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.”
Bob: You have a point. I live about a quarter of a mile from the waters edge of Lake Michigan. Theoretically, I suppose it’s possible for an asteroid to strike the lake and send its waters rushing up the bluff, sweeping me away.
However, I like my chances.
Also, flash flooding hasn’t been much of a problem since the glaciers retreated. We get flooding, and sometimes it’s called flash flooding, but it bears no resemblance to the the flash floods that occur out west; the water rises steadier and collect more predictably. Periodically, the viaducts will flood, and occasionally someone will attempt to drive through one, and sometimes someone drowns as a result. Stupid people die in stupid ways. I truly believe that there’s nothing any government can do to prevent every stupid mistake, though.
I’m able to lower my odds of being caught in a freak flood by having a NOAA weather radio on hand in the house and a weather app on my phone. These services notify me when the National Weather Service has issued an alert for my area. You might know the NWS as a little thing called “The State”, and it’s responsible for saving countless lives across the country, particular in rural areas.
So my odds of drowning here where I live are actually quite a bit lower than the statistics you cite. You say 127 deaths, I say location is everything.
You cite Heller v. DC. I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding, gleaned here and elsewhere, is that it is a bad decision, poorly reasoned by a slim majority. I expect you to disagree, but if I’m wrong perhaps one of the other attorneys could weigh in; rafflaw if he’s still following this thread, or Mike A, maybe even Professor Turley, if he has the time. I’d appreciate the perspective.
The thing about Heller and McDonald v Chicago as far as I can see is that it removes the power of local governments to determine the laws within their own borders. The mantra among conservatives has been small local government is the best. The citizens of Dodge City knew a thing or two about gun violence; they saw it up close and they refused to live with the consequences. They didn’t have any cars back then. They had values. Oddly enough, I don’t think the murder rates rose after guns were banned from Dodge.
You opine that you shall not pull the trigger only when the state says you may. Guess what, Happy; the state has always said, and continues to say, and will always say when you may pull the trigger. You may not pull the trigger to shoot someone unless in self-defense – or you live in Florida. You may not pull the trigger in certain places, like a crowded movie theater. Pretty sure most urban and residential areas forbid firing a weapon, as well, even if you’re just shooting bottles in the backyard. You want to go hunting, better do it in season and have a permit or suffer the consequences. So you see, the state has quite a bit to say about when you pull that trigger.
Maybe the odds of drowning are higher where you live. Maybe not. Maybe the odds of being shot are low where you live, maybe not, but they’re unacceptably high where I live. And here’s the thing, flash flood – act of god. Shot by stray bullet – act of man. One can be mitigated, the other prevented.
With news of another school shooting making the headlines, society has a right to assert some restrictions on whom may obtain what, where and when. It’s called public safety; let’s look into it.
RTC – it was the civilizing force of marriage eligible women moving to Dodge City that probably dropped the murder rate more than anything else. And it quit being a terminus for the cattle drives.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/10/school-shootings-since-newtown_n_5480209.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cresponsive-test1%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D486691
If It’s A School Week In America, Odds Are There Will Be A School Shooting.
RTC: “I am subject to drowning only when I go swimming or take baths. If I stay out of the water, I’m never at risk.”
RTC, you should know there are no absolutes.
Two words: Flash Flood.
Ever hear the phrase “turn around, don’t drown”?
“more people die yearly in floods, 127 on average, than by lightning (73), tornadoes (65), or hurricanes (16).”
RTC: “You should know that the there are no absolutes,”
You said it.
RTC: “The 2d Am is not an absolute right to unrestricted weapons purchase and possession.”
I never said it was.
RTC: “certain places should be off limits to weapons like courthouses, bars, or businesses that don’t want to allow them.”
I completely agree; especially bars.
RTC: “It’s a matter of determining what type of regulation is reasonable within the definitions of well-regulated (the part of the 2d you like to ignore).”
You need to read District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
Held: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
What I object to are the knee-jerk attempts of the left to impose whatever regulations happen to cross their mind at a particular moment; simply so they can say “they did something.” These regulations almost always have nothing to do with the proximate cause or cause in fact of whatever it is they’re trying to prevent with their new regulation.
I am particularly opposed to smart-gun legislation. The extreme left would have us believe that the decisive functionality of a gun should operate by committee; that the citizen should depend on the state for a “properly functioning gun.” In other words, you may pull the trigger when the state says so.
Once you allow the government to impose the restriction of smart-guns, you don’t need to look very far through the lens of Moore’s Law to see the day when the state will have the power to render all guns ineffective with the push of a button.
So yes, I am absolutely opposed to smart-gun legislation; far more than I’m opposed to the ridiculous restrictions the left attempts to impose on gun owners whenever they hear a car backfire.
Some of the people here on the right repeatedly post that “liberals” want to take your guns away. If you just used it for hyperbole that would be ok but this is the lie that right tells to create a barrier that makes no sensible conversation, debate, or legitimate laws, including closing loopholes, esp at gun shows and mental health background screening. possible.
(Yw rafflaw ((*_*))
Bob: I am subject to drowning only when I go swimming or take baths. If I stay out of the water, I’m never at risk. I have no real option of avoiding public places. In addition, people are killed by random gunshots while sitting in their their homes, where they should be safe.
You should know that the there are no absolutes, not even in the Bill of Rights. The 1st Am doesn’t give anyone the right to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. We know this because there was a jackhole once who thought he had the right to do just that. Reasonable minds determined that sensible limits may curtail Constitutional rights, wholly or in part, such as when a screen is placed in front of a testifying witness, limiting to a degree a defendant’s rights under the confrontation clause.
The 2d Am is not an absolute right to unrestricted weapons purchase and possession. There are complete idiots out there who think they should have the right to possess nuclear weapons. Who thinks that’s a good idea. Likewise, certain places should be off limits to weapons like courthouses, bars, or businesses that don’t want to allow them.
Your right to individual autonomy is not absolute either, and like it or not, there are limits to your right to self-defense.
It’s not a question of repealing the 2d Am in order to make me feel safe; I feel safe. It’s a matter of determining what type of regulation is reasonable within the definitions of well-regulated (the part of the 2d you like to ignore). As a gun owner (I own a hunting rifle), I don’t particularly want to see the 2d repealed. But if absolutists, like yourself, are going to resist reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and possession, then I would be eager to see the 2d Am abolished.
Schulte: Once again, you demonstrate that you don’t understand what an ad hominem attack is. This really is a trend with you guys.
RTC – the old ‘I’m rubber and you’re glue’ fallacy. You have used this before. It is a variation on ad hominem attacks.
Bob, Esq:
Ole RTC really showed you.
I dont think he understood a word you said or the reason you said them.
You were speaking another language as far as he is concerned and unfortunately as many others are concerned.
RTC,
I oppose those who threaten individual autonomy in the name of greater state control; whether the threat comes from the right or the left.
I’m not a member of the NRA, but here’s the “real world” for you.
Odds of dying from drowning: 1 in 1,008
Odds of dying in random public shooting: 1 in 384,000
Odds of dying from falling vending machine: 1 in 112,000,000
Odds of dying in a terrorist attack: 1 in 9,300,000
To those on the extreme left I say that you are 384 times more likely to die from drowning than a random public shooting.
Yet we have no laws mandating that everyone wear life vests at all times.
To those on the extreme right, I say you are 9 times more likely to die from a falling vending machine than a terrorist attack.
You’ll have to pardon me if I laugh at the suggestion we suspend the Bill of Rights just to make you feel safer.
Bob: You’re not answering the question, merely restating meaningless hyperbolic platitudes.
I’ve got the measure of you, Mr. NRA man. Thanks for weighing in (not), but we need people who live in the real world to bring substance to this debate.
RTC – ad hominem attack at 8:13
RTC,
All you’re doing is attempting to substitute individual responsibility with state control.
Thus the reason I stated:
It is only in the liberal fever dream of a utopian society, in which the individual has been reduced to nothing but a statistical function of the state with no inalienable rights whatsoever, that such a notion [i.e. “smart” guns for all] is entertained.
The Soviets didn’t build a wall in Berlin to keep people out. They built it to keep people from emigrating away; because they knew what was best for its “citizens.”
Bob Esq.: For the sake of argument, let me say great, you buy it, you shoot it at whatever and whoever you want, anytime, day or night. But how ’bout we do something to prevent little Bob Esq. Jr. from shooting the neighbors dog or Grandap by accident. Hmmm, can we do that? No? How about a thief that breaks into your home when your not on guard duty? Is there nothing we can do try and prevent him from going on a murderous crime spree? Or should society, oh, I’m sorry, the state remain powerless to come up with a remedy/
Mike: I agree that mental health is an important component of the problem, but only one component. And yes, crazy people intent on killing others will try and find ways to do kill people. But guns make killing incredibly easier.
I think many lives would be saved if we got rid of guns. (Note to Bob Esq.: I am not proposing in this comment that we get rid of guns, but responding to to bfm’s “for the sake of the argument” remark about the number of lives that could be saved if we did get rid of them, so please douse your hair.)
You can compare the number of homicides resulting from knives that occur in a country like Japan, that has its own fetish with knives and swords, or Sweden, where a significant number of inhabitants suffer from depression. Then add the number of accidental deaths that occur in this country from guns and I think the number would be very significant.
And regardless of whether those two in Nevada were on a mission or not, I’d like those officers chances better if they had been attacked with knives.
RTC: “Don’t know what the Smart Gun thread is, so there’s a lot of missing context, like your quote from Jung.”
The quote from Jung was taken from “The Undiscovered Self” where Jung discusses the psychological problems arising from the communist state.
It is perfectly in context; especially in regards to “smart guns.”
The purpose of a gun is to inflict damage on its target at the decisive pull of a trigger. The liberal, unable to repeal the 2nd amendment, would equally prefer to remove a gun’s decisive functionality by having it operate by committee.
“Ideally” I should not be forced to depend on the state for a “properly functioning gun.” “Ideally” it is my right to be the sole decisive factor between the pull of a trigger and the firing of a bullet.
And here’s the thread:
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/02/21/the-smart-gun-will-new-technology-open-up-a-new-wave-of-liability-claims-over-dumb-guns/
Earlier we mentioned the ambush of police officers in Las Vegas.
The NY times has a front page article on the husband wife pair who killed three and themselves.
They carefully found homes for there pets and shutdown there straight life:
‘ Mr. Miller told her he was going “underground,” adding, “’I gotta do what I gotta do,” before starting to cry, giving Ms. Fielder a hug and leaving with his wife.’
Now, I acknowledge that the actions of a disturbed person might greatly influenced by an object that has special meaning for them.
But I really have to doubt that three lives would have been saved if these two could not get a gun.
On the contrary, it sounds to me that these two perceived they had a mission and would have found some method to accomplish much the same results regardless of the tools available to them.
I think the best understanding of this event is that these two found reasons to justify killing others and themselves and would have would have tried to carry that out regardless of guns.
You cannot protect yourself from this mentality by locking up the tools. You have to deal with the troubled person.
leejcaroll,
Thanks for the state by state breakdown of homicides by guns vs. knives.
bfm: lc isn’t putting words in your mouths. Many gun rights advocates have pointed out the fact that people can be killed with knives, usually with the implication that it’s just as easy and happens just often as people are killed with guns. If Lee’s statistics are correct, they show that guns are involved in significantly more homicides than knives, and is valid to point out.
” If Lee’s statistics are correct, they show that guns are involved in significantly more homicides than knives, and is valid to point out.”
Well, maybe. But I think it is far more relevant that those with mental health problems and homicidal intent will find a tool.
Earlier we were told in 2010 there were nearly 9000 gun related homicides.
If we take a big round guess with leejcaroll’s numbers and guess that those 9,000 represent about 80% of the homicides, there must have been maybe 11,000 homicides in 2010.
So if we get rid of guns, how many do you think are saved and how many are killed by some other means. Remember most homicides are not mass killings.
You might save some lives and every life is precious. But my guess is you don’t save very many by eliminating guns. Most of those deaths still take place because they are committed by people with lethal intent and a knife is just about as effective.
The sensitivity, the lever, for saving lives is finding those with homicidal intent and that goes to mental health.
Guns are a distraction when it comes to saving lives. But it sure does feel good to get indignant about guns and people who own them.
BTW, I don’t think my words claim that guns and knives are equivalent directly or by implication. My claim is that those intent on killing will find a tool. You can’t make yourself safe by locking away the tools. You have to deal with the killer.
Bob Esq aka smart lawyer guy:
Don’t know what the Smart Gun thread is, so there’s a lot of missing context, like your quote from Jung.
Your comment is practically a non-sequitur. Smart gun technology, if that’s what we’re calling it, would prohibit a anyone other than the owner from firing a gun. Insofar as the owner would be the user of the gun, he would still be able to use his judgement as to when to fire his weapon and we’d still all be at the mercy of his prudence, or lack thereof, at what to fire at. Ideally, smart gun technology would, however, prevent an unintended user, like a child or a thief from firing a gun, their judgement and prudence notwithstanding.
Homicide victims by gun:
# 1 Delaware: 80 %
# 2 Louisiana: 77.5 %
# 3 Vermont: 76.9 %
# 4 Arizona: 76 %
# 5 Arkansas: 75.2 %
# 6 Illinois: 74.2 %
# 7 New Hampshire: 72.7 %
# 8 California: 72.6 %
# 9 Pennsylvania: 72.5 %
10 Georgia: 72 %
10 Wisconsin: 72 %
# 12 Michigan: 69.4 %
= 13 Missouri: 69.3 %
= 13 Virginia: 69.3 %
# 15 West Virginia: 68.4 %
16 North Carolina: 68.3 %
= 16 South Carolina: 68.3 %
# 18 Maryland: 67.6 %
# 19 Tennessee: 66.7 %
# 20 Alabama: 65.2 %
Vs. KNIVES:
# 1 Maine: 28.6 %
# 2 Massachusetts: 26.9 %
# 3 Wyoming: 26.7 %
# 4 Montana: 25 %
# 5 Kansas: 24.2 %
# 6 Connecticut: 23.5 %
# 7 New Mexico: 22.8 %
# 8 South Dakota: 22.2 %
# 9 Oklahoma: 22.1 %
# 10 New York: 20.8 %
11 Washington: 19.4 %
12 Nebraska: 19 %
13 New Jersey: 18.5 %
14 New Hampshire: 18.2 %
15 Alaska: 17.6 %
16 Rhode Island: 17.1 %
17 Minnesota: 17 %
# 18 Idaho: 16.7 %
# 19 Vermont: 15.4 %
# 20 Texas: 15.3 %
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_hom_vic_by_wea_kni-crime-homicide-victims-weapon-knife
You keep trying to make it an equivalency when it is not.
“You keep trying to make it an equivalency when it is not.”
Please don’t try to put words in our mouth.
We keep pointing out the obvious, that an individual with homicidal intent will find a tool.
And as Rodgers in California demonstrated, even when a mad man has a gun, he may kill just as many with a knife.
It feels good to reach for simple answers. However, simple answers do not solve the problem.
“RTC
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.”
I’m not suggesting anything, nor is the NRA. I’m simply posting data from (of all places) Eric Holder’s Justice Department.
“HatetheNRA
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.”
1. Which high capacity killing machines do you speak of?
2. When has the NRA stated they want every single person to own a gun?
3. You say “something needs to done about the ease in which mentally ill people can get a gun.”
Such as?
Are there currently laws in place to prevent the mentally ill from purchasing a firearm?
Is that a 2nd Amendment issue or a mental health issue?
Why would the CDC get involved? Why not the NIMH?
RTC: “your stance on …technology that enables guns to be used only by the owner is what?”
As I stated on the Smart Gun thread…
With all due respect, guns are designed to inflict damage on the targets selected by the user. Guns are not designed to substitute or for the judgment and prudence of the user.
It is only in the liberal fever dream of a utopian society, in which the individual has been reduced to nothing but a statistical function of the state with no inalienable rights whatsoever, that such a notion is entertained.
“In order to turn the individual into a function of the State, his dependence on anything else must be taken from him.” – C.G. Jung