Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)- Weekend Contributor
It has happened again. A mass killing at the hands of a person armed with knives and three semi-automatic handguns and 400 rounds of ammunition. This time the alleged shooter stabbed three to death and then went on a shooting spree that ended with at least three more dead and a total of 8 injured/wounded people from gunshot wounds and 5 more injured by his knives or by being hit by his car.
The family of the alleged shooter requested a police intervention prior to the killings and the police did speak with the young man, but they did not have cause to search his apartment. The police had other interactions with Elliot Rodger, age 22 and he later expressed concern that they did not find his weapons.
“Deputies also encountered Rodger earlier this year when he accused a roommate of stealing three candles, and in another case in which he claimed to be beaten but deputies suspected he was the aggressor.
Rodger detailed his plans in an extensive 141-page manifesto released Saturday and said he narrowly missed being found out when the officers knocked on his door.
Rodger expressed relief that his apartment wasn’t searched because they would have found his weapons and his writings. When recounting his thinking about whether he should kill his father, Rodger expressed a sliver of acknowledgment that his plot, which included killing other family members, was wrong.
“I didn’t want it to come to this,” Rodger said. “I desperately wanted a way out.” He then immediately talks about his mother giving him a new car — a BMW coupe.” USA Today
This latest shooting spree is not the reason for this article. It is merely one more example of why common sense gun control measures that could save innocent lives are needed. When recent polls seem to indicate that a majority of Americans agree that common sense gun control regulations are needed, the NRA continually stands in the way of possibly life saving legislation. However, the NRA is not just working to prevent any gun control legislation from proceeding, it is also standing in the way of attempts to have the Center for Disease Control (CDC) do research on gun prevention measures.
“But this past week we’ve seen the other side of the coin. How the NRA works to suppress information that would lead to treating a public health catastrophe that claims over 30,000 lives per year and injures over 100,000 as that very thing, while fighting to ensure we have as little access to information as possible that might help save lives.
The simple fact is, much like with their friends on the right from the tobacco industry to the oil industry to the megachurch, science and information are the enemies of the NRA. They have proven they will do whatever it takes to make sure we have less of it, and more Santa Barbaras.
The clearest example, of course, is the NRA’s labeling a bill sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) to allow the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to once again use its considerable expertise to research gun violence prevention, “unethical.” Yes, they actually said that.
Because anyone who does statistically significant research on a public health problem from the angle of helping people and not profiting from misery, and again and again finds obvious truths such as owning guns makes you more likely to get shot, is not someone the NRA and its allies will countenance without smearing. I debated one of these types from the Second Amendment Foundation on NPR recently regarding the CDC. It is amazing how tongue-tied they get when you present them with irrefutable information.” Reader Supported News
In what world is it “unethical” to research ways to prevent deaths? Would the NRA consider it unethical to study ways to prevent automotive deaths? Or deaths caused by contaminated food? In the NRA’s world, massacres like the ones that happened in Santa Barbara, Sandy Hook Elementary, Northern Illinois University, Virginia Tech, Columbine and countless others, can only be prevented by good guys carrying guns everywhere and anywhere.
When an organization like the NRA labels an attempt to investigate ways to reduce deaths as unethical, I have to wonder if this lobbyist organization has lost touch with reality. How can we as a country not look into ways that we could possibly prevent some of the 30,000 deaths and 100,000 injured from gun actions? How much longer can the United States of America go on allowing a company/lobbying organization to spend millions to block any and all reasonable actions that may save lives?
Shame on the NRA for blocking reasonable gun control legislation and for even trying to stop research into ways to reduce deaths from guns. Shame on us for allowing it to continue. How much longer will we, as a nation, stand by and watch innocents die? How much longer until we listen to our hearts and our heads and stand up and insist that something be done? Our lives and the lives of our children are at stake. Our moral standing as a nation is also at stake.
Richard Martinez, the father of one of the Santa Barbara victims may have said it best as he reacted to the death of his child. “Christopher Ross Michaels-Martinez, of Los Osos, California, was the last of six people killed by suspect Elliot Rodger before the gunman apparently shot and killed himself, authorities said.
Martinez choked back tears as he spoke, then grew angrier as he talked about gun laws and lobbyists.
“The talk about gun rights. What about Chris’ right to live?” Martinez said. “When will enough people say: ‘Stop this madness! We don’t have to live like this! Too many people have died!” MSN News
How much longer until we heed Mr. Martinez’ plea?
“The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.”
And unreasoning. Have a nice day
Well then, Schulte my boy, you’re are completely unreasonable.
RTC – drug lords are in the submarine building game now.
RTC – my position is that whatever weaponry the military has should be available to the citizens as well, legally. So, if I can afford a nuclear air craft carrier, I should be able to own one.
That last post was to Mike.
No, Schulte, I’m not forgetting that shootout at all. Not one bit, no sirree. And you’re not helping your argument by bringing it up.
Right. And studying some data might help pinpoint what some of the issues we need to be debating are. One of the points rafflaw was making with his post is that the NRA is effectively blocking the CDC from collecting any data at all. If guns are working as well as Kellam and the NRA are suggesting, then you’d think they’d welcome the opportunity to have the CDC start collecting data.
RTC – the CDC does not need to study guns and gun violence. It does not fall under their mandate. They have enough on their plate dealing with the current HIV and STD outbreaks.
US Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics from 1993 to 2011:
U.S. gun-related homicides DROPPED 39%
Non-fatal firearm crimes DROPPED 69 %
FBI Uniform Crime Reports AND the BATFE’s data on firearm sales in the US to private citizens for the years 2000-2010. (Summarized)
2000; Gun Related Homicides 10,203, Sales 302,584
2005; Gun Related Homicides 11,346, Sales 156,137
2010; Gun Related Homicides 8775, Sales 719,262
More guns sold but less gun crime? Unpossible!!!
But, but….Scalia said Militia! The NRA has “blood on their hands!” (Is the blood from the handle of the knife that killed as many people as the gun in the incident cited?)
The leftwing response to “sensible gun control” from May 27th 2014:
“Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel Proposes Banning Gun Shops From 99.5% of City, Taping All Gun Sales”
Now, Let us talk about the Federal level efforts for ‘sensible gun control;
Congress? Not so much lately.
CDC (LOL)? Trying.
FDIC? You betcha!
How Constitutional!
Schulte: There are measures in place for dealing with the abuse of police powers. There are administrative and legal avenues for prosecuting violations of the law, and training programs designed educate officers about the limits of their authority. And as we’ve learned from Darren’s example, there are always conscientious officers willing to stand up for what’s right under the law.
Thinking your ever going to come out alive in a shootout with police is simply not practical.
RTC – you forget that rather infamous shootout with the police, I believe in California, where the police were both outgunned and outarmed.
So Mike, what do you suggest, aside from improving mental health care in this country. (Hopefully, Obamacare will help that situation.)
As I see it, we’re not as homogenous, demographically, as a country like Switzerland. As long as the underlying theme in our culture is to view other groups with distrust, fear, and suspicion, then there’s always going to be an incentive to arm ourselves.
The gun has already appeared in our politics. The man who shot Dr. Tiller isn’t technically deranged.
“As long as the underlying theme in our culture is to view other groups with distrust, fear, and suspicion, then there’s always going to be an incentive to arm ourselves.”
I wish I had some really good suggestions. Nevertheless, I think it is useful to punch holes in wistful and stereotypical thinking. Feel good legislation does not solve the problems and likely hurts some who have done nothing wrong.
I think fear, perhaps irrational fear, of crime does motivate gun ownership. I am not sure how much that is based on racist or bigoted thinking, although that must have some effect.
It is a tough problem that requires real though. It my opinion it would help if we could stop demonizing each other.
If I had a sadistic streak I would just live to lock people like ‘hatethenra’ and some NRA members in the same room. But if I get in that kind of mood I will just turn on professional wrestling. At least professional wresting is fake.
Talking about the issues might help. Calling each other names and figuratively punching each other in the nose does not.
RTC – the gun has been in politics since its invention. War is an extension of politics and guns are part of war.
In 2010 8 American citizens, worldwide, were killed by terrorists. In 2010 11,078 Americans were killed with guns.(from One Million Moms and Dads Against Gun Violence’s Photos)
There s a war on terror. yet too many think the war on terror is fine but handgun regulations are a nefarious plot.
leejcaroll – just to add to the debate, a report from the Great State of Maine.
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/08/03/news/state/statistics-show-maine-has-one-of-the-highest-rates-of-knife-related-deaths-in-the-nation/
Schulte: Ahhh, no fair ambushing. The NRA didn’t say that guns in the hands of good guys makes us safer, except in cases of ambush.
BFM: So your stance on background checks and technology that enables guns to be used only by the owner is what?
What about plastic guns that are designed to elude detection. Does a 2d Am right give gun owners the right to do that?
And what about cop-killer bullets. We have limits on street-legal cars and motorcycles, shouldn’t there be some limit on bullets for handguns in the interests of police safety?
RTC – you asked how it happened. Just answered your question. And considering the over-reaction of the police in shooting and killing innocent civilians, shouldn’t we be armed against them. I support both armor piercing bullets for civilians and plastic guns.
So your stance on background checks and technology that enables guns to be used only by the owner is what?
What about plastic guns that are designed to elude detection. Does a 2d Am right give gun owners the right to do that?
And what about cop-killer bullets. We have limits on street-legal cars and motorcycles, shouldn’t there be some limit on bullets for handguns in the interests of police safety?”
I think background checks play an important but limited role. There are real verifiable stories of people who passed background checks and when on to violence. Background checks are not panacea with out mental health screening.
I have doubts about the usefulness of high technology guns. I doubt that many who have thought seriously about guns for self defense feel comfortable about personalized guns. In my experience the important question is how to make sure the gun fires repeatedly when you need it. BTW, I have not owned guns in a couple of decades.
Maybe there has been progress on plastic guns. The last I heard about plastic guns that could circumvent security, the story was simply false. Glock’s and other plastic receiver guns have been around for decades and no one, that I know of, any longer claims they present that kind of threat.
The last I heard we have plenty of legislation to remove cop killer bullets. We used to be able to buy Teflon coated bullets that did serve a useful purpose in reducing air borne lead at firing ranges. They also were claimed to increase the threat of penetration of body armor. So far as I know that king of bullet was removed from the civilian market.
I also think the idea of cop killer bullets is a bit over blown as a concept. You should remember that the penetration of any bullet depends on things like the composition of the bullet, the initial velocity, and the distance from the target.
Body armor is effective against most hand gun ammunition, but ineffective against most rifle ammunition.
BTW, weapons classified as hand guns that fire a rifle cartridge, and can be fired with one hand are legal and easily available. A few years ago there was what seemed to be a fad with ‘hand guns’ based on the AR 15 rifle.
I think the legislation limiting cop killer bullets is worthwhile in that it likely reduces, but does not eliminate, the number of people firing weapons capable of defeating body armor.
BFM: That’s a tough question and there is no easy answer. I think a way to start is with a gun buy-back, or perhaps trade-ins for home security systems that address personal concerns for safety.
My hope is for reducing the number of new weapons purchases. More and better policing; an improved economy and social system; and background checks. All or any of these is worth exploring.
But solving the problem by increasing the presence of guns in society is not the answer. Yesterday in Las Vegas, two gunman entered a restaurant and shot and critically woounded two deputy sheriffs. I assume deputies in Nevada carry guns, and I’m pretty sure they’re well trained. So, if the NRA is right that guns protect, what happened?
RTC – I believe the officers were ambushed, is the term.
“But solving the problem by increasing the presence of guns in society is not the answer. Yesterday in Las Vegas, two gunman entered a restaurant and shot and critically woounded two deputy sheriffs. I assume deputies in Nevada carry guns, and I’m pretty sure they’re well trained. So, if the NRA is right that guns protect, what happened?”
Thanks for your response. Safety in a society of more than 300 million is inherently statistical. Even problems that come down to well known engineering principles have statistics. Sometimes bridges fall down despite our best efforts.
The question if guns in the hands of good guys makes us safer ought to be susceptible to observational studies. However, that does not get at the issue of individual rights.
We do know that every mass killing in my memory has been committed by a deeply disturbed individual with homicidal intent. Yet the mental health aspect is barely mentioned in all this.
At this point I think it is clear we desperately need better mental health procedures.
This is an important issue and I think everyone should be concerned. A gun community that does not play an active part in the search for a solution to gun violence, in my opinion, makes it less likely that society will allow guns in the hands of individuals – regardless of the discussion on rights.
‘And another thing. I like how the NRA has convinced YOU that the liberals watt (sic) to take your guns.’
Who needs the NRA for that. I think your comments raise reasonable questions regarding the intent toward gun ownership of people with your political view.
For example consider this statement:
‘The people who have nothing better to do with their time than cling to this 2nd amendment horse shit and their guns.’
Or:
‘I don’t give a crap if you sit and j off to your wonderful gun all night long. ‘
Or:
‘The 2nd Amendment is old, outdated, and has no place in today’s society. It MUST be amended.’
So, we are supposed to believe that the plan is to repeal the 2 amendment because it is ‘outdated horse shit’, but leave guns in possession of those who ‘sit and j off… all night long’.
Well, maybe he really does believe that. But I think I before I take the words at face value, I would like to hear more discussion about the guarantee to leave 300 million guns in the hands of ordinary citizens after the 2nd amendment is repealed. How does that work?
“The NRA is responsible for the massive proliferation of guns in the USA”
A quick check at Gunpolicy dot org indicates there may be as many as 300 million guns in the US, that the number of households having guns has declined form nearly half to about one third, and that the number of households with hand guns remains roughly constant at about 21% since 1973.
That does not sound like massive proliferation due to a single cause to me. That sounds like massive gun ownership that developed over decades for many personal reasons, long before gun ownership was controversial.
For what it’s worth Hater, I agree with you. I think there must be a way to, not take away guns necessarily, but to limit them, in fire power, capacity, and reduce their presence in public.
Background checks are among the lowest intrusion society can insist upon.
It’s time for 2d Am adherents to pony up a better solution than to flood the public square with guns. The more guns there are around in public, the more innocent blood will be on the NRA’s hands. The only problem is, it doesn’t care…all the way to the bank.
Schulte! How dare you insult Ronald Reagan! Patron icon of of neoconservatives. When he actually got around to shrinking the size of gubmint, he started with mental health treatment, emptying the psychiatric wards and closed treatment facilities.
I thought I’d caution you before the Koch Bros stop their checks, but don’t let me help you change the subject. I can see you’ve got your hands full. LOL.
You better hope smart lawyer guy shows up soon; you’re gettin yer hat handed to you.
RTC – the mental institutions were depopulated after the federal 1973 case Souder v. Brennan held that inmates needed to be paid minimum wage for their labor. Psychotropic drugs also seems to have been some help in getting some patients out of institutions. Deciding that alcoholism was NOT a mental illness also got some out as did changes in thinking on homosexuality.
Since these people were now in the community and often undertreated, funding for community treatment facilities became a problem. I know you want to blame Reagan, but you really need to blame the system and the courts. In fact, Sheriff Joe’s Tent City sits on the grounds of the old Arizona Mental Hospital (now only for the criminally insane).
Addington v Texas in 1978 held that you needed clear and convincing evidence to commit someone against their wishes and that should be backed up by mental health professionals. This kept a new rash of patients being sent to mental hospitals.
Its useless to argue with a gun lover. They blame everything but the gun. It’s never the guns fault. Lets be clear. Just because you own a gun, doesn’t mean you’re an expert. Quite the opposite.
HatetheNRA – you have yet to present a solution that we can debate. In this particular case the guy had at least two therapists and passed background checks. And the cops came to his house and found him harmless.
Just because you don’t own a gun doesn’t make you an expert either.
They added the 2nd Amendment when high capacity killing machines didn’t exist. I don’t give a crap if you sit and j off to your wonderful gun all night long. Something needs to be done about the ease in which mentally ill people can get a gun. The NRA wants nothing to do with it. They just want every single person to own a gun. It’s madness and you know it.
And another thing. I like how the NRA has convinced YOU that the liberals watt to take your guns. You’re brainwashed by Wayne LaPierre. How pathetic. We want a safer society and don’t want psychopaths getting guns. Clearly you could care less about that.