Sadly, we will do this again

4 free views left!

By Tracy Warner
Editorial Page Editor

Thursday, December 20, 2012

I am no different than most people. I am tired of this. I am tired of reading about the latest massacre of innocents. I fear turning on the radio to hear of bloodthirsty maniacs who slaughter a roomful of first-graders, or a theater full of people, or a crowd at a speech, or customers at a restaurant. I truly wish I had not written all this before.

“... The basic questions go unanswered, such as: Could you devise a gun control law that would prevent mass murders like the latest in Aurora, Colo.? No, not in the absolute sense.”

“... Better to be honest and realistic. Nobody is seriously proposing a law that would have created more than a slight inconvenience for a mad gunman like the accused Jared L. Loughner.”

“... There have been millions of troubled teens through the years, many with easy access to guns, but until recently no Littletons or Jonesboros or Springfields. I wish someone could put their finger on the problem.”

We all repeat ourselves. Newtown, Conn., is a more massively tragic take on a shamefully familiar theme. There are the same shattered reactions, the same proposed laws, the accusations, the misunderstandings, ignorance, posturing, the hopeless inability to explain it, the same lack of realistic solutions, and the genuine heartfelt sorrow.

President Obama represented the emotions of the nation when he shed a tear and cried out that this insanity must end. End how? He would back another assault weapons ban, more background checks, the closing of loopholes. He appointed another task force.

The legendary 1994 assault weapons ban is held up as a holy writ unjustly undone by the pro-gun people in 2004. We forget how laughably ineffective it was. It didn’t ban automatic weapons. They were already illegal. It didn’t ban semiautomatic weapons, either rifles or pistols. It limited mostly cosmetic doo-dads that looked scary. Manufacturers could work around them by removing a few useless features, and change nothing about the way the weapon functioned. High-capacity magazines could no longer be manufactured, but ownership was legal and the millions that already existed could be sold at will. As columnist Jacob Sullum pointed out, we know an assault weapons ban would not have stopped Adam Lanza, because Connecticut had such a ban, modeled after the old federal law, and rated his mother’s Bushmaster .223 as perfectly legal. The national ban was in effect when Harris and Klebold pulled off their massacre at Columbine High School, and it didn’t bother them at all.

It becomes impossible to make a point not already made by someone else. Stalwarts like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg stand up for action and propose failed remedies — another assault weapons ban, another ban on high-capacity magazines, more analysis of mental health. Others answer that it will be difficult to write an assault weapons ban with any real effect. There are all kinds of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns that don’t look like military issue, but are just as deadly. For pistols, semiautomatic is normal. No one talks about banning those, just about limiting their magazine capacity.

We will move on. I have no strong objection to an assault weapons ban, but no expectation that it will be any more effective than the last. Ban high-capacity magazines, and I’m not troubled. I don’t see any need for them and I wish mass murderers didn’t have them, but we have to be realistic and know how difficult it will be to get rid of them.

We could do this. Perhaps the next mass murderer will find his planning more difficult. Gun violence as a whole won’t decrease. Murder, suicide and mayhem will continue as before, and I will have to write this column again.

Tracy Warner’s column appears Thursdays and Fridays. He can be reached at warner@wenatcheeworld.com or 665-1163.

» Recommend this story.

» 76 comments on this story

Want to comment on this story? All Wenatchee World members are invited to comment on stories, by using the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.

kyook 4 months, 4 weeks ago

Some great points Tracy.

Long live the Second Amendment.

http://www.infowars.com/communist-chinese-government-calls-for-americans-to-be-disarmed/

JimboBear 4 months, 4 weeks ago

Tracy, I don't often agree with your editorials, but Man you hit the nail on the head this time! Thank you for pointing out some facts. I can only hope that at least a few of the uninformed will read your words and understand a bit more.

I hear all this talk about "assault weapons" since this tragedy and yet, not one of the quite legal assault weapon clones we hear described and feared as the real thing was used in the shooting. The only one available to him was in the trunk of his vehicle and far from the scene of the carnage. Just another example of the uninformed causing panic among the masses, and yes, I believe that unless we get rid of great deal of the violence and mayhem that fills our theaters and electronic devices today, these events will continue. A sad fact of life in the US of A of the 21st century.

mizmaus 4 months, 4 weeks ago

"we will do this again"? Let's all give up. I have hope because the people who can make a difference are reaching across the aisle, more and more, as they prepare to work together and discuss how to proceed. Especially encouraging to me is that the narrative is no longer in the hands of extremists like the NRA. By refusing to engage in open discussion,they seem to have lost any place in it. Everything can be put on the table for discussion and viewed by the public. Any country willing to accept the mass murder of children as a "sad fact of life, has a bigger problem than I can accurately describe. "Let's quit", "Let's give up.", Is that the American way? I refuse to accept that.

kyook 4 months, 4 weeks ago

"Everything can be put on the table for discussion and viewed by the public."

Should the confiscation of all weapons by the government be on the table?

"Any country willing to accept the mass murder of children as a "sad fact of life, has a bigger problem than I can accurately describe."

If the population is deprived of the ability to defend itself, who would be the next victims of mass murder? History shows us....

davebugg 4 months, 4 weeks ago

The "narrative" by the NRA, which defends those of us who abide by the law, is just now starting. Unlike the gun-haters and hoplophobes who, while the news of the carnage in Connecticut was just beginning, started their despicable attacks on those of us who oppose their views of guns, the NRA waited to address their critics, allowing a respectful period of time to pass after this tragedy. All that you and your fellow gun-haters have done is to anger those of us who enjoy guns and gun sports by the nonsensical notion that further gun bans and restrictive legislation will have any impact on those go on killing sprees. Believe this: the discussion on allowing the government to further restrict and ban guns from law abiding citizens has just started; neither the NRA or gun owners have lost any place at the table in said discussion. Heck, we haven't even gotten started.

Despite the fact that the previous gun ban was a miserable failure, despite the fact that the Columbine, Moses Lake, and Paducah, Ky, and Connecticut shootings all occurred with guns that were legal under the assault weapons ban, despite the fact that Lanza was denied the purchase of a gun under the background check law supported by the NRA, despite the fact that the vast majority of murders occur with very small caliber guns that are not semi-automatic in function (.22 caliber revolvers) and shotguns, despite the fact that Chicago suffers almost double the gun murders that occurred in Connecticut (by criminals, like those involved in gangs) every month in a city that virtually now bans guns, despite the fact that nothing that is now being proposed by Sen. Diane Feinstein (the author of the original "Assault Weapons Ban) would have made a difference in the outcome in Connecticut, despite all of that and far more facts which soundly negate the hoplophobic arguments FOR further gun control and bans, your cohort still wants to do the same old thing. You and they don't want to stop the problem with real solutions, you and they simply want to ban and restrict guns from law abiding citizens. At least that's how you keep painting yourself in every post on guns that you have made.

You, and those who share your views, want us to forget working on measures which would truly make a difference. Rather than focus on what can be done to identify and stop those mentally compromised individuals which pose a danger to society, you and your cohort want to put the burden of the criminally insane on the backs of the law-abiding gun owner.

Previous to today, I was never a member in the NRA. But today I sent in three years worth of membership fees, and made a hefty donation besides. I want to make sure that I have a group supporting me against this latest push by gun haters and hoplophobic special interest lobbyists. So, Elaine, I thank you and your friends for finally waking me up so that I could help strengthen the efforts of a lobbying group which represents my viewpoints.

Meowzzz 4 months, 4 weeks ago

Very well said Davebugg.

DCM 4 months, 3 weeks ago

It's clear you feel all the rights belong to YOU!!

You may have your guns for hunting, no problem. Guns we are talking about are not for hunting animals to put food on the table..as true sportman do!!

The NRA is a disgusting group who are only interested in putting more guns on the street. They are turning our Country into a third world nation. Confronting violence with violnce...these are a different breed of sportman

Taxguru 4 months, 3 weeks ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Norm 4 months, 3 weeks ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

JimboBear 4 months, 3 weeks ago

DCM, have you been in that punch bowl again? You keep that up and you'll miss the Christmas light tour this evening.

davebugg 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Nonsense, Dawn. The AR-15 platform is THE most popular rifle for hunting in the US. It is also THE most popular rifle used in sport shooting. Your comment about the NRA makes absolutely no sense since it neither sells nor distributes guns. What it does do is to provide the voice that is needed to balance out the ignorant and nonsensical arguments put forward by the gun haters and hoplophobes. Then we have those who are satisfied with what they have (a bolt action .22 single shot, for example) and so have no problem with denying others anything that THEY have no use for.

The fact is, ALL guns that are legally available have a legitimate purpose in shooting, hunting and collecting. They also provide hundreds of thousands of defensive uses against criminals each year.

Gun-haters and hoplophobes are the groups which are disgusting precisely because those cohorts are not content to decide for themselves whether or not they want a gun, or what type of gun to buy. They wish to impose their values on me and others. They feel that MY rights are subservient to THEIR view of the world. As is evidenced by your reply to my post, you believe that rights are based on what YOU and those who share your point of view would deign to dole out to me.

Well, tough.

As to the nature of a sportsman, pray tell how you would dare lay the rhetoric of "true sportsman" based on a disagreement on choice of firearms? Don't you need to actually know what a person(s) actual ethical behavior toward hunting is? How that person(s) harvests the meat, how they respect the nature of the game that they are hunting, how they abide by the laws of the land, and how they work to conserve the very land that they hunt?

As I said above, your words contained a number of ignorant and nonsensical assumptions about my character and those who share my views.

HTH, HAND.

mizmaus 4 months, 3 weeks ago

That's great, because they count on truebelievers like you to support their efforts to buy political influence. Keep it up and you may help them buy a whole Congressman all by yourself. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?cycle=2012&id=D000000082 The Number one thing the NRA is interested in is themselves and maintaing their powerbase.

davebugg 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Elaine, your attempt to mimic the pejoratives of the anti-gun left is expected. All one needs to do is use your website and 'investigate' all of the gun rights and anti-gun groups who properly disclose their funding and distributions, and you will see similar examples of both lobbying and direct candidate support. No big surprise. I suppose, then, that you hold Handgun Control, Inc. to the same level of disdain that you hold the NRA. Funny thing is, that I don't.

Unlike you, I am not concerned about what any other gun hating group does or doesn't do. I only worry about supporting a group (and in my case, groups) which support my viewpoint on guns and can be an advocacy force multiplier.

mizmaus 4 months, 3 weeks ago

There have been others, of staunchly conservative philosophy, who have taken issue with the NRA, even to the extent to infer their position was "extreme". I offer as an example: http://beingliberal.tumblr.com/post/38559411675/letter-of-resignation-sent-by-bush-to-national-rifle-ass Why do reasonable people refuse to talk about guns? That is something I'd like to know. discussion is not the same as automatically changing your view. There is a problem, across America-with guns. The prevailing NRA view seems to be to distort and ignore it. I fail to see how open discussion could threaten anyone's position.

davebugg 4 months, 3 weeks ago

While there are those who take issue with the NRA, there are others who do not. I'm not a big believer in 'band wagons'. Nor do I think that what other individuals, of any political bent, do has any bearing on what others should do. I believe that folks have the ability, if they spend the time to educate themselves, to think independently and act individually. Only the intellectually lazy or the weak-minded look to others to make decisions for themselves. That is why, for example, I joined the NRA and not the Brady Campaign. (The Brady campaign also has lobbyists and donates to anti-gun politicians). The NRA shares most of my beliefs and philosophies. The Brady Campagin, not so much.

As to the notion of "talking about guns", your posts here demonstrate the inability of your bretheran to sit down and have any level of discussion. Your side is already attempting to bypass discussion and dictate by legislative fiat. I don't believe that more gun control legislation will pass through congress, but it still shows the disingenuousness of your definitions of "reasonable" and "talk".

If you want to talk in order to find some common ground, then great!!! I am more than willing to "talk"...just not when your preconceived idea of "talk" begins by attempting to smear those who oppose your view, and with demands that allow the gomers, who could care less about gun bans and regulations, the ability to prey upon those you disarm.

rrdreamer 4 months, 4 weeks ago

Excellent Op-Ed. I wish this would go viral.

mizmaus 4 months, 4 weeks ago

This sums it up well, I thought: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban-20121220,0,6774314.story

davebugg 4 months, 4 weeks ago

Instead of hiding behind an opinion piece in a different newspaper, that you put your own points forward for discussion? Every single point on gun control made, which you might support in that editorial, is easily refutable. So pick one of that author's points, echo it here, and then we'll talk.

DCM 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Dave...your arguments are weak ones. Your messages are always clear...you are the only smart one who has something to say & you say alot. Outrage at guns being blamed for killing

davebugg 4 months, 3 weeks ago

What are you talking about, Dawn? You object to argument and debate? If you have something to put forward as a substantive argument, rather than a taunt, please do so. I wish you no ill will, but you seem to be angry for no apparent reason other than I am stating a case.

JimboBear 4 months, 4 weeks ago

"There is just no reason civilians need to own assault weapons and high-capacity magazines."

Yeah, I own an old Marlin .22 that seems so innocent to all who see it, but that cursed thing is semi-automatic and has a 17 round tubular magazine so it probably should be banned. Great thinking! Can you tell that article of yours was written by someone from La la la Los Angeles, mizmaus? It's garbage in my mind.

mizmaus 4 months, 3 weeks ago

I read newspapers from many of the places where my late husband and I once lived. It has escaped me that geography was a requirement for writing quality.I posted that editorial because it was well-written by a distinguished jurist who had first hand knowledge of the mind and actions of a the kind of monster who could commit these acts, having presided over the trial of Jared Lee Loughner who, as you know, was the man at the Safeway store in Arizona who shot Congresswoman Gabby Griffords and killed 6 people.I thought the judge's position on the case of a mass shooting lent credence to his opinion. I admit I don't get my entire view of the world's events from the WW, as fine a source of local news as it is.

davebugg 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Nor do I get most of my news of world events from the Wenatchee World, stated with no disrespect intended.

However, this is a forum for the reader's to share his or her opinion, and when that is replaced by only a link to some other paper's opinion column, there is neither your own opinion nor fact to support your opinion. Lot's of folks will provide links which they believe will support, by fact, a statement that they have made...me included. However, doing a Cyrano de Bergerac by simply posting a link to speak on your behalf, seems to by-pass the spirit of the forum.

That was the reason for my comment. It wasn't meant to be nasty or condescending.

TerryFinn 4 months, 4 weeks ago

When I was a boy scout in the 50s we took gun safety training sponsored by the NRA at a gun range outside Vancouver, Washington.

It was a great safety and gun handling program for us little scouts. BUT in the last half hour of the last lesson they began to talk to us about the importance of our right to bear arms.

They talked on and on about THEM someday wanting to come and take our guns away. It was unnerving to say the least.

My dad told me the NRA was just helping to sell guns and not to worry about what those(insert expletives) said. He was pretty mad they put us little kids through that.

DCM 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Terry appreciate ypur comment.

Dudleydoright 4 months, 4 weeks ago

Obama has been the best marketing tool (and he is a tool btw) the gun rights advocates could wish for. The government forcing us to buy insurance amoung other things, has reinforced my opinion about the right to bear arms, not to hunt or anything ease sporting. The founders wanted an armed nation in the event the government became tyranical. That understood we need to come together and find a way to reduce these events, it is simply wrong to accept as "the price we have to pay" twenty dead first and second graders. Mental health funding, violent games and movies, the break down of traditional marriage with easy divorce, the cheapening of life through abortion on demand, death with "dignity" laws, and easy access to guns by mentally disturbed individuals all play a greater or lesser responsibility in the events of last week.

lonedog3 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Until the leaders address the real issues and stop going after inanimate objects that cannot and do not act on their own this issue will sadly continue. Going after guns owned by law abiding citizens is like making it harder for to by cars because of the drunks on the road. I sometimes wonder who is behind these insane acts. I see one group that brainwashes people into carrying bombs to blow themselves up and to kill as many others as possible. Perhaps other groups with agendas have found a way to stir up public sympathies for their causes and to further their agenda. Just saying.

Norm 4 months, 3 weeks ago

There was an armed guard on duty at Columbine:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm

davebugg 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Yes, there was; but that isn't the whole story in and of itself.

The guard at Columbine High School most certainly delayed teh shooters, which allowed many students to escape. Besides that fact, the guard could only delay Kelbold and Harris only a short period of time because they had homemade grenades and other explosive IEDs. When the guard positioned himself at a corner in a hallway, the two do-bads started lobbing their grenades down the hallway and he had to leave.

It's important to note that it wasn't the guns, which were perfectly legal to own during the previous 'Assault Weapons Ban, that made the guard back down. It was the number and type of home-made IEDs and grenades which was the culprit. It was also one of the reasons that the police did not enter the building immediately upon arrival, even though students were still being shot.

For more on the gomer's explosive devices: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/BOMBS_TEXT.htm

davebugg 4 months, 3 weeks ago

I am retracting my comment about the guard's activities during Columbine. I cannot corroborate the info I have in my files with the newer information available. My information was based on post-action information for the Columbine killings, but it is not the same information made available after the investigation was completed.

My sincere apologies to those who are reading this thread.

With that said, there was no guard (the police attached officer) in Columbine during the shooting. He was outside. What remains consistent with what I wrote previously, is that his actions did allow students to escape. The information that I posted about the explosives also seem to be consistent with the plethora of accounts, as muddy as they are.

Whether or not folks believe in the need or desire for armed and trained security personnel in schools, the type of guard mentioned by the NRA was not at Columbine.

Norm 4 months, 3 weeks ago

"Fred Rivara, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington, added in an email: “There is no data supporting his argument that the further arming of citizens will lessen the death toll in massacres like the one this week in Connecticut. There are in fact rigorous scientific data showing that having a gun in the home INCREASES the risk of violent death in the home.”

Now, a huge problem when delving into gun safety research, as I wrote about in July, is that Congress has suppressed, and in some cases explicitly outlawed, the use of government funds to research gun safety. Government funding is the largest source of basic scientific research like this, so the consequences of that decision are huge. Still, there is more than enough research out there to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that more guns lead to more violence.

This includes people who have right-to-carry permits. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University recently conducted a review of all the existing academic literature on right-to-carry and found: “The most consistent finding across studies which correct for these flaws is that RTC laws are associated with an increase in aggravated assaults.” They estimated the increase to be about 1 to 9 percent, which may not sound like much — but with nearly 1 million aggravated assaults in the country every year, a small percentage change makes a big difference.

Researchers at Harvard have conducted numerous studies comparing data across states and countries with different gun laws and concluded, quite simply, “Where there are more guns, there is more homicide.” ... "“So if you want to argue that the reason we have so many mass shootings, the reason that the United States has a homicide rate about seven times higher than other developed countries, is because we don’t allow enough concealed carry of firearms, the data just don’t bear that out. And the thought experiment that you do is almost laughable,” Webster added.

Colin Goddard, who became an advocate with the Brady Campaign after getting shot multiple times at the Virginia Tech shooting, put it another way: “If more guns would lead to less crime, then why is America not the safest place in the world, with 300 million guns?”

source = http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/the_answer_is_not_more_guns/

Norm 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Final quotes from same source:

"There are certainly a number of cases in which an armed citizen stopped a mass murder, but they are few and far between. Very often in these cases...it is off-duty police officers and not average armed citizens who took action. Meanwhile, there are other cases in which an armed civilian proved counterproductive.

One case Goldberg cites is the shooting at Appalachian Law School in 2002. In the Appalachian case, two off-duty police officers helped to subdue a shooter...But it turns out the gunman was already out of ammunition and had dropped his firearm by the time they closed in on him with their weapons drawn.

On the other hand, in the confusion after the shooting of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, an armed citizen nearly shot the unarmed hero who had tackled alleged shooter Jared Loughner.

Often, guns are ineffective in these situations. At the mall shooting in Oregon earlier this month, a right to carry permit holder was in the exact right place at the right time. He ducked behind a pillar, drew his handgun, and saw that the shooter was distracted as he tried to fix his rifle. But the man, 22-year-old Nick Meli, never pulled the trigger. “As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte [store] move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them,” he explained.

Even police officers, who train endlessly for these kind of situations, make tragic mistakes all the time. In August, NYPD officers shot all nine of the innocent bystanders who were injured during a standoff with a gunman at the Empire State Building. Overall, officers hit their target in only about one out of every five shots, Webster said.

The truth is that it’s extremely difficult for anyone, let alone a lightly trained and inexperienced civilian, to effectively respond to a shooter. The entire episode can take a matter of seconds and your body is fighting against you: Under extreme stress, reaction time slows, heart rate increases and fine motor skills deteriorate. Police train to build muscle memory that can overcome this reaction, but the training wears off after only a few months if not kept up.

The truth, as difficult as it is to accept, is that it’s often impossible to stop a shooter no matter how many guns are present. John Hinckley Jr. managed to nearly kill Ronald Reagan and permanently disable James Brady despite the fact that they were surrounded by dozens of heavily armed men with the best training imaginable. The only way to stop the incident would have been to prevent the offender from getting guns in the first place.

An unexpected bit of wisdom on this: Brad Dayspring, Eric Cantor’s former spokesman who now runs a GOP super PAC, said on Twitter yesterday, “The most effective way to avoid tragedies like this is not to start an arms race among teachers/students.”

lonedog3 4 months, 3 weeks ago

And your point is?? This seems to be just another liberal twist on confiscating the honest law abiding citizens guns. I remember that God Guts and Guns made this great nation so far we have lost God to the liberals let's not lose our freedom as well.

Norm 4 months, 3 weeks ago

"And your point is??"

There are many points in there, written in quite simple English. If you can point out which ones you fail to understand, I can attempt to explain them to you in a way that you can understand. Here's a couple of the most salient points for you to start with:

1} the United States has a homicide rate about seven times higher than other developed countries

2} If more guns would lead to less crime, then why is America not the safest place in the world, with 300 million guns?

"so far we have lost God to the liberals let's not lose our freedom as well."

If liberals or any other humans can take God away from you, then you never had Him.

redtigre62 4 months, 3 weeks ago

No need to be rude or condescending Norm, you made three posts referencing an article in Salon and unless you were the author of the article I too wondered what exactly you yourself pulled from that opinion.

I believe the question from Joe was, "And YOUR point is?" (emphasis mine), thank you for stating two of them.

davebugg 4 months, 3 weeks ago

A gun in a home is many times more likely to kill a family member than to stop a criminal

"The "guns in the home" myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and a control group that was not representative of American households.

By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes.

Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Both Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay originally warned that their study was of a single non-representative county and noted that they failed to consider protective uses of firearms that did not result in criminals being killed.

Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion." ( Kellermann, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine 467 (1993))

Dudleydoright 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Of the Eight thousand gun murders the vast majority were criminal on criminal, not that that is good but at least the heard gets thined. How do they get their hands on guns? This is a much more complex problem given the second ammendment. Confiscation of guns will not happen unless you want to see a citizen uprising the likes of which you have never seen. What will be put forward (assault weapon ban) will do nothin to lessen the horrific school shootings, it will only make libs feel like they did something. Let's start by better funding mental health centers and strengthing laws to confine the violent mentally disturbed rather than chuck them out on the street where some of them are a menace to society.

davebugg 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Defensive Gun Use

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year. .....Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment. By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000.

A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year......Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals in U.S. households, 1994." By Robin M. Ikeda and others. Violence and Victims, Winter 1997.

Two of the many stats available.

kyook 4 months, 3 weeks ago

"* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)"

http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

Norm 4 months, 3 weeks ago

"Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense."

I already showed this claim was misleading in the quoted material above:

"But perhaps the biggest problem with the Kleck*-Gertz numbers is that one person’s self-defense is another person’s murder, as the case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin demonstrated. Hemenway and a colleague conducted their own survey and then asked five criminal court judges to review their data to determine the legality of the incidents of defensive gun use reported by respondents. “A majority of the reported self-defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges,” they found.

The conclusion: “Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self-defense.”

*the Kleck study, which relies on self-reporting, is the source of the 2.5 million figure.

More on Kleck's flawed methodology here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2000/01/01/duncan1/ and here: http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pdf

kyook 4 months, 3 weeks ago

""But perhaps the biggest problem with the Kleck*-Gertz numbers is that one person’s self-defense is another person’s murder, as the case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin demonstrated."

Then perhaps Kleck should amend their number to 2,499,999.

Come on, Norm, there are no truly hard numbers in studies like this and you know it.

Why don't we agree that we could substitute your flawed data for your flawed data and call it good.

lonedog3 4 months, 3 weeks ago

neither the proud press nor the liberal anti- gun people want the American citizens to see those types of surveys! Anything dealing with any remote bit of truth is shoved away and ignored. the proud press, would rather whip the uninformed masses up into a frenzy in order to make their agenda of an unarmed America easier to get accomplished.

Dudleydoright 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Dave I seem to recall one happening in Wenatchee just this year. Had the guy not had and been able to show it to the criminal he may have been a victim (murder)

sourtellinme 4 months, 3 weeks ago

If killing machine{gun} control doesn't work, then where are all the machine guns? I'm sure that these armed school security personel that would walk the halls would like to have them. Wouldn't that put more power in the good guys corner. They wouln't even have to be a good shot. All they would have to do point, pull the trigger and move the barrel around in a circle. If pro killing machine advocates believe that more fire power is the answer, then let's allow fully automatic killing machines back on the market. Isn't that the logical answer to an illogical argument? It's sad to say that guns will be a part of our society for many generations. I just hope that each one gets smarter and works toward not only a gun free country, but world.

davebugg 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Machine guns, which are automatic firearms, can be possessed as long as the purchaser has 6k to 45k to spend on one. The gun must have not been produced after 1986, which make the supply pretty rare for the free market, thus the astronomical premium to purchase. The owner must also have the additional background check and tax stamp to purchase a class III gun. The tax stamp is quite spendy.

In the movies, all one needs to do is to "pull the barrel and move the barrel around in a circle. In reality, such shooting will result in missing what one is aiming at more times than not.

Because full automatic shooting also gobbles up ammunition faster than Rush Limbaugh at an all-you-can-eat buffet, the amount of ammunition which a shooter would need to carry is exceedingly heavy (try weighing 400 to 600 rounds of either 7.62 caliber or .30 caliber ammo. 5.56 caliber will be slightly better). Horrible accuracy, wasting ammunition, the oven hot temperature of the barrel, and the sheer effort of lugging around a beast of a burden are just a few of the reasons that those of us who understand guns and their rightful place in society would never choose an automatic weapon in the application which you are dreaming up.

Just an FYI, the NRA not only supported but also lobbied to restrict the sale of Class III firearms. That occurred way back in the early part of the 20th century. More recently, the NRA was instrumental in getting the Instant Background Check through congress.

davebugg 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Oh, btw, while guns can be "killing machines", it is exceedingly rare for any of the guns in America -- over 300 million by the last estimate -- to have ever been used for "killing". Of course if you were to include hunting rifles as "killing machines" (I don't, since your post is focused on humans) that number would go up.

For example, my AR-15 rifles have only ever been used for sport shooting. They have never left the house by themselves to kill anyone. No "killing machine" there.

There are many "killing machines" within our society. For example knives have been used to kill multiple school children by single attackers. Akibara was the scene of single attacker who killed several pedestrian with a truck from which he then emerged killing several more with a knife.

We can also look at New York City.

"In 2008, even as gun killings fell, the number of killings committed with knives or other “cutting instruments” rose 50 percent in New York City, the Police Department said: to 125 from 83." This, while gun deaths were falling. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/nyregion/28knives.html

Perhaps you didn't hear about the nanny in NYC who killed to young children with a knife? http://bigstory.ap.org/article/nyc-nanny-pleads-not-guilty-child-deaths

Then we have Great Britain.

"SIX people a week are stabbed to death on the streets of Broken Britain. Latest figures show a shocking 332 fatalities in a year — the worst toll since records began. The statistic emerged as grieving Sally Knox — mum of murdered Harry Potter actor Rob — pleaded for an end to the bloodshed." http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/2075434/Stabbing-deaths-are-the-worst-ever-after-UK-crime-figures-show-six-people-are-killed-by-knife-crime-each-week.html

These are just a few examples. Many more could easily be posted, but my point has been made. I could also add cars, axes, hammers, box cutters and etc. to the the list, but again, the point has been made.

lonedog3 4 months, 3 weeks ago

what the liberals and mindless hordes that follow them do not realize is that our borders are wide open. Do they not realize that a free flow of drugs, fully automatic weapons and explosives come across these borders? All any form of gun control will do is strip the law abiding citizen of the power to defend their homes and family from criminals? The once free citizens of Australia were stripped of their guns not long ago and perhaps the liberals would like to publish the crime statistics from there once the law abiding citizens lost the right to protect themselves. The pawn you people "re-elected" is only a tool so what is the real reason why for the constant attacks on guns?

sourtellinme 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Dave, your point has not been made. A guns only purpose is to kill. Name me just one other use a gun has other than to kill,animal or human,or destroy an object. If you choose to use yours just for sport,fine,that's your perogative. All the other objects you mentioned are designed for other funtions. A sick human being can use anything from a piece of thread to a gun to kill. Guns are in a class all by themselves. There can be no comparison between them nor any other object on earth, to do so is a very weak argument.

davebugg 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Let me further explain why my argument is not only far from weak, but is supported by what you just wrote.

As you admitted, a sick human being will turn anything into a weapon. I myself gave several examples of such. So, by your own admission, ANYTHING can be used as a weapon to kill and maim. The fact that you chose to reject the multiple uses of firearms is not just your prerogative, it is your subjective opinion and your personal bias, and is without foundation. That selectively-visioned argument would have been argued by you for knives, bows and arrows, stone axes, and explosives should you have lived at various points in human history.

Many gun haters have vivid and incorrect imaginings about guns which come from a variety of sources that are fictional nonsense at worst, and simply biased at best. My correction of your imaginative way in which automatic weapons function and can be obtained is one bit of evidence of such. It is why I am not surprised that you would post a belief that guns are simply one-dimensional devices that are meant to be used only for one purpose.

It is not only me, but millions of others who use guns purely for sport. So if it is the activity of civilian guns that characterizes their primary and specific use, then because killing people is a rarity this, in itself, disproves your biased views about the purpose for a gun. In other words, civilian guns are not designed for the primary purpose of killing. That an object or tool can be be banned because it might be used for killing by the dysfunctional in society would leave us all minus many objects that are perfectly innocuous in the hands of the 99.9999999999% of us who are reasonable and normal people.

JimboBear 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Very well stated Mr. Bugg!

davebugg 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Thanks, Jim.

sourtellinme 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Please tell me for what other reasons a gun is used for other than to destroy an object or kill a living thing. Your assumtion that I have an imaginative way weapons are used is wrong. I have fired tens of thousands of rounds from .22s to machine guns. I grew up in Miami during the 70's and 80's when it was the murder capital of the nation. I have witnesed,on numerous occations,horrific acts of gun violence. So my views on this are not from a "variety of sources that are fictional nonsense", but from first hand accounts. Hopefully you will never have to see your friends brains on you just because someone brought a gun to a party,for his protection,got into a fight,thought he was invincible and fired 3 shots at the person that spilled a beer on him. Two went into the wall and one killed my friend standing next to me. There was no need for him to bring that friend killing thing. No other guns were in the house.I know you will balme the person not the gun. but if he didn't have one, I would most likely still have a friend.

davebugg 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Part One

Eugene, it is obvious that you have not read what I have posted because I have previously addressed your questions. Hunting is a legitimate use for guns. Sport shooting is the biggest use to which gun owners put their rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Since your first post, you have now expanded "killing" to mean include hunting, when your first post was specific to the killing of humans. Why are you opposed to hunting? Why do you you now want to ban hunting rifles and handguns? I do not equate the harvesting of game for food, to be anywhere near the moral equivalent to murdering a human being. I am also puzzled by what "objects" are being destroyed? Surely you do not mean items used as targets?

Your claim that you have fired machine guns, and yet the reality of how a machine gun operates, what is needed to support the use of a machine gun, and what it takes to own a machine gun is contrary to the way you portrayed machine gun use in your previous post.

Gun ownership was far more restricted in the 70's and 80's than it has been over the last two decades. During the last two decades, the rates of gun ownership and legal concealed carry have dramatically increased while the rate of gun-related homicides have decreased.

You have taken my comment about a "variety of sources that are fictional nonsense" completely out of context, in order to make some sort of point which has nothing to do with what the total of my my comment was about. That is either dishonest, or is simply another bit of evidence that you did not understand what my postings have actually said.

I was present when a gomer killed one acquaintance with an 8" kitchen knife that pierced his right kidney, and then managed to slash a friend on his arm. The gun that I carried kept the do-bad from continuing his deranged action. I have had friends who have soaked me with their brains and blood during combat. I have kept three gang members from attacking, perhaps severely injuring or killing me, and robbing me by simply displaying a handgun while in Yakima.

End Of Part One

davebugg 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Part Two

So while it is horribly tragic and sad that your friend lost his life, don't think that your personal story is relevant to the larger issue of legal gun ownership. During that time frame, it was likely the shooter at the party was illegally carrying a gun, and probably in illegal possession as well. So, yes, it was the person and not the gun that made the decision to attack someone. I won't even speculate if he was under the influence. The fact that the shooter, per your account, was prone to that level of violence indicates that, absent a gun, he would have still made an effort to kill the person he had targeted. If he wasn't illegally carrying a gun for self protection', he probably would have been carrying at least a knife. Why would it be morally superior to that someone is murdered with a knife instead of a gun? Does a murder with a knife make the victim any less dead?

Was the gun a handgun or a revolver? Was he carrying a rifle around? If it was a handgun, as seems the most likely, what does that have to do with rifles? Your story is yet another illustration that as relatively rare as gun homicides actually are, it is primarily handguns which are responsible, and revolvers the most common handgun type that is used.

There has been over a decade of relaxed concealed carry laws in most states. Some states do not even require permits for residents to carry concealed. The statistics demonstrate that those who are legal concealed carriers have virtually no criminal use of firearms on their records. It is also important to note that out of the many, many times that legal owners have used their guns to defend themselves in public places, their has been but one bystander hit by weapons fire. This is a complete contradiction to the speculation and story-telling which the anti-gun mob imaginatively tries to portray.

It is also important to note that despite the rapid rise in gun ownership over the last 25 years, the rate of gun murders have decreased. And during the 1900's through around 1968, folks -- including teenagers -- could purchase a variety of handguns and hunting and target rifles over the counter at hardware and variety stores. Lots of guys would carry their rifles in their cars so that they could go hunting after school. During hunting season, more than one kid would either store a rifle in their locker, or in a classroom to pickup after school.

So yes, something about the human condition has radically changed from then until now. This is the very reason why the focus for criminal use of guns must be focused on the miscreants in society and not on an inanimate object.

Quite trying to make policy which punishes the innocent vast majority because of the relatively few slime buckets in our society.

kyook 4 months, 3 weeks ago

"A guns only purpose is to kill. Name me just one other use a gun has other than to kill,animal or human,or destroy an object."

The rebuttal to this comment is patently obvious and usually ignored/dismissed by the anti-gun crowd. Another very common use of a gun is to intimidate.

If you are anything like me, and I know I am, if I were in the process of committing or contemplating a dastardly deed and someone pointed a gun at me and insisted that I cease and desist, I would do two things....

1) I would cease and desist and, 2) I would go home and change my underwear.

sourtellinme 4 months, 3 weeks ago

And if someone came up behind you or woke you in your bed with a gun to you head you would most likely do what they say and if your lucky enough you will still be alive to change your underwear. If you say you would grab your weapon and use it on them,then I hope you are faster than a finger pull.

davebugg 4 months, 3 weeks ago

While imaginative, that is not the way most folks become aware of a home invasion. Even if your scenario was the case in a few situations, why does that invalidate using a gun for self-defense in the majority of real-life home invasions? Should we not use seat belts because of accidents where those in cars wearing seat-belts are killed? Should we not have fire extinguishers and alarms in homes because some people are killed in fires where such are installed? Should we get rid of 911 because in more than a few cases, the police arrive after a crime, including murders, have been committed?

Yours is an argument to create better early warning systems for a home owner, rather than a supportive argument for banning guns.

lonedog3 4 months, 3 weeks ago

I can only wonder what could have happened if our local teen had a gun last night when he was so "bored"? HHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMM makes one wonder.

lonedog3 4 months, 3 weeks ago

"And if someone came up behind you or woke you in your bed with a gun to you head you would most likely do what they say..." Similar to most liberal arguments Yours are getting weaker as you go. First, if someone is standing in my home at anytime, but you imply night, they have come through a locked door or a locked window. Is it a ghost slipping in without making one noise that would wake me up? Secondly, what about the dogs in most American homes? We have three dogs here so odds are you will submit to my request or die a very violent death in my private home you just broke into in the middle of the night. other than the dogs you MIGHT hear the twin hammers being pulled back on the double barrel and you may hear the slide as the wife racks a shell into the chamber of her 12 GA. So over all Eugene your argument has failed you again. You should really stop this until you can look at things for yourself in a real sense and not by reading some distorted truth CNN or the associated press has told you.

imoagn 4 months, 3 weeks ago

People are talking about guns, but not the mind behind the violence. Back up and look at the psychotropic/antidepression drug link .... http://www.ssristories.com/index.php

sourtellinme 4 months, 2 weeks ago

We will never see eye to eye on this matter. You argument to me doesn't hold up, as much as my argument doen't hold up with your views. All I can do is, as you would most likely call it, brainwash my young kids into not being afraid of living their life in fear of others coming to get them or take their stuff.

davebugg 4 months, 2 weeks ago

No, we will never see eye-to-eye on this matter. Nor will we even be able to come to the table and talk about this issue:

-- Not when your solutions involve bans, regulations, and restrictions which have been tried before and have failed miserably.

-- Not when you refuse to acknowledge that the gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a solitary individual on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats.

-- Not when you fail to see that a gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

-- Not when you don't recognize that the gun is a multifaceted tool which is used 99.999999999% of the time for legitimate sporting purposes.

-- Not when you wish to make laws and policies based on misinformation, emotion, and political agendas, rather than by logic and facts.

-- Not when you cannot recognize that no prohibitive gun law ever passed kept a lawless man from using a gun for murder. If they did, then Chicago and D.C. would be the safest cities in the nation.

-- Not when you want to make generalized and sweeping policies based on those who are lawless, immoral, and mentally deranged, completely disregarding the 99.999999999999% who legally own guns and have never employed them for illegal purposes.

-- Not when you would rather choose the least effective solution when trying to protect society, rather than the best tactics and strategy possible to accomplish that task. If you want to talk with about requiring every firearms sale at a Gun Show to have an instant background check just like at a brick-n-mortar store, that is fine by me. But when you want to ban specific classes of gun technology, then it's a non-starter.

-- Not when the laws you wish to create operate under the principle that every person in a public place with a legally permitted concealed gun is looking for trouble. As I have stated elsewhere, "When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation. That's why carrying a gun is a civilized act."

My arguments to you hold up under whatever level of scrutiny you wish to put them to. Yours are subject to emotional hyperbole, unfounded opinion, and incorrect information.

I have no fear of "others coming to get them or take their stuff." That statement is an example of the typical unfounded gun-hater hyperbole which would keep me from being able to sit at the table with you and conduct constructive talks toward finding common ground.

sourtellinme 4 months, 2 weeks ago

I would love to sit down and talk with you and hear more of your false assumtions of me. But you would choose not to because I have a different view and opinion. Nice.

davebugg 4 months, 2 weeks ago

What you claim are false assumptions can only exist if what you have been posting about guns are not your true views, Eugene. If you won't be honest about your true views on gun control, how can my sitting down with you to discuss the issue of gun control and regulations, be a productive use of my time?

lonedog3 4 months, 2 weeks ago

my children were never afraid either. If someone tried to steel their stuff stand up to them. they were never in fear from bullies either. as I learned there is only one way to deal with those that prosper from others fear--squash them! a bully made the mistake of picking on my daughter once--his reputation was never the same after she laid him out with one fast punch. One has to remember that my locked door is not to protect me but rather to protect you!

sourtellinme 4 months, 2 weeks ago

You have made my point. Violence against violence. And the cycle continues. Your daughters act of violence is very unimpressive and sad. I wonder where she learned it from.

lonedog3 4 months, 2 weeks ago

it is better than living in fear depending on the corrupt government to make more laws stripping citizens of their rights. next time someone threatens you call a cop! tell them to hurry cause someone is going to hurt you or steal from you.

Dudleydoright 4 months, 1 week ago

Joe, about bullies you hit the nail on the head again. Sadly schools have neutered our children with so called "zero tolerance" rules (that protect bullies) where a person can't defend themselves without getting kicked out of school for three days. Don't even start me on the stupid make my day program where kids are discouraged from telling on those who are bullying them. If you allow a bully to pick on you without restraint then you will live in regret and fear all your life. Stand up and be a man and you will gain the confidence to do anything you want in life, all it takes is a well thrown punch or two and you will be respected all over the school and more importantly gain some self respect.

Chuck 4 months, 1 week ago

Funny, but the in the very small town which introduced "Dr. Prozac" to the world, nobody talks about the absolute commonality between these tragedies and the presence of seratonin reuptake inhibiting drugs.

If we are to put the proverbial "everything" on the table, why not start with THE factor that is more common in such sprees than the firearms themselves?

With warning labels that include "thoughts of suicide" up front, how could we NOT start with this entire class of pharmaceuticals?

Why is it somehow okay to go after the sporting arms industry and the National Rifle Association, but verbotten to even think about questioning the big pharma lobby?