US and Britain?