home

Rhetoric Does Not Kill People, But Guns Do

Good piece from Gail Collins:

Today, the amazing thing about the reaction to the Giffords shooting is that virtually all the discussion about how to prevent a recurrence has been focusing on improving the tone of our political discourse. That would certainly be great. But you do not hear much about the fact that Jared Loughner came to Giffords’s sweet gathering with a semiautomatic weapon that he was able to buy legally because the law restricting their sale expired in 2004 and Congress did not have the guts to face up to the National Rifle Association and extend it.

Read the whole thing, which includes this story -- "In 2009, Gabrielle Giffords was holding a “Congress on Your Corner” meeting at a Safeway supermarket in her district when a protester, who was waving a sign that said “Don’t Tread on Me,” waved a little too strenuously. The pistol he was carrying under his armpit fell out of his holster."

Talk Left almost certainly disagrees with the views expressed in this post, thus I am speaking for me only.

< Monday Morning Open Thread | Michelle Malkin's "Climate Of Hate" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Rational gun law, PLEASE! (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by denise k on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    Please!  Please!  There needs to be some sort of check on people (like this, especially) getting guns.  


    Even for NRA inclined folks, getting guns (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:19:11 PM EST
    out of the hands of the mentally ill is a must....

    Parent
    My concern re checks on the mentally ill (none / 0) (#4)
    by smott on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:30:07 PM EST
    ...Is that it makes people who are suffering from mental illness less likely to seek treatment...

    This of course assuming that they feel they have need for a firearm...

    But I don't know the answer.

    Parent

    I'd agree (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 08:00:19 PM EST
    with that but mentally ill people are not getting help anyway.

    I have a family member that has had a mental breakdown and I can not get her help for several reasons.

    1. The mentally ill person has to ask for help themselves but then a mentally ill person will not ask for help because they don't think there's anything wrong with them.

    2. For you to be forcibly taken in GA, you have to be a danger to yourself or a danger to others. A lot of mentally ill people don't fall into that category UNTIL they do something like shoot a congressperson.

    3. The brilliant nuts here in Ga have decided that all mental health has to be community based. They removed it from the state's responsibility to the communities and the majority of communities in the state have NO mental health facilities and have no money to build any facilities and also probably no desire to do it either.


    Parent
    The flip side (none / 0) (#89)
    by Realleft on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 02:07:50 PM EST
    Those are some real concerns, GA6thDem, but what other options would be realistic and helpful?  People have a right to not have freedoms taken away because others express concern about them, or because they might potentially be of risk.  

    Clearly, people who are an imminent threat to themselves or others are well-served to be restricted and participate in treatment, but things get gray beyond that point and many people were previously restricted based on family reports that were not entirely unbiased.  

    Community-based mental health can work if it is funded.  The vast majority of people with even severe mental illnesses pose no threat to others.  State hospitals, on the other hand, were not good services in regard to rehabilitation of people with mental illnesses.  The one upside state mental hospitals have is that they resemble jails in some ways, and taxpayers are more likely to agree to fund things that resemble jails than things that resemble counseling centers.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 03:45:41 PM EST
    I realize that there was abuse in the past but is it any better now with mentally ill people living on the street or unable to get any help?

    There just are not community based centers that can help moderately mentally ill it seems. If they are seriously mentally ill people brandishing knives I'm sure they will get treatment but the majority don't get any.

    The tax payers will never agree to fund mental health centers and that is largely the problem with the community based model. For the majority of Georgians there is no mental health help available.


    Parent

    On this we do agree MKS n/t (none / 0) (#8)
    by BTAL on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:44:04 PM EST
    The "Kennedy paragraph" in Heller (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:54:18 PM EST
    specifically permits that. But how you get the Glock out of this guy's hand is a harder question. Perhaps more funding for better mental health services?

    Parent
    The common sense way is not acceptable (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:00:58 PM EST
    to the NRA.

    Registration would help. If someone shows up as mentally ill via arrest, expulsion from school, admittance to a mental health facility, restraining order, etc--just check the registration list and if the person has a gun, make them give it up.....

    It is what we do with cars....

    But Regestration is opposed by the NRA et. al.  How you get the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill while not offending the NRA seems to be the issue....

    Parent

    Reporting steps (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:45:22 PM EST
    Seems there might be an opportunity in updating law enforcement.  Loughner was refused at the first store he attempted to buy a 30 bullet clip and had to go to another store.

    Reporting the refusal on mental health grounds would have been an opportunity for reporting.

    Parent

    There was nothing to report (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:34:10 PM EST
    To be put in the database, a person has to be declared mentally unfit by a court or hs to have a history of being confined to a mental institution.  Since neither applied to Loughner, he was legally able to purchase the gun and ammo.

    Thank you NRA.

    Parent

    This is an opportunity (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 06:06:33 PM EST
    The store refused a sale.... I'm saying if the store has the right to refuse a sale, this could be used as a reporting step....

    How about this.... this could be a mandatory reporting situation.  The store calls it in and the police do a welfare check within a time particular time frame and if necessary the person is 5150d for an eval?

    If it is critically important that a store have the right to refuse a sale, it should be reportable.

    I guess it depends on whether the store should have the right to refuse the sale.  I guess someone who believes in no gun restrictions should provide the other side.  What are the arguments that the store should not have the right to sell to someone they believe is a danger?

    Parent

    Except (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 06:24:16 PM EST
    Stores can refuse to sell someone things for all kinds of reasons - "ever hear of "No shirt, no shoes, no service?"

    While I agree with the sentiment, I think it's a slippery slope to say if a store refused to sell you a gun because they thought you were mentally unstable - they are not licensed and trained practioners and are they really the best judge of mental fitness? I know we have the example of bartenders making judgments about patrons' soberness, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find people (especially on this site) be ok with a store keeper reporting someone who tried to buy a gun (and was refused) to the police.

    Parent

    You aren't saying why (none / 0) (#58)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 06:58:25 PM EST
    I associate no shirt, no shoes is a matter of public safety (sanitation) and a store owner can be sued if there is no legitimate reason to refuse service.  A store cannot apply that standard to deny service to a person with disabled arms that uses their bare feet to feed themselves.

    If someone is running down the street naked, you hope someone will call the police and get the person assistance.   It's called compassion.  Anyone can report another if they feel that person is a danger to themselves or others.  It is so important in this society that it is mandatory for certain individuals.

    Why would this site support a mentally ill person being allowed to purchase a gun?  Doing welfare checks are a legitimate public safety function of the police.

    Again, I am referring to a person that is need of medical care.

    If a store is not competent to determine if someone might need a welfare check, they are not in a position to deny a sale.

    Parent

    That needs to be tightened up (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:37:45 PM EST
    There were enough signs that could have been put into the database....

    Parent
    It now appears that (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:07:54 PM EST
    the killer was well known to the sheriff's office just as the Columbine killers were.

    So it appears to me that what we have here is a failure by law enforcement to enforce the current laws.

     

    The point is he and his office have had previous contact with the alleged assailant in the past and that is how he knows how to pronounce the name.

    Jared Loughner has been making death threats by phone to many people in Pima County including staff of Pima Community College, radio personalities and local bloggers. When Pima County Sheriff's Office was informed, his deputies assured the victims that he was being well managed by the mental health system. It was also suggested that further pressing of charges would be unnecessary and probably cause more problems than it solved as Jared Loughner has a family member that works for Pima County. Amy Loughner is a Natural Resource specialist for the Pima County Parks and Recreation. My sympathies and my heart goes out to her and the rest of Mr. Loughner's family. This tragedy must be tearing them up inside wondering if they had done the right things in trying to manage Jared's obvious mental instability.

    Every victim of his threats previously must also be wondering if this tragedy could have been prevented if they had been more aggressive in pursuing charges against Mr. Loughner

    Link

    Parent

    the link you provided (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:49:36 PM EST
    contains no authority or link to any source to support that allegation. Therefore it's just a rumor and please refrain from posting unsubstantiated rumors.

    Parent
    Here's Reuters (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:26:55 PM EST
    I think is is confirmation.

    Jan 8 (Reuters) - The suspect in Saturday's shooting rampage in which a U.S. congresswoman was critically wounded was unstable and had been known to make death threats in the past, the local sheriff said.

    The FBI is investigating whether the man is the same person who posted a rambling Internet manifesto accusing the government of mind control and demanding a new currency.

    <snip>

    Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Pima County, where the shooting happened, told reporters the suspect had a troubled past. "All I can tell you is that this person may have a mental issue," Dupnik said.

    Dupnik said there had been earlier contact between Loughner and law enforcement after he had made death threats, although they had not been against Giffords. He said the authorities believe he may not have been working alone.

    Link

    Parent

    Not confirmation (none / 0) (#43)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:49:22 PM EST
    Better, but how does acknowledging earlier contact with law enforcement (based on death threats) and stating the obvious (he "may have a mental issue") confirmation of a failure by law enforcement to enforce current laws?  What were the threats - specifically?  What laws did Loughler violate?  Why were these alleged earlier crimes not prosecuted?  

    The wingers are all upset with this sheriff because of his comments, but there are many reasons beyond his control why these allegations of prior death threats may not have been pursued.

    Parent

    BION (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 07:59:26 PM EST
    Your choice.

    Parent
    What? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 08:18:33 PM EST
    English, please.

    Parent
    I don't think (none / 0) (#69)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 08:48:32 PM EST
    there is much upset that the Pima sheriff made a fool of himself.

    Parent
    Oh, there's lots of upset (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 09:05:45 PM EST
    on FOX and the wacko right-wing radio stations. Among the mainstream, reasonable public? No, not so much. Probably because most people agree with him.

    Parent
    Note that the Sheriff did not originally say (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 12:32:28 PM EST
    whether is was right wing or left wing radio and t.v. that had raised the volume.

    Jon Kyle just jumped up and accused his own party, assuming that the Sheriff was talking about right wingers.....

    They doth protest too much....

    Parent

    Yes - there's a lot of upset wingers (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 09:17:16 PM EST
    Just turn on any talk radio show or Fox.  Even you couldn't resist taking a "shot" at him.

    Parent
    The "shot" was deserved (none / 0) (#75)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 10:10:20 PM EST
    Law inforcement should not indulge in rank speculation regarding mass murder.  


    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#81)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 07:56:53 AM EST
    I'm sure it had nothing to do with the content of his statements ... just the fact that IYO it was "speculation".

    Heh.

    Parent

    It had to do (none / 0) (#85)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 09:48:06 AM EST

    with his position as in law enforcement.  He embarrassed himself.

    Parent
    Of COURSE it did (none / 0) (#86)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 10:02:20 AM EST
    Nothing at all to do with the content.  You're equally as outraged by Joe Arpaio's statements.

    BTW - Thanks for proving the original point (wingers are upset with him).

    Parent

    I am not outraged in the least. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 03:08:39 PM EST

    Actually I feel a bit sorry for the guy.  As to Arpaio's remarks, as I don't live in Arizona I am not really familiar with them one way or another.

    Parent
    Did someone claim ... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 04:30:49 PM EST
    .. you were "outraged"?  I said "upset", which you clearly are.  But back to my original point, which was how the wingers were attacking him (and to which you didn't think there was "much upset" about his comments.  Really?  Someone should let Fox News know, since they've attacked him several times.  Also, Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, David Limbaugh, "Gateway Pundit," the Heritage Foundation, the Media Research Center, and Michelle Malkin.

    Yeah ... the wingers aren't too upset with him.

    Heh, heh ...

    BTW - I noticed you dodged the issue of whether you were unhappy with Dupnick's remarks because of their content.  Even funnier is the fact that you claim to be unfamiliar with Arpaio's remarks, despite the fact that he's frequently featured on national media, because you "don't live in Arizona".  Yet you somehow know that Sheriff Joe Arpaio is from Arizona, and you're very familiar with Dupnick's (also from Arizona) remarks, who had never been in the national media until the past few days.

    Strange.

    Parent

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:08:29 PM EST
    Quoting an unsubstantiated opinion piece from somebody's blog?

    Pfffttt...

    Parent

    Problem is that the NRA always (none / 0) (#20)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:39:38 PM EST
    errs on the side of crazy.

    They'd rather have no regulation and insane asylum residents carrying than risking any limitation on gun ownership.

    If only Democrats were as protective of important government programs like Social Security and Medicare as the rightwing are of their guns, we might have some sort of "balance".

    What are those 14 survivors going to do to pay their medical bills from this incident?

    Parent

    Off topic but good news I think (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:51:22 PM EST
    On MTP yesterday, after the Tucson shooting coverage and panel, they ran an interview with Harry Reid.

    Good ol' Harry said in response to a specific question about "changing" Social Security, that whenever someone started asking questions about the debt, they often try to "pick" on Social Security.  He said there was no problem with Social Security.  David Gregory looked shocked.  Harry didn't flinch.  Social Security is fine for the next forty years and is running a surplus, he said...

    If less than exciting Harry can get it (and say it) right, there is hope for the others in the Senate.  But it was lost in the Tucson coverage yesterday....

    Parent

    Harry even said (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:04:59 PM EST
    in good sound-bite fashion that people who want to change Social Security to pay down the debt just hate government.....

    Lord love a duck, this is not rocket science....  

    Parent

    Good news, but I won't (none / 0) (#37)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:30:48 PM EST
    stop being worried until Obama has successfully held the line - and I do not have a ton of faith that he will. I hope that he proves me wrong.

    Parent
    please continue this discussion on an open thread (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 06:35:44 PM EST
    one will go up shortly, thanks.

    Parent
    Excellent. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:11:18 PM EST


    Seconded. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:12:28 PM EST
    Even more sickening (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by lilburro on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:30:51 PM EST
    to know that her staffers have been scared for a while now.  Giffords was very brave...it makes me sick to see her and know what happened.

    What a Weird Country We Live in! (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:34:24 PM EST
    In Arizona, if you're a smoker, you cannot smoke in a bar because it might contribute to illnesses of your fellow patrons 10 or 20 years down the road.

    But, if you're mentally ill, you can legally buy and carry a concealed semi-automatic handgun.

    AZ does restrict firearms as to (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:41:36 PM EST
    person whom a court order deems danger to self or others.  

    Also, illegal aliens can't carry firearms in AZ.

    Wiki

    Parent

    Sorta ... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:03:44 PM EST
    if you read deeper you'll see that court order is one for the enforcing of treatment, either in or outpatient, when an individual is unwilling to seek treatment themselves and is considered a danger to himself or others.

    It's not a blanket prohibition for people who might present a danger to themselves or others.

    Parent

    Of course not. No state does that. (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:05:40 PM EST
    Might (none / 0) (#17)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:17:01 PM EST
    It's not a blanket prohibition for people who might present a danger to themselves or others.

    Well, everyone might do that.  

    Parent

    please do not refer to people (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:45:06 PM EST
    as illegal here. They are undocumented. No human being is illegal. Future comments with such appellations will be deleted.

    Parent
    Sorry I usually say "undocumented (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:12:30 PM EST
    immigrants."  

    Parent
    I have made that mistake too (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:39:26 PM EST
    It shows how effective the Right is in their messaging....It seeps in unconsciously.....

    Parent
    Why undocumented? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:28:49 PM EST

    Meg Whitman's house keeper for example had lots of documentation.  Its a fair bet that only a tiny fraction of those you refer to as "undocumented" lack identity documents.

    Parent
    When we went to Arizona to see (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:03:20 PM EST
    the Grand Canyon as a kid, we ate in a diner in Phoeniz.  This guy in the next booth just took out a six shooter and put in on the table...That seemed surreal....

    Parent
    I can even fathom that (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:30:59 PM EST
    Starbucks allows people to open carry (none / 0) (#71)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 09:08:30 PM EST
    inside its coffee shops. Just one more reason for me to never patronize Starbucks.

    Parent
    The type of gun is partly at issue here (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by markpkessinger on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 06:54:28 PM EST
    Folks on this site and elsewhere have questioned how this unstable young man came to buy a gun.  That's certainly a question worth asking, but it's also important to consider the type of gun he purchased, and that's the point the article is alluding to.

    This was a semi-automatic handgun with a magazine that could hold 20 bullets, capable of being fired off in rapid succession.  It's an assault weapon that has no application for hunting purposes; it is meant to kill people, quickly and efficiently. At the point when Loughner was tackled by bystanders, he was attempting to reload another magazine of bullets into his gun.  Can you imagine the additional carnage that might have ensued?  At least, had the expired ban on assault weapons continued, the weapon Loughner would have purchased would have had a much more limited capacity both in terms of the number of rounds it could hold and the rate at which those rounds could be fired.  Then likely result would likely have been that far fewer people were killed or injured, as bystanders would have had more time to intervene.

    An outright ban on handguns is most likely a political non-starter in this country.  But the ban on assault weapons was something no reasonable person could really take issue, save the hardest core of the NRA (oh, but then I did say "reasonable," didn't I?).  At a minimum, there should be a strong push to reinstate that very reasonable ban.

    Thank you (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 07:07:50 PM EST
    You know the details about guns that I sort of know but could not frame.  And yes -- had a wounded woman in her 60s! not wrestled Loughner for the next magazine, had two men not then jumped in to jump him, too, etc. --  I had imagined the even greater carnage that could have occurred owing to this particular weapon.

    Parent
    Pretty amazing (none / 0) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 12:22:17 AM EST
    None of these people were exactly "spring chickens," either.  I saw an interview today with one of them.  He was a noticeably elderly gentleman who couldn't even hear very well, and he had a big wound in the back of his head (lucky for him, it didn't penetrate his skull) that he got before he tackled the guy.  I only hope I would react the same way if I was ever in that situation.  I really don't know that I would.

    Parent
    Small correction (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 08:01:06 AM EST
    The extended magazine used by Loughner actually held 30 rounds (31 with a round in the chamber).  Under the FAWB of '94, the manufacture and importation of extended magazines was outlawed.

    Parent
    Of course, words did not (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 08:20:23 PM EST
    go through Giffords' brain, and the chest of Christina Greene, and the bodies of others.

    Of course, bullets did.

    But words create climates of hostility that trigger -- there is reason that word is a verb, too -- actions.  And bullets.  

    I agree with you, but (none / 0) (#79)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 12:24:20 AM EST
    OTOH, how do we know this guy wasn't basically homicidal and that if he hadn't taken his paranoid rage out on Giffords et al, he wouldn't have "gone postal" somewhere else, perhaps a school?

    Parent
    His schools acted firmly (none / 0) (#84)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 09:37:05 AM EST
    from what I have read, which is refreshing, as too many school administrators do not do so.  I agree with you that this guy easily could have acted out at one of his schools -- but the victims of V-Tech may finally have had an impact.  

    Not much is coming out about the high school's actions, but apparently he was dealt with there decisively as well -- and then, thanks to the gutsy math prof who would not give up, the college campus sent campus cops to his home, convened a behavioral hearing that got his parents to campus, etc.  All that may have succeeded in sending the message that the campus was not his playground for his "lucid dreaming" and other blather that was disruptive to the learning -- and safety -- of others.

    Sadly, that sent him elsewhere.  So the "experts" I see all over tv, except for one smart CNN reporter, are saying that the campus was supposed to push him into mental health treatment even when he no longer was part of the campus.  Nonsense; the "experts" have no knowledge of the law: FERPA.

    Parent

    Anti-Gun...that's me (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Coral on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 10:39:23 PM EST
    I would like to see strong restrictions on who can buy guns, all kinds, including shotguns and rifles traditionally used for hunting. I'd also like to see licensing of owners the way drivers are licensed.

    There are too many gun deaths in this country.

    I'd like to see a total ban on sale and ownership of handguns, automatic guns, and automatic rifles.

    Much of the violence caused by guns in Mexico, for example, is the result of guns bought legally in US and brought into Mexico.

    The gun lobby and the NRA is the source of much of the funding of the right wing and much of the violent anti-government rhetoric.

    Just askin' (none / 0) (#80)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 12:26:18 AM EST
    When was the last time somebody used a hunting rifle to deliberately kill somebody?

    There's a mentality and self-image attached, seems to me, to different kinds of guns.

    Parent

    What a crock (none / 0) (#16)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:13:45 PM EST

    Today, the amazing thing about the reaction to the Giffords shooting is that virtually all the discussion about how to prevent a recurrence has been focusing on improving the tone of our political discourse.

    Interesting because there is exactly ZERO evidence that political discourse had anything to do with that shooting.

    That would certainly be great. But you do not hear much about the fact that Jared Loughner came to Giffords's sweet gathering with a semiautomatic weapon that he was able to buy legally because the law restricting their sale expired in 2004 and Congress did not have the guts to face up to the National Rifle Association and extend it.

    This is complete B.S.  That pistol and the magazines were quite legal to buy, sell, own, and use both before and after 2004.

    Is this fiction supposed to be part of the "reality based community?"

    You're right it is (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by lilburro on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:19:34 PM EST
    quite clear that politics had nothing to do with

    ...this political shooting.

    Parent

    Giffords is a politician, yes (none / 0) (#27)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:05:18 PM EST
    but she also is part of at least two other groups often targeted in violent and other attacks:  Jews and women.  As for the latter, since there have been many studies and even a bit of reporting of how often girls and young women are targeted in school shootings by guys the age of Loughner, I find it interesting that factor has not come up.  Nor the question of whether, I wonder, this is the first assassination attempt on a woman politician in the U.S.  (I know that women abortion doctors and nurses have been attacked, even assassinated.)

    Parent
    True, being a women (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:42:45 PM EST
    elected official could really push some buttons.....I keep hearing Rush Limbaugh say "feminazi."

    Parent
    You get it. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 06:12:55 PM EST
    From mother jones (none / 0) (#32)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:19:46 PM EST
    Tierney, who's also 22, recalls Loughner complaining about a Giffords event he attended during that period [2007]. He's unsure whether it was the same one mentioned in the charges--Loughner "might have gone to some other rallies," he says--but Tierney notes it was a significant moment for Loughner: "He told me that she opened up the floor for questions and he asked a question. The question was, 'What is government if words have no meaning?'"

    Giffords' answer, whatever it was, didn't satisfy Loughner. "He said, 'Can you believe it, they wouldn't answer my question,' and I told him, 'Dude, no one's going to answer that,'" Tierney recalls. "Ever since that, he thought she was fake, he had something against her."

    It appears that it was not because she was a Jew, woman, or Democrat, but rather she could not give a coherent answer to an incoherent nutso question.  As no one else on the planet could as well.


    Parent

    From women in authority positions (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 06:12:38 PM EST
    you would learn that there can be a different reaction, especially from some young men, when a man "does not answer a question" and when a woman "does not answer a question."

    That is, I've read up on the incident you note and others between Loughner and Giffords, but my point is different.  Say that a Congressman also could not answer such a question.  Would Loughner's reaction have been to target the Congressman for killing?  This, I hope we will find out -- just as we have found out that in school shootings, even young men angry at other men may target women.

    Most often, it seems that the reason is the bully principle:  Pick on the ones that you think are least likely to be able to defend themselves.

    Also, a reason is the mommy expectation:  Pick on a woman whose response was not nurturing, because women are supposed to be mommies to men.

    Now, there are all sorts of reasons that no doubt also occur to you as to why this may not be so in this case.  However, again, I find it fascinating that as usual, gender has not been a factor in the discussion.  (There has been some media notice that Giffords is Jewish, some speculation as to whether that is a factor.)

    Parent

    You appear to be wrong (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:42:45 PM EST
    about the availability of the magazine prior to the assault weapon ban expiration.

    Parent
    That source is wrong. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:05:37 PM EST
    Manufacture and importation were banned.  That is all.  Existing stocks were still for sale.  Actually it was quite the windfall for the magazine makers and stocking distributors as the price tags on the normal capacity mags tripled or more overnight.  

    When I bought my daughter an autoloader during the ban, the ban special 10 rounders were $18 and the normal capacity 16 rounders were $96.

    To show how not common sense the ban was, the normal capacity magazine components were all for sale as replacement parts.  If you were willing to violate the law (which I was not) you could buy a base pad, spring, follower, and tube and assemble one yourself.  So much for Diane Feinstein's "common sense."

    Parent

    Your purchase is irrelevant (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:25:16 PM EST
    The item discussed is a 31 round clip.

    Your last paragraph?  We should have no laws because people will break them.  Alrighty then.

    Parent

    The AWB (none / 0) (#39)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:35:25 PM EST
    Restricted the importation and manufacture of magazines with a capacity of 10 rounds.  

    During the period in which the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's definition of an "assault weapon" or "large capacity ammunition feeding device", except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. Possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms was outlawed as well, but the law did not ban the possession or sale of pre-existing "assault weapons" or previously factory standard magazines which had been legally redefined as "large capacity ammunition feeding devices". This provision for "pre-ban" firearms created a higher price point in the market for such items, which lasted until the ban's sunset.

    Link


    Parent

    Thanks.... (none / 0) (#44)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:53:07 PM EST
    Now I get it.  I thought there was an actual ban at a high level (20 to 30) but I see the approach was economic... to price the items out of the market and dry up supply.

    Parent
    They were never driven from the market. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 06:02:15 PM EST

    As long as components were freely available, and there was no way to tell when a magazine was assembled, the supply would never disappear.  This was more about Congress sounding tough.  It worked. as many people like you drew the wrong impression.

    Parent
    Disinterest (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 06:12:27 PM EST
    Yep, we should have no gun laws because heck, you can't know when people are breaking them....  

    and yes, gun enthusiasts bore me so I didn't pay attention to the actual policy.

    Parent

    Sure it would (none / 0) (#49)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 06:11:10 PM EST
    As long as components were freely available, and there was no way to tell when a magazine was assembled, the supply would never disappear.

    ... because most people would not be willing and/or able to make their own magazines.  You yourself said you weren't willing to violate the law in order to do so, and acknowledged that price of the 16-round magazine was over 5X the price of the 10-round magazine.

    Parent

    Supply does not go away (none / 0) (#55)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 06:48:45 PM EST
    Supply does not go away with a high price, it goes away with an artificially low price.

    BTW as a competitive shooter I am very careful not to break any laws.  Felons cannot play this game.  

    Assembling a magazine is quite easy and every time I clean mine they are disassembled and reassembled.  No special tools required.

    You are probably right in that most people during the ban would not take the risk of assembly from parts.  But so what?  Is not the purpose to keep those mags out of the hands of mass murderers?  What difference is it to anyone if a competitive shooter has one more or one less magazine.

    I hope you don't think for one second that anyone bent on assassination and mass murder will be deterred by whatever extra penalty comes from assembling a magazine.  Typical of so called "common sense gun laws" in that they inhibit the law abiding and have little to no effect on the criminal.

     

    Parent

    Supply diminishes ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 08:15:42 PM EST
    ... when the manufacturing and importation of any product (particularly one subject to wear and breakage) is banned.  A high/increasing price is also an indicator of decreased supply.

    Congrats on knowing how to dis/assemble a magazine.  I, too, know how to do it, but the vast majority of people don't know how.  Beyond that, there's nothing to suggest that Loughner had any knowledge about where to order magazine parts or how to assemble a magazine.

    BTW - A competitive shooter who says they use their gun "far more often for self defense than for target practice or sport combined."

    How's that work?

    Parent

    Have you hugged your gun today... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 08:32:49 PM EST
    :)  That was a humorous mispeak.

    Parent
    How's that work? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 08:44:18 PM EST

    During the course of a weekly three hour USPSA club match you only shoot for perhaps two minutes plus or minus. On a big week there might be three matches.  When accompanying my beautiful bride to town my carry gun is worn for self defense for a few hours.

    Parent
    Ohhhhhhhh, so you count WEARING ... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 09:14:15 PM EST
    ... the gun as "using it for self defense".

    Never did quite get that new math ... although I guess when you "use" your gun like that, the barrels last a lot longer.

    Parent

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#83)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 08:12:47 AM EST

    Its not new math, just different modes of use.  In a shooting competition the only use is to shoot.  In self defense use, availability is the primary use.

    In case of emergency it would be of little value locked up in the safe at home.  

    This is similar to the police officer that uses a bullet proof vest every day it is worn, even if it never encounters a bullet.  

    Parent

    Ohhhhh ... so having it AVAILABLE ... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 10:12:37 AM EST
    ... is "using" it.  Got it.  Sure glad you're not in charge of procurement at the DOD.  Imagine the cost buying new bullets, missiles, bombs, guns, etc. every single day.

    "Sorry - we just used 'em all up!.... again!"

    OTOH - imagine all the crimes you've prevented by "using" your gun and protecting the "beautiful bride"  (funny how that's always the story, too - "Yeah, personally I don't need a gun to protect myself, but with the little lady around ...").

    BTW - You should contact John Lott - betcha with your gun "use", the two of you could come up with a heckuva "study".

    Parent

    Uh, yeah ... it is (none / 0) (#31)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:15:41 PM EST
    The high-capacity magazine was illegal as part of the federal assault weapons ban put in place during the Clinton administration, but the ban was allowed to expire during the Bush administration.

    Link.

    Parent

    From your link (none / 0) (#33)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:24:35 PM EST

    The high-capacity magazine was illegal as part of the federal assault weapons ban put in place during the Clinton administration, but the ban was allowed to expire during the Bush administration.

    Specifically, manufacture and importation.  Only. Trust CBS for sloppy reporting.

    Parent

    Media repeating conservative lies (none / 0) (#45)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:57:00 PM EST
    CBS parroting right-wing lies about how 'restrictive' gun laws were when they were a  weak economic approach to safety policy.  Yes, we need better media.

    Parent
    He bough the magazine ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 06:00:49 PM EST
    ... at a Sportsman's Warehouse.  If the ban wasn't lifted, the pre-'94 stock of such magazines would not have been available, and he would have been forced to search out the limited (and much more expensive) magazines available that were manufactured/imported more than 15 years ago, or stick with a 10-round magazine.

    Parent
    or (none / 0) (#56)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 06:53:13 PM EST

    Or buy the replacement magazine parts individually and snap new magazines together himself.

    The ban only applied to magazines, not to the individual replacement parts.

    Parent

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 08:05:06 PM EST
    ... assuming he's one of the tiny percentage of people who knew that he could do it, as opposed to just picking the extended magazine because he saw it at the store .... and, of course, knew where to buy the parts, how to assemble it correctly, etc.

    Parent
    Assenbling a magazine (none / 0) (#66)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 08:31:23 PM EST
    requires no special tools and is a normal part of cleaning a magazine.  Just about anybody that has cleaned a magazine knows you can do it.  

    Since he was bent on using a big stick, five minutes on Google or a trip to any just about any online parts vendor like this would find what he wanted.  The guy was insane, not stupid.

    Note the link has all the components you need to built a 29 round magazine.

    Parent

    Yeah, I know (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 09:20:17 PM EST
    I also know there's no evidence he was "bent on using a big stick" (interesting terms you guys like to use, though), merely that he purchased one when he bought the gun.  Hell, there's no evidence he even knew what an extended clip was before he went in to buy the gun.

    Parent
    I blame the NRA and their Repub lackeys (none / 0) (#77)
    by Sweet Sue on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 10:51:43 PM EST
    Guns don't kill people, lunatics with guns kill people.