Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw) Guest Blogger
You may recall that after the horrible Tucson shooting massacre, I wrote a piece for this blog suggesting that it might be a good time to consider banning deadly weapons and the high-capacity magazines of the type that the alleged killer used on that fateful day. It was a difficult issue, but I thought then and still think now that it is an important issue that needs to be discussed by not only us, but by the American public through their Representatives and Senators in Congress. With that prior posting in mind, I was shocked to read a story earlier this week about the president of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre, who blamed the shootings on government policies in a recent speech to the CPAC conference on Thursday, February 10th.
You did read that correctly. The head of one of the biggest lobbying organizations in the country went in front of those “reasonable and moderate” CPAC members and made the claim that it wasn’t guns or ammunition that caused the deaths of 6 people and the wounding of 13 bystanders. “LaPierre said U.S. gun laws provide more protection to killers like the Virginia Tech and Tucson shooters than to the victims of their attacks, and suggested the current environment puts women at risk for rape. He condemned “gun-free zones and anti-self defense laws that protected the safety of no one except the killers and condemned the victims to death without so much as a prayer. “Government policies are getting us killed,” he said. “ CBS News.com
Mr. LaPierre goes on to give the usual response that guns don’t kill people, people do. He even suggested that if people with guns were there they could have prevented some of the death and destruction. I guess he didn’t bother to read that one gentleman who was packing a gun at the event, almost shot one of the people trying to subdue the alleged killer. Doesn’t he know that people can carry a concealed weapon already in Arizona? Where is this “gun-free zone” that he was referring to? It certainly wasn’t in Tucson. I also am confused how the Virginia Tech shooter was aided by the government?
Why is it asking too much to limit even the size of a magazine? Why does the NRA continually blame government policies that weren’t even applicable in the Tucson shootings? Wouldn’t it make sense to at least discuss making it harder for mentally ill people to buy guns legally? Why does anyone listen to the NRA at all? As usual, I have more questions than answers, but I was hoping you would help me!
Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy0_QTp84GU&w=480&h=390]
Whenever I read nonsense like this from Wayne LaPierre I get physically ill. I truly believe that people like Wayne LaPierre will not be happy until this whole country reverts back to the Wild West.
The first thing that came to mind when I started reading this post was the gentleman in Tucson who could very well have shot the gentleman who subdued Loughner. Many thanks for pointing that out, rafflaw. In my mind, that alone pretty much shoots LaPierre’s logic to hell. But, as we well know, facts have little room in NRA propoganda.
J. Brian Harris : Excellent – and precisely.
RE: Mojo, February 12, 2011 at 11:12 pm
More guns are not the answer.
#########################
AND
#########################
RE: Jeff Morelock, February 3, 2011 at 12:27 am
People have been killing each other since the dawn of time. It is not the government’s fault, its not the gun’s fault, it is our faulty nature that is to blame.
People will always find a way to kill each other, so law abiding citizens need to be able to defend ourselves and the people we love.
##########################
In response, I write:
More guns are not the answer.
Fewer guns are not the answer.
Guns, more or less, both or neither, have nothing to do with “the answer” and much to do with “the question.”
*
Allowing that “People have been killing each other since the dawn of time.” is a statement of fact–
It does not necessarily follow that “It is not the government’s fault, its not the gun’s fault, it is our faulty nature that is to blame.” is a scientifically valid noting of directly observable, objective reality.
In my work, science, as process, is the study of “directly observable, objective reality.”
In my work, religion, as process, is the study of everything not “directly observable, objective reality.”
In my work, “directly observable, objective reality” (i.e. process) is not “”directly observed objective reality” (i.e. interpretation).
In my work, “faith” is both a process and an interpretation of what is not directly observable, objective reality.
As Illustration, and as demonstration that faith is inseparable from science, there is that little story of Dr. Louis Slotin, May 21, 1946, and the tail of a tickled dragon.
I re-read the story a few minutes ago on an Internet site:
www(dot)military(dot)com/Content/MoreContent1/?file=cw_nuclear_slotin
From the story, it is clear to me that Dr. Slotin exercised religious faith in not expecting that screwdriver to slip. Why so? Because the screwdriver slipping was not directly observable nor objective reality, before it slipped and Dr. Slotin performed an unintended physics-biophysics experiement, one unwittingly done under the aegis of “blind religious faith.”
In my work, because religion is always about what is not directly observable and of objective reality, every aspect of what is scientifically of religion is ineluctably unwitting.
How better to illustrate this than the “faith based compassionate conservatism of the early reign of Czar, In Liar’s Clothing, Bush II?
Want to read about its faith-based, unwitting intentions? How about, Dave Donaldson & Stanley Carlson-Thies, “A Revolution of Compassion: Faith-Based Groups as Full Partners in Fighting America’s Social Problems,” Baker Books, 2003?
Intended, as read that book of impending tragedy, to resolve issues of the poor, those unwitting initiatives were what I find drove the recent near-total-meltdown of the fiat economy.
Slotin was sincere, yet the screwdriver slipped. Compassionate Conservatives were sincere, yet the fiat economy crashed.
Sincerity is apparently not truthfulness.
While the religious belief, “it is our faulty nature that is to blame” is, in my view a sincere, religious belief, I also find that it has nothing whatsoever to do with directly observable, objective reality.
Furthermore, while the religious belief, “People will always find a way to kill each other, so law abiding citizens need to be able to defend ourselves and the people we love.” is also sincere, I further find that it has nothing whatsoever to do with directly observable, objective reality.
As I observe people continuing to learn what has not before been known or understood, my scientific orientation informs me that the predicament of human violence is about something religious, and I base this observation on the directly observable fact that it appears to me that no one actually appears to understand how to stop the violence well enough to have actually stopped it.
Being a for-real scientist, I work at learning what has not yet been learned, and for solving problems that have not yet been solved. To do that, I need religion to direct me toward problems which may merit their being solved.
Human violence made the top of my list by Christmas, 1939, and has there remained ever since.
Of course, if social conventions drive humanity toward violence, social conventions cannot yet effectively provide the remedy for human violence, or the problem of human violence would have already encountered its remediation.
Mere palliation of symptoms, as I consistently observe, merely generates more symptoms. As I consistently, directly and objectively observe more and more symptoms of human violence, and as palliation is what I directly observe is what causes symptoms to increase, I directly observe that humanity does not yet scientifically understand human violence.
Methinks it be of a process of human brain biophysics.
Methinks it be a practical problem, wisely solved, and in need of an effective, economical, efficient solution.
Methinks engineering be the solving of practical problems, efficiently, effectively, and economically, using scientific principles.
Methinks engineering applied to human brain biophysics is of bioengineering.
My work is bioengineering.
And I directly observe:
I am here, working.
Now.
Now is always changing.
Change happens.
Change is happening.
Now.
The best way to reduce homicides in the US is to stop raising our sons and daughters to be cowboys.
The ridiculously massive number of guns in our culture both predicates and is the result of celebration of violence as a plausible solution to conflict.
I wonder how the Egyptian revolution would have gone down if the NRA had had a hand in it. Change every rock thrown into a bullet.
The best way to reduce the homicide rate in the US (and Mexico) is to end the War on Drugs.
Jeff Morelock:
“People have been killing each other since the dawn of time. It is not the government’s fault, its not the gun’s fault, it is our faulty nature that is to blame.
People will always find a way to kill each other, so law abiding citizens need to be able to defend ourselves and the people we love.”
*****************
No one suggests gun control as a panacea to the basic problem of imperfect human nature (not so intelligent design, indeed). The point is that easy access to weapons makes continuous proof of the imperfection more likely. Try killing someone with a knife or your bare hands and you will see the need for more more time, brute strength, and courage, all of which mitigate against the act in question. As you well know from your service to the community, most violent acts are not the random type you imply, but the emotion-laden actions of family or acquaintances premised on irrational reasons borne of rage, greed, or downright orneriness. Gun control works here and that is really all the justification it needs. No one needs a handgun for protection. They are inaccurate, cheap, and require considerable training to use without killing yourself or unintended targets around you. The right to self defense predates written law and I see no constituency for its abolition. The means and methods to self-defense are not absolute (else we would all be entitled to atomic weapons) and reasonable restrictions on these means and methods in service to society as a whole are both prudent and necessary. Even our ancestors in the wild west knew that. Seems we’ve forgotten that historical fact with the considerable help of the gun manufacturers … oops … I mean the NRA. I wonder why? I’m sure its a noble but misguided defense of the Second Amendment. That, of course, or $.
WE’RE #1
USA USA USA
The unintentional firearm-related death rate for children 0-14 years old is NINE times higher in the U.S. than in the 25 other countries combined (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, p. 101).
The mortality rate from accidental shootings is 8 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns (Miller, 2001, p. 481).
For kids ages 5 to 14, the mortality rate is 14 times higher in high gun states than low gun states (Miller, 2001, p. 481).
For kids ages 0 to 4, the mortality rate is 17 times higher in high gun states than low gun states (Miller, 2001, p. 481).
For every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths (Miller, 2001, p. 483).
For adults, keeping a gun in the home quadruples the risk of dying of an accidental gunshot wound (Wiebe, 2003).
A gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense (Kellermann, p. 263).
Most unintentional shooting deaths occur in the home (65 percent), based on data from 16 states. The most common context of the death (30 percent) was playing with the gun (Karch, 2010).
In almost half of unintentional shooting deaths (49 percent), the victim is shot by another person. In virtually all of these cases, the shooter and victim knew each other (Hemenway, p. 1184).
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/gvunintentional
The United States leads the world’s richest nations in gun deaths — murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns – according to a study published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
The U.S. was first at 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Two other countries in the Americas came next. Brazil was second with 12.95, followed by Mexico with 12.69.
Japan had the lowest rate, at 0.05 gun deaths per 100,000 (1 per 2 million people). The police in Japan actively raid homes of those suspected of having weapons.
The 36 countries in the study were the richest in the World Bank’s 1994 World Development Report, having the highest GNP per capita income.
The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:
U.S.A. 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Estonia 12.26
Argentina 8.93
Northern Ireland 6.63
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31
France 5.15
Canada 4.31
Norway 3.82
Austria 3.70
Portugal 3.20
Israel 2.91
Belgium 2.90
Australia 2.65
Slovenia 2.60
Italy 2.44
New Zealand 2.38
Denmark 2.09
Sweden 1.92
Kuwait 1.84
Greece 1.29
Germany 1.24
Hungary 1.11
Ireland 0.97
Spain 0.78
Netherlands 0.70
Scotland 0.54
England and Wales 0.41
The United States accounted for 45 percent of the 88,649 gun deaths reported in the study, the first comprehensive international scrutiny of gun-related deaths.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166
Raff: You ask a couple of questions. First, you inquire about whether a mentally unstable individual might think about the unreliability and unwieldy nature of a pistol loaded with a super high capacity magazine as Loughner did. Well, in his case, obviously not. However, I know a number of mentally ill persons who are, in the vernacular, crazy but not stupid. Some will, others probably not.
As for the number of shots. If you recall, Lee Harvey Oswald got off three shots, which were more than enough to change the course of history. If an assassin wants to inflict maximum damage, they may take a cue from the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan and use a bomb, not a gun–refer to the case of Eric Rudolf. And remember, a bomb can be made from stuff you can find in your garage and under the sink. Black powder can be made from items you can find in nature. Hint: the best charcoal for black powder is made from willow.
Take a look at the Second Amendment. Nowhere does it address how much ammunition one should have. And as for the term well-regulated, if we look at the use of the word at the time, it comes from the same etymological roots as meaning to be reliable. A regulator clock is one that is adjusted to tell time reliably. I have an semi-automatic pistol with a seven-round magazine. I can change the magazines for it faster than your eye can follow. Which means that I actually have more reliable firepower at my disposal than Lougner did with his much-touted high capacity magazine.
You may recall a discussion some weeks ago in which a question was raised about civilians owning fighter planes. Yes, they are on the open market and can be purchased. Somewhere around here, I have a picture of me sitting at the controls of a privately owned WW-II era bomber. My point is that all kinds of weapons or potential weapons are available legally. But we do not hear of them being used in massacres.
I am a former SWAT officer, NRA member, and I am also currently a licensed and armed executive protection agent and teach the Florida concealed weapons classes.
As far a 30 round magazines – banning them is fine with me because anyone who knows anything about carrying handguns for self defense knows they are unreliable as Otteray Scribe points out in his accurate post.
Trying to ban every other gun is a mistake. 15 – 19 round magazines are necessary for self defense these days as many criminals now work in teams of two or more criminals, and then of course there are street gangs.
Then there is the guy who went on a STABBING rampage in NYC. He killed 3, stabbed a few more people, and then ran an 80 year old over with a car.
People have been killing each other since the dawn of time. It is not the government’s fault, its not the gun’s fault, it is our faulty nature that is to blame.
People will always find a way to kill each other, so law abiding citizens need to be able to defend ourselves and the people we love.
If a gunman got past security and shot a Senator in the U.S. Senate Chambers, Wayne LaPierre’s response would be, “This wouldn’t have happened if every Senator had an AK-47.”
rafflaw-
“Why is it asking too much to limit even the size of a magazine?”
The only people who will be affected are people who don’t generally commit crime. There are legitimate uses for them, but it’s really the fact that it isn’t even putting a bandaid on a gaping wound, it’s more like waving a wand at a gaping wound. We can’t do as the NRA would and assume what would have happened had he not had the super-sized mags. It might have made matters worse, it might have made them better, but you can’t assume that everything would have been identical except for the change in magazine size.
“Wouldn’t it make sense to at least discuss making it harder for mentally ill people to buy guns legally?”
You bet. But every time I ask people how we can (or should) get around patient/doctor confidentiality or who determines what mental illnesses get you on the blacklist…
“Why does anyone listen to the NRA at all?”
Love or hate them they get results. I’m a pro-gun liberal who despises the NRA. For every positive thing they do for gun rights, they do dozens that reinforce the stereotypes of gun owners. And they are a proxy for the right wing, which is hilarious when you consider how many of the most restrictive gun laws and regulations were put in place by Republicans.
Also, Jerry Miculik isn’t from this planet.
Mojo-
“Let’s say you are in a bar or restaurant.”
We don’t have to do a “let’s say”. We can look at reality. Concealed carry has exploded in the last twenty years. And in each and every state that went to shall issue carry laws the same nonsense about blood running in the streets and people wildly shooting into crowds came up. It hasn’t materialized. Violent crime dropped by more than a third during that period (NOT because of more carry, there’s no evidence for that; if there is a consensus regarding what effect looser/tighter laws have, it’s that neither seem to do much of anything.
“How could you know who to shoot during a split-second decision?”
If I didn’t know who to shoot, I wouldn’t shoot. Nor would just about any permit holder. I wouldn’t even draw.
“More guns are not the answer.”
Depends on the question.
Thanks, Raff.
That has been a problem of mine on the issue of “more guns” for quite some time.
Mojo,
I agree 100% with your take on the chaos during an attack like that.
OS,
The thing I don’t understand is why even 20 plus bullets in a magazine is necessary for self defense? Also, when someone wants to kill as many people as possible, do they really consider the balance of the gun with a high capacity magazine, especially when they are mentally unstable to begin with? You are spot on about the NRA being in it for the money from corporate sponsors and power.
Let’s say you are in a bar or restaurant. Somebody decides to open up and start killing people. Mass confusion follows. Who knows who is the shooter. You see a man firing a gun and so you shoot him.
Turns out he was just an innocent trying to stop the violence, same as you. You didn’t know … you were just a guy shooting at a guy who was firing a gun.
Except … you just killed another innocent.
But who can be sure in such a chaotic environment?
More guns means a safer environment?
Hardly.
More guns, more chaos.
A circular firing squad.
How could you know who to shoot during a split-second decision?
Tell me you would always know the right thing to do in a chaotic situation.
More guns are not the answer.
Having thrown up the video of Travis Tomasie reloading a semi-auto pistol, I have to share this one.
Now I will posit that most anyone with reasonably good eye-hand coordination can reload a semi-auto magazine in less than one second. On the other hand, I think I could practice a lifetime and not manage this with a revolver. Not ever. This is Jerry Miculik.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DpCellB_UQ&fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0]
Raff, you are spot-on regarding the NRA. Anyone who really listens to them with a critical mind can easily see this is about fund raising for their favorite right wing causes. They have as much real credibility as the US Chamber of Commerce.
Having said that, there are a couple of myths perpetuated here. First of all, the high-capacity magazine. When thirty rounds are loaded into a magazine for a pistol, it makes the whole pistol unwieldy and hard to handle. It becomes both bulky and heavy. Also, a much more powerful spring has to be at the bottom of the magazine just to push the mass of cartridges upward. The more powerful spring and large number of rounds increases the chance of a jam. Which, I have read, is exactly what happened. Loughner did not completely empty the magazine before it jammed. Any experienced firearms expert will tell you that comes as no surprise. Furthermore, jam or not, it takes more time to extract a large capacity magazine and insert a new one.
IMHO, more people would have been killed had the shooter used normal magazines with the normal number of rounds. Take a look at the following video of how long it takes to change a normal magazine. Obviously, you cannot do this the first time out, but with practice, anyone can do it.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxzrahUUTi8&fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0]