This to me is a key part of the President’s remarks at last night’s vigil in Newtown, Connecticut:
This is our first task — caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.
And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we are meeting our obligations? Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children — all of them — safe from harm? Can we claim, as a nation, that we’re all together there, letting them know that they are loved, and teaching them to love in return? Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?
I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer is no. We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change.
There’s more than that – the President eventually points out that there can be no more excuses for inaction, and that we cannot be prepared to say that “violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom.” But I think this part is the most important. And the most dangerous, actually.
Let me say something unpopular. There is nothing special about the fact that the Newtown massacre was visited upon 6 and 7 year-olds in an elementary school, relative to massacres where the majority of the victims are college students or adults. A human tragedy is a human tragedy regardless of the age level that it most directly impacts. But the fact that Newtown is seen as a spur to action, as a “tipping point,” that it can get someone like Joe Manchin to say that it’s time for action on the matter – is reflective of the basically dumb way we do politics in this country. In many cases, no outrage, no tragedy, no activity at all rises to the level of legislative response unless it gets visited upon children – and I could probably amend that to say “white children.”
This distorts that legislative response in pretty obvious ways. Suddenly the safety of innocent children becomes the paramount goal – “our first task” – in policymaking, as if the safety of innocent people above the age of 10 or 12 or 13 should be an afterthought. The very invocation of children in this context foregrounds the issue of safety in ways that inevitably make it much easier to strip away certain civil liberties. Suddenly you hear about how there ought to be an armed police officer in every public school. Or maybe how everyone entering a school needs to be searched. Think of the children.
The children will be invoked to satisfy whatever public policy preference any lawmaker holds. Heck, Louie Gohmert on the fringes of the far right wants principals to be armed with assault rifles so they can protect “those precious kids.” The impulse is insane, but it comes from the exact same place as someone who describes defending children as our “first task.”
I grew up with guns in my house. My dad was an NRA member with rifles locked in a cabinet. He had a license to carry a concealed weapon. One day when I was pretty young, my best friend stayed overnight with me. His mother was a bus driver whose day started very early. She came in to get my friend – I believe she had a key – wearing her satin coat. My dad heard noise and pulled out his gun to check on the activity. He saw the back of my friend’s mother headed out the door with a child in her arms. He cocked the gun and asked who it was.
Fortunately, she showed herself and the moment passed without incident. But this is the potential consequences when the foremost task becomes protecting the children. It inspires irrationality and overreaction. It could be that the politics of gun safety have changed because Democrats realize they are no longer reliant on a constituency that would punish them for legislation banning assault weapons or extended magazines. But lining this up with a massacre of children and making that the tipping point can just put us in an unwise legislative place. If gun violence or our decaying mental health system is a problem, it’s a problem for every American, regardless of age. And we shouldn’t confine our response just to deal with the impact on the children.




152 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Well said, David, and true, all of it … thank you.
DW
I have been thinking about the type of people that are dictating we all have to live our lives surrounded by assault guns. They are like the cigarette lobby, or the folks that until recent times demanded the “right” to drive drunk. I am fortunate to live in a city that has banned cigarette smoking inside all public places. I remember well smokers hatred filled looks when they were asked to stifle their smoke. Now they smoke outside.
Small own bars, as recently as twenty years ago used to serve men up “Roadies”, a beer for the drive home after a night of drinking in the bar. Mothers against Drunk Driving put an end to that “right to drive drunk”, or the rights of potential vehicular killers over the innocent. Lawsuits against tobacco companies put an end to the “right to smoke” that polluted the common air.
The only way to limit guns, is for an organized group to convince enough Americans that a minority’s “right to own assault weapons” is not more important than the majorities’ “right to safety from gun violence”. The rest is just marketing.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” The NRA markets the second half. MADD could market the first.
David, I generally agree with you but this point you make not only feels wrong, it is objectively wrong. It is rational for a human being to feel a greater sense of protection toward a child or someone who we view as innocent. We know that no child has ever done anything in his or her life to warrant a violent demise. Because of their innocence, they should be protected from capricious judgement. Is there an error in my logic?
Then, there’s just the gut reaction to hearing that 20 first graders have been mowed-down with a knock-off military assault rifle by a mentally ill person. Should we really deny the pain we feel at hearing about that? Should we really pretend we are equally bothered by Sandyhook and Aurora? We know how Bradley Manning would answer those questions.
Children are special. Period.
All true.
Can you define ‘assault weapon’ for me?
Well for me it would cover everything from swords to nuclear bombs,…but that is just me. :)
It would take a lot longer to stab 20 children 11 times each with a kitchen knife, though it can be done. Sigh. However, many would run away, and you can’t chase twenty children at once. You need a gun.
I do not love guns. I understand that those that do would fight to keep them…and they would come to that fight with, well guns! Many of my colleagues love guns. Passionately!
My friends all ride bikes, passionately. Most would outlaw SUV’s as dangerous. But they loves them their guns!
When the constitution was written, more killing was done with swords than flintlocks. Nasty wounds without antibiotics. How would you define assault weapon?
Yeah, I don’t understand that term either. An “assault gun”, or rifle, is capable of fully automatic fire (akin to a machine gun). Such weapons have been illegal for civilian use since 1934.
I suspect what is meant is a rifle that has the cosmetics of, say, an M16, but is a semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull). They’re legal, and functionally no different than any semi-auto hunting rifle.
If that helps.
Ordered by a nobel peace prize recipient wringing his hands over exceptional dead white children.
Newtown CT is home of some “sport “shooting organization.
I’m with you. I do own guns, but would gladly give them up if the government asked.
My point is that this ‘assault weapons ban’ conversation is bullshit. It doesn’t go nearly far enough. I don’t have much training, but I’m fast enough with a handgun to accurately discharge about 40 rounds in 30 seconds or so, including 3 magazine changes.
So a handgun can do just as much damage as these ‘assault weapons’ that everyone has been fixating on.
All guns are assault weapons. They are designed to cause grievous injury to a target. That is their entire purpose.
Whether it be a bolt action hunting rifle, a muzzle-loading musket, or a semi-automatic Bushmaster AR-15, they all leave the same end result.
If we’re going to talk about gun control, let’s talk about getting rid of them all.
And yes, when the constitution was written guns were flintlock muzzle-loaders :)
Oh, and I’d venture a guess that 99.9% of gun owners in America are not a member of a well-regulated militia.
David, when you say
you have certainly made a true statement. o has no problem with drone attacks that kill children and a drone comes back to kill more people as rescuers try to help the injured. When the idf deliberately targets children, there should be an outcry. The lives of our children are certainly precious and it is terrible what happened in CT, but we should extend that to others as well as ourselves. Think of the irreparable harm that the depleted uranium is inflicting on the children and children-to-be in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I get what people mean. I’m hoping to, as you just did in this comment, inform the debate somewhat.
If we’re going to go after the NRA on this one and try to influence meaningful change, we need to know what the hell we’re talking about.
All guns are a problem. It’s not just those scary ARs and AKs.
I read somewhere, (therefore not necessarily accurate), that the gun that killed the children shot 5 bullets per second. No finger is that fast.
I think the bigger problem was the three thirty round magazines that he emptied into them. Up to 11 bullets per child the coroner said, with a minimum of 3 per child. I am not sure if I care about “overkill”. Dead is dead, and apparently he did not miss with many of his bullets. Most of them passed through kids.
I don’t advocate doing nothing. But after monitoring some of the discussions here and elsewhere this morning, it’s hard not to be convinced that we are deeply fucked up as culture in so many overlapping ways–starting with being the world’s policeman and routinely murdering around the glove (in ways not even recognized here) and leaking a warrior culture, weapons, and angry–sometimes insane–people back onto our streets, that it is very hard to foresee meaningful change evolving from this.
I think that you have to argue for a ban on all but hunting weapons. No, that is not a wish you get right away if at all. But that is the common sense position–all other guns are made for killing human beings. It’s a mistake to cede much of the rational ground before you even begin the fight (something Dems and Obama are good at).
Let’s try to focus on things that we can change that will be meaningful.
I can change the magazine in any of my firearms in about 1.5 seconds, and can squeeze of 3 well aimed shots in about 1 second, if I’m aiming at a single target. If I’m transitioning targets, figure two shots per second with a 1 shot transition, so 4 shots every 3 seconds, double-tapping each target.
The magazine size doesn’t matter. The firearm itself is the problem. Any firearm.
Kris, you are correct that any bullet firing weapon is an ‘assault’ weapon. I think that most people think of ‘assault’ weapons as a rifle that fires automatically and has a large clip of bullets.
Very intelligent analysis (what FDL can’t replace about you). I had suggested that you think about politics as a career during your much needed downtime but this article makes me wish you would get a forum in something like Huffpo or even TPM that has an established audience with the left wing of the 1%. The right wing of the 1% probably don’t even care about their “own” children but I’m sure the left wing uber wealthy do care and your input always seems to show them a way that is fact based logic and balanced compassion.
Anyway you are a great voice for our society and should keep contributing.
I do not mind our leaderinchief directing his first principles at children. I mind him not directing his first principles at ALL children – every child in this suffering world.
I will not listen to him because his words ring hollow in the face of every child his policies neglect or harm.
And that’s as kindly as I can put this.
I have been wondering something, and perhaps you can weigh in. If gun lovers were to be able to go to gun ranges and shoot at really fun, exploding targets. Would they be willing to keep their guns locked at the gun range? These ranges could be designed like an adult fantasyland.
This would not solve the problem of the scared people with guns under their beds. But would it solve the needs of the people that just love to own and fire super cool guns? I mean the people they would most want to show them off to would be right there with them.
On Friday, my family had a friend over for dinner who had grown-up in Israel and served in the IDF. He told us of how, at 16 years old, all children who were eligible for service reported for testing for the Israeli forces. Testing included psychological profiling.
Presumably, children who are found to have psychological disorders would be offered help, though I’m not sure that’s the case.
Given the underlying problem of mental illness in these shooting sprees, I think the real solution is finding a way to identify and help those who are suffering. A mandatory civil/military draft would be one possible way to screen large numbers of youngsters. Though, admittedly, lots of pathology doesn’t show up until the early 20′s.
Hi Kris, as an FDL friendly gun owner, I would like to ask you in all sincerity the reason you choose to own guns. That would inform me a bit. thanks.
And to your remarks about muzzles…my analogy for today’s guns vs. centuries old firepower is that this is like letting all Patriots store five or six cannons in their barn.
I don’t think that makes much sense.
Gun ranges typically offer rental firearms. usually stuff above and beyond what most people can afford to own or would care to own, but might want to try shooting. Kind of the same thing, no? (minus the awesome exploding targets)
Thanks for these points, David. We, not one of us, is safe in America when we are programmed to fear while living in a culture that values weapons of all kinds, war and the 2nd Amendment above all else.
There are more gun stores than grocery stores or MickyDs in our country. There are more than 30 gun stores in short distance from Newtown.
Surely the mother had no idea her son was going to do this or she would not have kept the guns in her house. She did her best to care for him alone, and he snapped, for whatever reason. Did she know he had the protective clothing? I bet not.
We are not going to cover our bases, the damage is done, the 200 million guns are there, over 2 million were sold on Friday alone. This is the new normal. Get used to it.
This is part, but not the solution. You cannot force someone to see a doctor, nor can you force them to be honest with the doctor evaluating them.
Put it this way – if someone wants to drink and drive, do you assess his tolerance to certain quantities of alcohol, or do you take away his keys?
thank you David Dayen – I too, was feeling that “unpopular” sentiment last night –
ironically, found this while listening to POTUS last night – go ahead, follow ‘em for just one hour
@GunDeaths
Tweeting every gun death in North America regardless of cause and without comment. Help us tell the story behind the statistics.
This would also work for hunting. Most hunters jump in the trunk to go hunting. They suit up in camo, fill the thermos with coffee, gas up the trunk. Could they check out their rifle from a depositary on their way out of town? (I am not so worried about hunters that live so far out of town that they hunt their own back forty. Depositary laws could be defined by population density.)
I enjoy shooting. Simple as that. I don’t claim that I need them for personal defense, or home defense. I just like to shoot.
I own 3 firearms, 2 handguns that are both German-made .22 caliber, and 1 rifle, a semi-automatic American-made .22 caliber. I keep my firearms in a locked case, with trigger locks, and my ammunition in a separate part of the house, also under lock and key. My guns come out to be cleaned, or to go to the range. That’s it. .22 is terrible for personal or home defense, but it’s dirt cheap to shoot (100 rounds costs about 5 bucks) and suits my purposes perfectly.
I think even that is an understatement. Cannons took an awful long time to load.
Can anyone describe for me the attraction of guns? I don’t understand it. Why would anyone need or want multiple guns and tons of ammo? How does it make you feel to shoot a gun?
One major problem I have with these news stories is Lack of Judgment. Impaired people + guns = tragedy.
I will bet that many of you have read the Huffpo post “I am Adam Lanza’s mother.” It was quite moving and terrifying. But that author realizes that her child is a danger to himself and others. One major difference (I think) is that the author did not own guns and did not put guns in her child’s hands.
It’s not enough that the gun owner is “sane”. They need to be responsible. It’s the proximity of guns to mentally unstable people that I have a huge problem with. (Yes, I have other issues like amount of ammo, types of guns, etc.)
unfortunately does not explain dearth of massacres in other countries with
equal number of mentally ill
I say “unfortunately” because I think we as a country are all but medieval/superstitious when it comes to mental health – access and knowledge are tragic – but I see the Pro Gun crowd using this as a distraction in the coming debate
I think hunting for food is the only legitimate claim anyone can lay to ‘needing’ a gun.
This is solved very easily. Let them hunt with single shot muzzle-loaders.
Can’t really go on a rampage when you can only fire a single shot every 15-20 seconds.
Thanks. So….why not go to the shooting range and use their guns vs. having them in your house?
again, just asking with curiosity.
True, gun protectors are good at deflecting and creating noise!
The best argument I’ve read so far is that guns did not protect Mrs. Lanza.
Hi Twain! I’ll tackle this one.
I have ADHD. It is very difficult for me to focus on a single task. Right now, for instance, I’m typing here, watching a movie, and listening to music. My mind constantly needs to be occupied, usually by multiple things.
I respect the danger and gravity of firearm use. I am very, very careful with my guns. This requires intense focus. For some reason, shooting seems to center me, to allow me to focus on a single thing. This feels almost soothing to me, because it is one of the few things I can do where my mind isn’t racing.
This was purely a financial decision. I’ve spent about $600 altogether for my 3 firearms. Rentals at a range are anywhere from $10 per half-hour to $35 per half-hour.
Also, most ranges require you to purchase their ammunition to shoot through their firearms, and price the ammunition higher.
So a trip to the range to shoot all 3 of my firearms, if renting them, would probably cost in the neighborhood of $140.
It would be much more expensive for me than owning my own.
Thanks, Kris. Sounds reasonable to me. You are obviously not obsessed about guns as some are. I have never fired a gun so am just curious about what the feelings are. I can’t imagine shooting anything as beautiful as a deer – just couldn’t do it. But I understand hunting and many of my relatives hunt and they eat the meat or give it to some who need it.
I mostly disagree with this. I would say lots of pathology doesn’t blossom into dangerous proportions until the 20s. Or the response to pathology doesn’t show up until then.
Many parents DO get their children in front of a doctor and get treatment for their kids, but many also minimize the kid’s problem or deny it altogether. It seems normal from their perspective because they have become acclimated to their situation. OR, the parent is suffering from some related emotional pathology of their own. etc.
howdy firedog !!!
very good to see ya
I’m with you on that one, Twain. I don’t hunt, and don’t think I could kill a deer.
As for the physical feeling of firing a gun, it is something actually exploding in your hand. A very alien feeling, and pretty terrifying initially.
Thanks.
Do you have other activities that require single-mindedness of focus? Like tennis, or darts, or needlepoint? :)
Thanks for indulging my questions!
Politically, it may be easier to address gun violence at the root, which is mental illness and/or substance abuse. Mandatory pysch evals for high school students is one mechanism.
Totally agree. This assault was absolutely awful–to me it feels much worse than 9/11. The mass media is trying to divert to their ends (e.g., theme music on CNN), I don’t think they can succeed. This cuts too deep.
hey now! nice to see you. wish it were a less tragic discussion. :(
I don’t get “out” in the blogosphere as often as I used to….
You’re right, of course. Getting rid of guns altogether is politically impossible, and probably logistically impossible as well.
As far as mental illness goes, I don’t think psych evals for high school students would solve all your problems. If you look at the typical profile of these mass shooters, they are young white men in their 20s. This screams schizophrenia to me, which doesn’t typically develop until the mid-to-late 20s and can happen very rapidly.
Wouldn’t be able to ID this in a high school kid, as they wouldn’t be experiencing any symptoms yet.
Ryan White taught us this about thirty years ago: if children are harmed, Americans will act. Otherwise, meh.
concern about societal stigma plays a role as well
the day after Colummbine, had a dear, open, intelligent, concientious friend whisper to me that her child was being treated for depression – damn! would you be whispering if it were diabetes ?!?!
one big wake up call for this hippie
I may be wrong, but in non-war/non-self defense scenarios violence is always an irrational response. Irrational actions are telltale signatures for mental illness. I continue to believe that the root of gun violence is mental illness. If we don’t have the political will to face that reality, I don’t see how we’ll have the political will to remove firearms from the populace or implement other solutions that only nip at the periphery of the real cause.
I was thinking of four little girls in a Birmingham church
I agree on this and other issues, it’s long past time to start demanding the big demands, and making those demands in terms of a vision of what kind of country we want to be. That’s what Republicans and conservtives do all the time, sickening as most of their demands and visions may be.
I’d say the same for mental health. We should have universal healthcare, including mental health, and healthcare driven by science, not the drug industry, for example.
I haven’t found anything that works quite the way shooting does.
I’ve tried this with pellet rifles and airsoft guns. Doesn’t work the same.
And I have no problem with indulging questions. I really think that it is time for a national debate on this issue, and I think it’s important that we liberals understand all aspects of the situation. From types of weapons, ammunition, uses, to mental health care and intervention.
we don’t disagree.
forgive the broad brush, but check out Richard Florida’s stat sheets on gun violence – stark and illuminating.
Folks,please,this is more than GUN control,fix he problems in our society
what do the teens growing up today have to look forward to,no jobs,exorbitantly high education cost,the rich getting richer & ordinary Americans poorer…..just taking away guns won’t hardly do anything.Most of these same politicians who voted to unemploy vast swats of Americans with TRADE AGREEMENTS are responsible for all the despair in society today.
For those of yous who have travelled overseas extensively,do other countries run commercials of their military on TV has we do ?
Almost every “Official Event” has military participation including sporting events.Violence is what we do & now we are amazed that shit like this goes down.
I disagree to a point. I single shooting, during the commission of a robbery for instance, is not an act of mental illness.
These mass shootings, however, have to be mental illness. To gun down person after person after person in such a clinical way, one must be detached from reality.
You are exactly right. Parents need to acknowledge that their children are in difficulty and take action. It’s hard to believe that in the 21st century, mental illness is still considered shameful and must be hidden. It invites what just happened in that school.
Yes, there is something wrong with your logic. Holding a greater sense of protection for children than other innocent human beings is not rational, it is sentimental. Murder is horrible whether the victim is 6, 46 or 96. No innocent person is deserving of a violent death. Aurora was no less a tragedy than Newtown, sensibilities notwithstanding: whatever the age, lives were violently cut short.
I am searching for a solution that can work for most people. I have no problem at all with the idea of shooting guns at a range. Like any toy of skill, it is fun. The cost problem could be controlled with a public fund, like using a public park. It would surely be cheaper than paying for the the police and coroner costs associated with 32,000 annual deaths from gunshots.
I just think that if it is harder to get your hands on your gun, a lot of crimes of passion, or mistaken identity would be prevented. If you had to shoot your way out of the gun depositary/gun range before going on a spree, at least you would be killing people that agree with you that guns are the coolest thing ever. Plus their would be some time for police to react before you reached you target.
Thank you, David.
Reading some of my thoughts between your lines, I remembered this quote and the meanings it has.
“There are only two kinds of politics, the politics of fear, and the politics of trust.”*
*It is from the Ed Muskie for President 1972 Campaign Brochure entitled ‘A New Beginning for America’
Here are the paragraph headings. Change a name of a war, raise the percentage of the unemployed, count the gun deaths, add a few names like Koch and you could publish the same 40 year old document as new.
The New Beginning means an end to the war in Vietnam, right away.
The New Beginning means Open Government.
The New Beginning means refusing to accept 6% unemployment.
The New Beginning means no more campaign financing by Special Interests.
The full text of the campaign brochure: http://www.4president.org/brochures/1972/muskie1972brochure.htm
Of course every life is precious but to kill babies (because that’s what they were) is just obscene and sickening.
The NRA has taken down their facebook page.
I, too, have noticed your absence. Hope we see more of you.
Indeed the Va Tech, Arizona, Aurora and now, Newtown ALL involved persons who were seriously mentally ill. One could make an argument for Columbine as well.
So, maybe poverty drives people to irrational states in which they might conclude it is rational to commit an armed robbery. It’s just hard for me to believe a clear-headed adult who picks up a gun and shoots someone isn’t suffering some mental illness. Same goes for any non-defensive violence.
in my perfect (and yes, somewhat childlike)world, those 26 families would be parked in front of Wayne LaPierre’s house
I agree for the most part.
I’m very fond of telling people that poverty breeds crime. Statistics bear that out.
These are two separate conversations, though. Mass shootings and armed robberies are totally different things. For one, the robber is motivated to gain. The spree-shooter, on the other hand, is simply looking to kill.
The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre has the blood of Connecticut students on his hands.
If a gunman says you can save one person amongst two, a 40 year old adult you know nothing about or a 6 year old child you know nothing about, who do you save?
Outstanding piece David.
OT–really interesting point you make about the left wing and right wing of the 1%. I wonder whether, with exceptions (Warren Buffett, George Soros, maybe Bill Gates), the right wing of the 1% are mainly the very, very wealthiest persons (e.g., the Koch brothers), and the left wing are disproportionately represented among those just below them in wealth. The conflict between these two groups may be what underlies the partisan struggles between Republicans and Democrats.
you know me and my ‘don’t say hate when you mean dislike’ meme . . .
I HATE that man
and he IS the NRA
And, in the “non-gun” mass murder category, Andrea Yates, here in Houston, who drowned her five children, did so to protect them from the devil.
Mass shootings and armed robbery are two different things from the point-of-view of the shooter. I wonder if they feel like different things from the point-of-view of the victim.
That’s a ridiculous scenario, trying to back me into a rhetorical corner, and misrepresenting it as a logical exercise. There is no logical reason to prefer one over the other. Again, sentiment, not logic, would predict the choice of the child.
Thanks and understand it is by degrees, I’m sure there is a left wing and a right wing of the Koch Bros. and I really think people like DD can influence their thought process if given some exposure in their world.
I intended it as a thought experiment, not a scenario.
That’s beside the point.
My point was only whether mental health was a factor in the case of the shooter.
Of course it makes no difference to the victim.
Please put more thought into your thought experiments.
I was thinking more along the lines of the victim is likely to think the shooter must be crazy. My point, which I’ve beaten you with repeatedly and I’m in your debt for continuing the dialogue, is that the non-war/non-defensive act of shooting another human being proves mental illness. It’s crazy to intentionally shoot a shopkeeper, first grader, spouse, or hunting buddy. Just plain crazy 100% of the time.
May the dead horse be forgiving ;-)
More guns –> more massacres –> more gun sales… what a self-perpetuating racket
“This weekend broke all records for background check submittals in Colorado for potential gun purchases, according to Colorado Bureau of Investigation officials.”
oh hey there! that’s mighty kind of you!
Obama is the worst sort of hypocrite, having killed 173 children in Pakistan and others elsewhere.
The NRA built this.
The 2d Amendment was intended to help citizens defend against a tyrannical government, so of course the government would want to modify that right without considering the other factors that went into this tragedy, including mental health and possibly drugs.
I think that the mental health issue is sort of a red herring. Most gun deaths are crimes of passion, revenge, robbery, by otherwise sane people. If the figure of 11,000 firearm homicides per year is seen as a problem, then it is worthwhile to look at gun control. If we are only trying to prevent mass murders of children by the mentally ill, then the deaths are statistically insignificant. Hence Dday’s post.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
I would also like to caution against the dismissal of the cause of these events simply to mental illness. This is dangerous, in that it leads to suspicion and possible persecution of the mentally ill, without regard to the causes, both intrinsic and extrinsic, and the complexities of human mentality. This modern American society, especially after years of conservative influence, has introduced many stressors which can exacerbate anger and aggression, in people who may not be clinically diagnosed as mentally ill.
I worked with someone who spent a year in jail for trying to buy machine gun parts on the internet. Everyone agrees with gun control it is just a question of where do you draw the line. Weapons of war like tanks, bazookas, RPG’s, 50cal machine guns are banned and so should weapons that fire high velocity ammo that can go through walls ( I have talked with marines who wouldn’t have an assault weapon in their house because you can never be sure where the round will end up.) or high capacity rapid discharge weapons like mac 10′s. Where you draw the line should have a basis in facts and figures relating to safety and common sense not fear, religion, or politics, and especially not profits and losses from “the Business” of weapons.
I disagree. Being under duress can cause irrational action. This is not insanity.
any doubts now NRA et al will be attempting to distract with
mental illness ???
12 mins ago on my twitter feed:
The logic of this post is impeccable. Unfortunately, that and $1.25 will only buy you a poor cup of coffee.
You can can deny and/or argue against raw human emotion, but it is what it is. The fact that young children were involved is what makes this different and just might lead to some action by the pols.
But this event, even if statistically insignificant, can be the tipping point.
There are two components to our societal problem. I think mental health IS one of them. The other is access to guns.
I would say to the NRA is the same as what I say to one of my kids when they say, however legimately, “what about that over there?…”: “We’re talking about YOU and what YOU did right now. That’s the topic at hand.”
If shooting requires single minded focus, I recommend that same mindset for dealing with the NRA types.
You follow SE Cupp? Ewwww?!
of course not – that was retweeted on my feed
we agree.
I would love nothing more than to a. have healthcare for every american and b. it included mental health and balance- along of course with some basic education for all us in our schools
Good. I was going to take you in for some mental health care.
You must live in a good neighborhood then and have a police force that has the luxury of acting as a deterrance rather than just as a response AFTER the fact or even worse aren’t people that you’ve known have abused their authority on more than one occasion and whose judgement you’d find questionable.
If this event, more than Columbine, or Aurora, or VMI, or the Wisconsin Sikh temple, awakens more emotions to finally do something, some good may come of it.
Which countries have an equal quantity of mentally ill? Is there even data out there collected on mental illness by country?
Careful, you’re getting close to crossing a line.
I do live in a very good neighborhood now. That hasn’t always been the case.
I’m not sure what you’re driving at with this comment.
There are statistics that prove weapons purchased for self defense end up wounding or killing someone in the home (something like) 7 time more often than they actually deter an attacker. I’m not sure that’s the exact number, can’t recall off the top of my head. It was a whole lot to a whole little, though.
Owning a gun doesn’t keep you safe. It actually makes you more likely to die by shooting.
Where do you get the basis for the statements that most homicides are perpetuated by sane people? I didn’t see anything about that in the stats.
Of note I did see this though:
In 2009, a total of 24,518 persons died of alcohol-induced(as opposed to the 11,000 firearm deaths that year)
causes in the United States (Tables 10, 12, and 13).
More people have died from alcohol related causes than firearm causes. I’m looking forward to the Firedoglake post offering up that the solution to alcohol related deaths is prohibition of alcohol though, you know for the SAFETY and well being of the citizenry.
Not sure what you mean by civilian use. It is legal to own them, but not easy.
You want to know the difference cwaltz? Alcohol is not a weapon. Alcohol is not designed to kill people. It does not discharge a projectile at an explosive velocity capable of causing serious injury or death.
Where am I going with this?
The truth is that police respond to crisis after the fact. Owning a gun can make the difference in a neighborhood where crime is a problem. Sadly, when I went to find data on gun usage for self defense I have found that there really isn’t a lot of data compiled and it is largely outdated.
I did find this though:
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html
nice try on changing the subject. clapping wildly here.
Tell that to the people it KILLS on an annual basis.
ok. why don’t you write a thread on that? You’re right. alcohol deaths are serious. There are many serious topics. Death by guns is the topic on this thread.
Please stop with your relative tragedy logic.
More people die by … (fill in the blank) so let’s not talk about guns.
sheesh.
Well the difference is that alcohol is self-inflicted, and I eliminated the 17,352 suicides by gun from my statistic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
I would not pass a law to prevent you from hurting yourself. (And arguably, suicide often is a cessation of pain).
I do however, strongly object to you killing me and others’ loved ones.
Insanity is a legally defined term, having to do with the capability of being aware of the criminality of your crime, among other issues. Hence my references to crimes of passion, where the law actually gives some leeway, but the loved ones are just as dead. I would vote for removing the gun from the home to prevent crimes of passion and accidents. By the time to drive to a gun depositary, you can be held as legally if not actually premeditating.
Well the difference is that alcohol is self-inflicted, and I eliminated the 17,352 suicides by gun from my statistic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
I would not pass a law to prevent you from hurting yourself. (And arguably, suicide often is a cessation of pain).
I do however, strongly object to you killing me and others’ loved ones.
Insanity is a legally defined term, having to do with the capability of being aware of the criminality of your crime, among other issues. Hence my references to crimes of passion, where the law actually gives some leeway, but the loved ones are just as dead. I would vote for removing the gun from the home to prevent crimes of passion and accidents. By the time to drive to a gun depositary, you can be held as legally if not actually premeditating.
There is no subject change.
If you are going to quote homicide statistics then it is important to understand the numbers in context. Furthermore, if you claim your purpose for banning guns is to eliminate PREVENTABLE DEATH then you sure as heck should be screaming from the rooftops that someone should be doing something about alcohol since it has a larger number of preventable deaths per year.
I suspect that preventable death isn’t the agenda though. It’s the other side of the coin for right authoritarianism where the people on the left are going to tell responsible gun owners that they have no business owning a gun even though statistically speaking most gun owners are not criminals.
Here you go – http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
From a reputable source, not a libertarian science fiction author.
Way to completely leave rational argument behind and jump to inflammatory emotional rhetoric.
People die in accidents or incidents where alcohol is a factor. That is completely different from alcohol being the instrument of their death.
Your amendment from “children” to “white children” needs further amendment to “white American children”. Especially if expanding “guns” to including “missile loaded drones”. And we haven’t gotten to the targeting of children and arming allies who target children…
First of all, I didn’t say ANYTHING about banning guns. Maybe others did. But OMG! let’s talk about alcohol deaths so we won’t take your guns away!
I’m setting the terms of MY discussion to death by firearms, ‘k?
yeah, no agenda there!
I found it interesting that he chose to omit citations from the online version of his “article” that cwaltz linked above.
Why? wouldn’t a serious author always include citations to boost credibility and provide appropriate credit?
I typically enjoy cwaltz’s comments, but on this issue cwaltz appears to be irrational.
Anyone who owns a firearm and believes that is making them safer is deluding themselves.
He cites government data. The fact that you don’t like him means little to nothing to me nor do I think it will be compelling for other independant minded people like myself.
I’m a she.
Posted this earlier as part of a longer response, think it’s really right:
We have to argue for a ban on all but hunting weapons: that is the common sense position–all other guns are made for killing human beings.
No, that is not a wish you get right away. But it’s a mistake to cede most of the rational ground before you even begin the fight (something Dems and Obama are good at). ARGUE FOR WHAT IS RIGHT. The Second Amendment is not freaking Holy Writ. But if the argument then is that we have a right to protect ourselves from intruders or a tyrranical government then there is some reasonable standard–one gun, of limited lethal impact, for example–to which everyone can be confined.
Anyone arguing against such reasonable terms can squawk to the high heavens while the vast majority of reasonable people reach an accord.
There are no links to prove any of those citations. Here, watch this.
The United States Government’s Blog Comments Survey of 2012 recently reported that 97% of things posted in comments on blogs are utter horseshit.
See what I did there?
=)
Garcia was finally stopped by an off-duty deputy who was working at the theater. The deputy heard the gunfire and ran to find out what was going on. The deputy spotted Garcia coming out of a bathroom with his gun drawn and fired at him, shooting him four times.
I think you’re right. Anyone who isn’t willing to severely restrict firearms access, the types of firearms available, and vastly expand mental health care availability should STFU and go sit at the kiddie table while the grownups talk this out.
Hmmm. Then they’re not doing it right.
Discussions of mental illness and alcohol are diversions from the subject of guns. Not so the anti-depressants and related meds pushed 24/7 by big pharma. There’s a synergy between anti-depressants, which can lead to psychotic behavior among some users, and gun violence.
If that were true then the statistic for the number of guns that were utilized for self defense should be zero.
Yes, I can concede that guns are quite often utilized against people (and stats would suggest that this occurs more often than not) however, there have been more than one instance where a gun owner has prevented a crime from occuring. That isn’t an irrational viewpoint. It’s one that has it’s basis in fact.
Nobody is arguing that police shouldn’t be armed.
To your point there, though, here’s an article of 4 cops being killed by a single assailant. All were armed at the time.
Their guns sure helped them, didn’t they?
This is correct. I’m not saying a gun has never saved a life. However, having a gun makes you statistically less safe. That’s the point I’m trying to make. That also has it’s basis in fact and has been proven in multiple studies.
Please see my comment @125.
I guess I should be completely appalled that if some meth head or perv were to come into our household that my husband not think twice about killing them.
In an ideal world I’d never want a life taken, however if it ever came down to defending myself or my family and I felt the choice was kill or be killed, I’m okay if a person chooses self preservation.
I think there should be a rational middle between becoming the wild wild west that groups like the NRA want and allowing only law enforcement or military members to have access to the ability to defend themselves. *shrugs*
Myth: Serial killers are all white males.
Contrary to popular belief, serial killers span all racial groups. There are white, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian serial killers. The racial diversification of serial killers generally mirrors that of the overall U.S. population.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder
The majority of serial killers are middle-aged white males.
Why is it that some people have so much difficulty with statistics?
It’s basic math.
On edit – and who the fuck was talking about serial killers? That’s a completely different animal.
kudos. Sorry I was unclear and my “he” refers to the author that you linked to. :)
I guess I mistook your phrase “mass shooters” for “serial killers”. I didn’t realize that was a different animal.
I really wish I could find more recent studies from sources I felt weren’t trying to promote an agenda.
Believe it or not, I’ve convinced my spouse that EVERY gun purchase should require a background check including private sales and that there should be a database made for those who are being treated for mental health issues(along with a means to contest it) that those who clear gun purchases should be able to access. If we can have a databank for fertilizer or sudafed sales then I don’t see why it couldn’t be difficult to create the means to ensure someone who might want to harm themselves or others doesn’t get access to the means to do so.
I’m a proponent of gun regulation. I’m an opponent of gun bans.
serial murderer is not the same as mass murderer. sheesh.
It is completely different psychologically. Spree shooters are never classified as serial killers, either by law enforcement or by those in the psychological profession.
Serial killers typically develop their psychosis later in life, and it is a different type of illness that expresses in different ways. Different treatment is needed in the medical world, and different investigation needed in the law enforcement world.
I would like to see something similar to a driver’s license…age and skill and rules requirements. renewals. insurance.
Also, not all mental health treatment would rule out gun ownership. IE women treated for trauma, anxiety after a violent attack.
limits on how many guns, type of gun, and amount of ammo.
mass = together
serial = episodic, one following another
I don’t think we’re far apart cwaltz. I just believe that properly controlling the distribution of firearms will never be possible.
Did you know that 1.4 million guns were stolen from homes between 2005 and 2010, and only 20% of them have been recovered?
Can’t very well run a background check on a burglar, can we?
The simplest solution, at least theoretically, is to rid our country of firearms in the hands of any and all civilians. In practice, that would be incredibly complex and damn near impossible.
How about membership in a state- or county-regulated militia? That was the original intention of the 2nd amendment, right?
If you’re a card carrying member of a regulated militia that has received professional training and regularly re-certifies in firearms safety, that solves a lot of problems.
Oh wait, that’s right! We don’t really have militias anymore because we have a national military and local police forces! And we’re not scared of the British invading us again any longer.
Police really don’t act as a deterrance as much as they respond after the crime already occurred. Again, I get your larger point which is that a gun can and sometimes is utilized against a person. Just look at what happened to the Newton shooter’s mom.
In the interest of disclosure: My father was a paranoid schizophrenic who was convicted of shooting a police officer back in the 1980s in Titusville, Florida. I’ve been very aware for a long time that guns make it into the hands of people who have no business owning a weapon however, I also know that if these people don’t have guns they’ll use a baseball bat, a knife or any other means.
I’m terribly sorry to hear that about your father.
I think there should be a board for mental competence that should allow for challenges to a doctor’s position that a person should not own a firearm. That way we can assure that someone’s 2nd amendment right isn’t taken away because a doctor is opposed to someone owning a firearm rather than because there is a genuine concern that someone might use the gun to harm himself or others.
He’s deceased, so no longer in pain(as is my younger brother who also suffered from a mixture of alcoholism and bipolar disorder.)
Mental health is an issue near and dear to my heart thanks to my experiences growing up so there is that small consolation.
I find your response completely opaque; explain, if you care to. There are hunting weapons, handguns, and military weapons. The latter two are for killing people, right? Any categories I missed?
I sympathize. But a knife or a baseball bat is, I’m sure you’d concede–far less lethal. Someone noted yesterday that a recent rampage by an angry Chinese factory worker resulted in the stabbing of upwards of 20 people, with no deaths.
“…and functionally no different than any semi-automatic hunting rifle…”
You are mistaken. Assault rifles are designed for much higher capacity magazines than are the hunting rifles you can buy today.
Of course, if you want to, you can go after the deadly whitetail deer with a 30 round clip, instead of 5 or 6 rounds.
Also, there is this major difference in assault rifles and hunting rifles:
The NRA is a lot more politically vulnerable on military-style assault weapons with large magazines than it is on deer rifles, for example, that have a much smaller load capacity.
“Can’t very well run a background check on a burglar, can we?”
No, we can’t, but we can make the punishment for having an unregistered firearm so stiff that having one will be much more of a liability for YEARS in jail, than it is now.
I admit, with the current gun culture, and with Barack Obama’s seemingly genetic and unending desire to attempt to curry favor with the assholes who despise him so deeply, we’re not likely to see that.
Again, where do we draw the line? The assault rifle used in the Colorado theater jammed and few rounds were fired because of that. I heard experts say it would have been much worse and now we see an incident where the assault weapon did not jam up.
See my post @118, if you haven’t already. Are those lines unclear? (Maybe I am unaware of some of the vagaries of this debate.)
Maybe I wasn’t clear, where do you draw the line where you think a law can be passed and enforced? Your hunting only line is a good logical line but banning assault weapons is a good American Politics line IMO.
Right. Because jail is a deterrent for people already in the middle of committing a crime. That makes perfect sense.
/s
Maybe assault weapons should be the initial goal with the long-term position being doing away with any gun that is more than single-action or for hunting? Thinking out loud. . .