December 4, 2015

The awkward pivot from gun control to terrorism.

In the immediate aftermath of the San Bernardino massacre, and even before the cops killed Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, many commentators and politicos plugged in their usual call for gun control. As the facts about Farook and Malik emerged, the gun control message seemed rote and obtuse (or worse). The awkwardness of the pivot to a more terrorism-appropriate message is on display in this New Yorker piece by John Cassidy called "Domestic Terrorism and America’s Gun Dilemma":
Clearly, it would be in everybody’s interest if there were far fewer guns out there, especially fewer of the military-style weapons that also lend themselves to the massacre of civilians—as we discovered yet again on Wednesday, when, according to officials, a twenty-eight-year-old man, Syed Farook, and a twenty-seven-year-old woman, Tashfeen Malik, opened fire at an office party in San Bernardino, California, killing at least fourteen people and injuring seventeen. But since there are already an estimated three hundred million guns in private hands (nobody knows the exact number), and U.S. gun laws are so lax that many Americans believe that they need a weapon, or many weapons, to defend themselves and their families.

With reports emerging that Farook and Malik may have had ties to radical Islamism, these concerns are going to be exacerbated. In a different country, a winning argument could be made that the threat of homegrown terrorism is another powerful reason for restricting the sale and circulation of deadly firearms. Here in the U.S., the mere mention of the “T” word, by making Americans even more fearful and providing more fodder for the gun lobby, is likely only to exacerbate the underlying problem....
Cassidy's so nervous that he nattered "exacerbate" twice in 3 sentences.

135 comments:

mezzrow said...

As I read Cassidy here, I think of a word. It's not exacerbate, but it rhymes.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Anne Althouse said ...
the gun control message seemed rote and obtuse (or worse).


Keep humping that nonsense Althouse. There's still some true believers.

rhhardin said...

Clearly,

In math, in a proof, this always means that the guy doesn't know now to prove it.

tim in vermont said...

You know what would be refreshing? Instead of plotting ways to subvert the constitution. Ridiculing it as a "sacred parchment" etc, if proponents of more robust gun control started a campaign to repeal 2A, or re-write it somehow. I might even consider voting for that. I won't vote for somebody who promises to subvert the constitution and lift the chains that we have rightfully placed on our central government.

That would be refreshing. But we know that when democracy makes a decision one doesn't like, it's "majoritarianism!" which is the next thing to fascism!

Sebastian said...

"the gun control message seemed rote and obtuse (or worse)."

Is there any O or Hillary! message that doesn't?

rhhardin said...

Media ratings control would do more against terrorism than anything else. Just ignore it.

How much does it matter scale, round numbers :

10,000 Americans die every day.

100,000 people in the world die every day.

Each one important to somebody.

The media pick the ratings winners. It's an entertainment choice, turned into public policy debate. That's not the way to make public policy.

Don't publicize it, and there's no point in doing it.

Hagar said...

I am a bit surprised to hear that the shooters' guns were legally acquired especially the rifles. If they really had contacts with the terrorist underworld, they could have surely have gotten the real thing for half the price they paid in the gun shops.

Tank said...

AA:

The new narrative is "gun safety."

Get your meme right.

Listening to the media talk about this Islamic Terrorist Murder of completely innocent Americans is truly bizarro world. Really, America has turned into bizarro world where people cannot say the truth out loud. I listened to 15 minutes of CNN last night and it was surrealistic. They CAN NOT BRING THEMSELVES TO TELL THE TRUTH OUT LOUD.

Related topic: Why is Donald Trump so popular?

Curious George said...

This guy is a moron.

"Clearly, it would be in everybody’s interest if there were far fewer guns out there, especially fewer of the military-style weapons that also lend themselves to the massacre of civilians—as we discovered yet again on Wednesday, when, according to officials, a twenty-eight-year-old man, Syed Farook, and a twenty-seven-year-old woman, Tashfeen Malik, opened fire at an office party in San Bernardino, California, killing at least fourteen people and injuring seventeen. "

Yes, availability of "military style" weapons is what led to this tragedy. That's it. If there were just fewer guns, this never would have happened.


"...and U.S. gun laws are so lax that many Americans believe that they need a weapon, or many weapons, to defend themselves and their families."

Yes, it's because there are so may guns that people get so many guns.

Idiocy.

Vet66 said...

Changing magazines is not the issue to be discussed. The issue is why weren't there more people returning fire in the terrorist's soft target of choice and why were the victims all unarmed? That is the fatal flaw in the anti-gun crowd argument who talk brave as long as other people are being killed. They are rolling the dice that the odds are in their favor to not be shot at by a determined terrorist. Once they or a loved one become a "statistic" then what do they have to say? The bad guy will always have access to a weapon whether locally obtained, or smuggled in from Mexico or Canada. Make it personal and then decide if it is wise to protect/defend yourself or play the odds with other people's lives. Then we can talk about the pipe bombs and suicide vests that will probably be the weapon of choice for terrorists sooner or later.

David Begley said...

Steven Hayward at Power Line had a great idea. Let's bring back the militia.

ISIS will think twice about shooting up venues when citizens start shooting back.

Mrs Whatsit said...

"But since there are already an estimated three hundred million guns in private hands (nobody knows the exact number), and U.S. gun laws are so lax that many Americans believe that they need a weapon, or many weapons, to defend themselves and their families."

This is an actual sentence published in the New Yorker? I remember when the magazine was an emblem of the best in polished, elegant writing. Now its writers can't master basic sentence syntax.

Nor can they handle logic, apparently. Lax gun laws are the reason Americans think they need guns for self-defense? That would come as new information to most of those Americans.

Curious George said...

"With reports emerging that Farook and Malik may have had ties to radical Islamism, these concerns are going to be exacerbated. In a different country, a winning argument could be made that the threat of homegrown terrorism is another powerful reason for restricting the sale and circulation of deadly firearms."

All you need to do is look to France for proof that it works. I mean if not for their strict gun laws, thousands would have died or been wounded a few weeks ago, instead of hundreds.

As an aside, I keep reading that ole Farook may have been radicalized and have been set off by some workplace issues. Bullshit. I think he picked that party because he had a perverse pleasure that the infidels would know him and that he killed them, and that he also knew it would be a soft target, and likely knew that either no one was armed because he would know if they had CCW, or he would know who was CCW and where they were in the room to take them out first.

tim maguire said...

Since the fear of terrorism is so obviously irrational, we should be happy to surrender our constitutional rights to liberal social engineering.

Alternatively: It's an outrage that the government is trampling on our rights in the name of security. In fact, the only greater outrage is the public's resistence to having their rights trampled in the name of liberal social engineering.

Michael K said...

The terrorism really throws oft Democrats since their prince of light declared the problem solved.

The guns "dilemma" is only a matter of the reaction of sentient people to a threat remove their freedoms. Had Democrats not gotten on the gun control/confiscation hobby horse, gun buying would not have spiked. As it is Obama is the greatest gun salesman in history, especially his threats to go extra-legal.

Sydney said...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't California already have strict gun control laws?

steve uhr said...

Clearly when one starts a sentence with clearly it is often not clear at all.

Rob said...

The last sentence of the first paragraph you quoted is not only ungrammatical, it's literally incomprehensible.

Anonymous said...

"Clearly, it would be in everybody’s interest if there were far fewer guns out there, especially fewer of the military-style weapons that also lend themselves to the massacre of civilians..." That's not clear to me at all and I'd wager that it isn't clear to a lot of others as well. The terrorists' weapons of choice seem to be bombs, not guns, notwithstanding many horrific mass shootings. Perhaps it's asking a bit much for the author to ask residents of Kileen, Texas, among other places, whether they think it's in everybody's interest if there were far fewer guns out there.

Such blinkered thinking, long and well disproven by the great weight of evidence since 41 states have passed "shall issue" handgun permit laws persists in the minds of those for whom intent is everything and results mean nothing.

William said...

I suppose you can say that the more guns there are in America then the more chances there are for gun murders. Couldn't the same point be made about Muslim immigrants vis a vis Muslim terrorists?

exhelodrvr1 said...

Gun control kept Paris safe. And keeping drugs illegal have certainly kept them off our streets.

bleh said...

I like his assumption that "clearly" it would be in everyone's interests to have fewer guns out there. What about the evil gun companies?

Curious George said...

"Clearly, it would be in everybody’s interest if there were far fewer guns out there..."

The most common ploy of the left, stating opinion as fact, and make your argument from there.

Unknown said...

gotta wonder why "global warming" wasn't cited

Quaestor said...

Oh my god, are progs supremely impervious to logic or what? Where to begin...

Why not the first sentence? Clearly, it would be in everybody's interest if there were far fewer guns out there... Really? If it's so clear lets see your reasoning. But of course Cassidy blithely assumes that if its clear to him it must be clear to everybody. Cassidy is just crediting a jejune fallacy about the nature of the universe. Clearly it would be in everybody's interest if the laws of physics could be suspended in favor of cost-free energy and ever-expanding abundance, but it's stupid to build an argument on that foundation. Guns exist, and there's no use wishing that they didn't. (In my opinion we should be thankful they do, but I'm not going to demand you agree with me by using weasel words like clearly or obviously.) However, there is a fact here that Cassidy either does not know or chooses to ignore which goes to the heart of the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't exist because some early Americans needed guns to hunt food, or to defend against Indians and freebooters. It exists because America had just come out of a long and costly war rooted in the fact that no statutory guarantee of liberty and safety can withstand the State that enjoys a monopoly of armed force. The Second was a promise to the citizens that they could retain the power to overthrow the new republic by force of arms should it become necessary, just as the King and his Parliament had been overthrown. Therefore, Cassidy's facile assertion is probably false. It's up to Cassidy to explain very carefully why it is not. (I'm not holding my breath.)

The reason this latest terrorist outrage has sparked an even higher demand for guns is because our government has not only abrogated its fundamental obligation to protect the citizens, it is evidently determined to increase the danger by an incalculable margin by opening the gates to undocumented foreigners even wider. Obama is busy, busy, busy eroding the last vestiges of trust between the People and the State that has been so dearly bought by centuries of blood, sweat, and tears. There's going to be hell to pay.

Gahrie said...

In a different country, a winning argument could be made that the threat of homegrown terrorism is another powerful reason for restricting the sale and circulation of deadly firearms. Here in the U.S., the mere mention of the “T” word, by making Americans even more fearful and providing more fodder for the gun lobby, is likely only to exacerbate the underlying problem...

A different country doesn't have a second Amendment.

Other countries restrict free speech more than we do. Does he want that too?

Henry said...

In a different country, a winning argument could be made that the threat of homegrown terrorism is another powerful reason for restricting the sale and circulation of deadly firearms.

You mean, like France?

traditionalguy said...

The facts are out, and the story has empowered the pro Second Amendment guys.

The shootings will happen and they will come from peaceful well adjusted young American Muslims that get mysteriously "Radicalized" right after memorizing the Koran down at the local Mosque

Meanwhile Mullah Obama who cannot possibly disarm Iran, is committed to disarm America, both military, police and citizens. Otherwise some of his precious Muslims could die in their Jihad Games.

chickelit said...

Sounds like Cassidy has no clue about what the "underlying problem" really is.

Wince said...

US AG Lorretta Lynch called the San Bernadino mass murder "a wonderful opportunity and a wonderful moment to really make significant change."

Anonymous said...

The terrorists guns were legal, but they didn't buy them, they got them illegally. Criminals and terrorists do not care what the laws are. California has some of the strictest gun control laws....what else is there for them to do, but ban them?

chickelit said...

The reason this latest terrorist outrage has sparked an even higher demand for guns is because our government has not only abrogated its fundamental obligation to protect the citizens, it is evidently determined to increase the danger by an incalculable margin by opening the gates to undocumented foreigners even wider.

As an example, consider what might have happened had that neighbor who saw suspicious activity actually said something. Instead, official policy appears to be to keep quiet lest one be accused of racism. This is the sort of government Trump promises to abolish.

JCC said...

The NewYorker article is rife with risible assumptions:

"Clearly, it would be in everybody’s interest if there were far fewer guns out there..."
Really? Clearly, that's not clear at all.
"U.S. gun laws are so lax that many Americans believe that they need a weapon..."
Is that why I want a gun, because laws are so lax? I hadn't realized.
"Confronted with daily mass shootings..."
You mean "daily drug gang violence mainly in cities with harsh gun control laws" don't you?
Why is gun proliferation an issue? Why, of course..."the manner in which the constitution gives small states outsized political power," You know, that pesky Constitution...what we need, some coastal consolidation of authority in this country.
"the question of whether Farook, Malik, and Dear are to be categorized as terrorists is a secondary issue..."
It certainly is, now that we have established they are either insane or Islamic, and not some easily classifiable right wing kind of terrorist. It was only a primary issue when PP was a victim of right wing rhetoric.

Quaestor said...

In a different country, a winning argument could be made that the threat of homegrown terrorism is another powerful reason for restricting the sale and circulation of deadly firearms.

Something tells me this winning argument is looking more and more tarnished and tawdry in certain different counties.

Bhaskaran Swaminathan said...

Doesn't the need to protect the homeland conflict with the freedom to let anyone walk into any gun store and buy any number of guns and any amount of ammunition?

GRW3 said...

Yep, the threat of homegrown terrorism, commies I believe, was the logic the Nazi's used to confiscate all guns...

We're Lobsters being slowly boiled by five decades of liberal policies...

Mainstream crazy people as asylums are inhumane (they were bad places because they were filled with crazy people)... Crazy people get guns too

Don't do what right for minority communities and make them safe because it violates the rights of the gang bangers... That's working great

Don't close the border to illegals, it's racist... Never mind it helps the drug trade and the criminal gangs (and BTW, who cries for Mexico and what our policies have done to Mexican people on the border?)

Don't identify Islamic terrorism, it's racist... Never mind Islam is practiced by many races including a substantial amount of Caucasians. Islamic Jihadists could be analogized to KKK terrorists who professed Christian principles.

I feel a backlash winding up out there. When it happens it won't be pretty. Americans are very good at violence - technical, cold and proficient - when let loose. I suspect lots of people are going to die because of liberal policies in general and Barack Obama in particular.

narciso said...

but he's not wayne lapierre,


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12/breaking-san-bernardino-jihadis-met-with-al-qaeda-in-saudi-arabia-communicated-with-terror-suspects-in-la/

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Other countries restrict free speech more than we do. Does he want that too?

I'd be willing to bet money on his answer to that being, "No, but ... hate speech ... misogynistic ... homophobia ..."

fewer of the military-style weapons that also lend themselves to the massacre of civilians

They could have done just as much damage with pump or automatic shotguns. Reloading would have been slower, but one could have refrained from shooting so as to protect the other one while they were reloading.

And of course, pipe bombs are illegal everywhere.

Tank said...

EDH said...

US AG Lorretta Lynch called the San Bernadino mass murder "a wonderful opportunity and a wonderful moment to really make significant change."


Don't forget your Republican reps who rubber stamped her nomination. Winning.

Tank said...

These people had a house full of pipe bombs.

But some common sense gun safety laws would have prevented this Islamic Terrorist Murder of innocent Americans?

Bob Ellison said...

Loretta Lynch deserved a honeymoon, a grace period during which she could show that she was maybe less of an idiot than Eric Holder.

That honeymoon has expired. She's an idiot who should resign.

Gusty Winds said...

And now our President has to make this awkward pivot along with CNN. Even last night on Chris Matthews when one of his guests kept returning to the gun control distraction, Matthews says, "Yeah, but now there is a garage full of pipe bombs, so this is heading in the terrorist direction".

CNN is just a whore.

Static Ping said...

To pile on further, I'm pretty sure that his assertion that England has always had strict gun laws is false. They have strict gun laws now but I am fairly sure this has not always been the case.

The author also does not seem to grasp that people who live in rural and remote areas cannot expect anyone to come to their rescue if they are attacked, whether that be by other people or wild animals. He seems to have a very urban-centered thought process, primarily the pampered urban version.

I'm also surprised that he brings up the assault weapons ban as pretty much everyone agrees that it accomplished nothing. Those weapons are rarely used in crime and those that do use usually plan ahead and would be able to get them regardless. There's also the issue that much of the law's restrictions were nonsense, banning one gun and permitting a nearly identical gun based on cosmetic differences that had minimal or no impact on effectiveness.

This author appears to go to great lengths to not have his premises challenged. He's useless.

Birches said...

I started yelling at the radio this morning when the news update (not NPR) mentioned that the local Muslim community feared "backlash" after the California rampage.

Where was all the sympathetic media for the pro-life groups after that complete Nutter rampaged outside the PP clinic??

How many Muslims have been killed since 2001 because of backlash? I'm aware of only the poor Sikh in AZ who was shot right after 9/11? Anyone else? Bueller? Bueller?

jr565 said...

Other than outright gun bans what laws would have prevented these people from getting guns?

The argument was that we needed to toughen the laws because they bought these guns legally and were able to kill people. So clearly the laws need to be tougher.
Only what law would be passed that would have prevented?

The guns may have been legally purchased, but it appears that they didn't purchase them themselves. So it would be a straw purchase.If someone passes a background check and then gives guns to someone else, what law would prevent that? Other than the law that is already in place, and which didn't prevent it.
The shooters modified guns to accept high-capacity magazines. High capacity rounds which are already illegal in CA.
The shooters modified guns for automatic fire. That's totally illegal.

What laws would prevent someone from modifying a weapon illegally other than the laws we already have. Which they violated.

CWJ said...

Somewhat off topic, but I've been wanting to post this for awhile. "Awkward pivot" is my excuse.

The administration and press' narrative driven statements and reporting just can't catch a break. Obama declares ISIL contained, and the Paris massacre happens that same day. Kerry declares al-qaeda dead, and an al-qaeda affiliate attacks a hotel in the capital of Mali. After building an entire abortion rights under attack story out of a single anonymously sourced fragment of a disturbed individual's ramblings, they get a real terrorist attack less than a week later (not that they didn't try at one point to tie that one in to PP as well). Even so, that didn't stop Obama from once again saying, in Paris no less, that mass shootings don't happen elsewhere. Top it off with the Pentagon saying they'd been briefing the WH about ISIL since 2012, but that it didn't fit the reelection narrative.

To those we can add the blows dealt to the rape culture narrative earlier, but all in all this past week has been a bitch for the narrative peddlers. I think we may finally be to the point where in the old advertising phrase, the dogs won't eat the dogfood. Peeple should not be mindlessly credulous. But as mentioned above, it's a terrible thing when ALL trust is lost in both government and press statements. It's been a long time coming, but when you've had years to set the story while shouting down opposing viewpoints, such a disconnect from reality was inevitable.

Lyle Smith said...

"in a different country"... awe, someone doesn't like America and would prefer to be something else.

Sal said...

The NewYorker article is rife with risible assumptions:

The most notable thing about any NewYorker article.

Fabi said...

AG Lynch wants to make significant changes? I forgot that she was in the legislative branch!

She clearly (heh!) can't be impeached for that vulgar statement, but she should be called in front of Congress to explain herself.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

The adherents are out in force today, with their high priests (on the high court) and their sacred text (the 2nd amendment), they proselytize forcefully for the one true religion, guns everywhere.

Meanwhile, those members of our society who live in the secular rational world wonder why guns, among all the artifacts of human civilization, are fetishized with such deep-seated religiosity. They wonder why guns, just another product of human invention, stir such irrationality that they, alone among the myriad of human inventions, must be held sacred, above reason and rationality. Not just another public health problem to be managed, but an object of religious devotion. Weren't elephants or cattle available that day? Why not Gummy Bears or skate boards?

Monkeyboy said...

Doesn't the need to protect the homeland conflict with the freedom to let anyone walk into any gun store and buy any number of guns and any amount of ammunition?

No place in the country where "anyone" can walk in to gun store and buy a gun. There are restrictions on age, felony convictions, citizen status etc. In a lot of places there are limits on the number of guns you can buy as well. VA used to be "one gun a month" and CA probably still is.

I don't think the left really understands the country they live in. Any new regulations will cause massive amounts of civil disobedience. Guns aren't going to be turned in. Local sheriffs (elected) aren't going door to door to search their constituency, governors aren't calling out the national guard and the guard will likely not respond anyway.

I was taught "never give an order you know won't be followed."The left wants to throw away governmental authority trying to punish their fellow citizens after a terrorist attack.

Chris N said...

A few modest proposals:

-Mandatory military confiscation of all guns for U.S citizens.

-Mandatory international climate change laws with economic sanctions, eventually punishable by death.

-No borders and no vague voluntary anarchy. Just one planned community. A public health center with full employment and benefits (and bike-paths). Caring people. Total equality.

-No more 'thoughts and prayers.'

Birches said...

At least the top rated comments in this article give me hope. Not even the WAPO readers are buying what they're selling.

Big Mike said...

In the immediate aftermath of the San Bernardino massacre, and even before the cops killed Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, many commentators and politicos plugged in their usual call for gun control. As the facts about Farook and Malik emerged, the gun control message seemed rote and obtuse (or worse).

To everyone except ARM, of course.

Laslo Spatula said...

Sad, but the people who were shot and killed would probably have said -- on the day before -- that their co-worker Farook was one of the 'Good' Muslims.

I am Laslo.

Original Mike said...

"Anne Althouse said ...
the gun control message seemed rote and obtuse (or worse).

Keep humping that nonsense Althouse. There's still some true believers."


Obtuse is kind. Proponents can't even spell "Ann".

Gusty Winds said...

Here in the U.S., the mere mention of the “T” word, by making Americans even more fearful and providing more fodder for the gun lobby

Mr. Cassidy is right. I don't own a gun, because I'd probably shoot my eye out. I have a short attention span.

But I'm glad I live in and sort of out-of-the-way, deer hunting, gun owning Wisconsin town, where I'm sure a lot of people have concealed carry.

And besides that, we are redirecting all un-vetted, potential terrorists, to Madison per request anyway.



Gusty Winds said...

I read that Mr. Farook had and argument with one of his co-workers, a messianic Jew, regarding whether or not Islam is a religion of peace.

The Jewish guy is dead.

Who won the argument?

rhhardin said...

That honeymoon has expired. She's an idiot who should resign.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't buy Loretta Lynch's records.

Original Mike said...


While we hear more grandstanding about the need for more gun control, keep in mind all the current laws that were broken to execute this violent massacre:

The shooters used weapons they did not purchase (sounds like a straw purchase or illegal transfer).
The shooters modified guns to accept high-capacity magazines.
The shooters modified guns for automatic fire.

Can anyone think of a law we could put in place that these homicidal maniacs, or any criminal or homicidal maniac, would follow? I can't.


Actual results aren't the point for the those pushing more gun laws.

Dr.D said...

"Clearly, it would be in everybody’s interest if there were far fewer guns out there,..."

Well, no, not clearly, not at all. What is clear is that if every American we likely to be carrying and ready to fire, we would have a much, much more safe society. Gun control is the tyrant's ploy, used by Hitler, et al. to assure that they faced no resistance from an unwilling people.

buwaya said...

Guns are important because unlike gummy bears or skateboards they (and the policies around them) have political and social implications. Power does come out of the barrel of a gun, and a gun is a symbol of power. This has to be considered on many levels.
I'm a native of a country that's had firearms restrictions for at least three centuries (Spanish colonial policy plus US and national policy). It's had considerable effect on social relations I think. Among other things it has contributed to an ongoing dependence on both feudal structures and a centralized bureaucracy.

buwaya said...

For the record I don't own a gun here in the US. In the old country I did, in spite of the laws. In California it is even more inconvenient to own and use a gun than back home.

Monkeyboy said...

Meanwhile, those members of our society who live in the secular rational world wonder why guns, among all the artifacts of human civilization, are fetishized with such deep-seated religiosity. They wonder why guns, just another product of human invention, stir such irrationality that they, alone among the myriad of human inventions, must be held to be willfully evil, profane beyond reason and rationality.

It's not the "pro-gun" side that claims that a firearm is anything else than a tool.

The BubFather said...

I didn't read through all the comments, but something occurs to me.....Oddly, it may be the Second Amendment that provides the very thing most necessary in protecting Americans from violent religious (Muslim) terrorists. Perhaps those founding fathers weren't so dumb after all.

Rae said...

There is no lack of gun control in this country. Poll after poll indicates that 70% + of the public is satisfied with the laws as they are. The issue now exists as a "get out the vote" slogan for democratic politicians. Yes, there are rank and file dems who fervently believe we need more gun control, but they are just a noisy minority.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I demand the NRA immediately apologize for not supporting pipe bomb control.
I insist our government immediately pass laws making pipe bomb possession illegal.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Frickin' NPR this morning still discussed the situation as though it might have been a spontaneous shooting. I yelled "pipe bombs, asshole!" at my radio several times, but they didn't seem to hear me.

They keep emphasizing the "several thousand rounds of ammunition" like that means anything. I bought two 525 packs of .22 last week, for less than $120, so right away I'm in to the "thousands of rounds" category that NPR & the Media thinks means nefarious things.
I don't, though, have any pipe bombs. You know, the things designed only to explode and cause harm, the things you'd have to plan and make in advance, the things that are illegal to manufacture and possess anywhere, by everyone (even people with explosives licenses are probably prohibited form making anti-personnel devices)?

Workplace shooters and spontaneous murderers usually don't have pipe bombs, do they?
The willful ignorance is painful, but at least it reminds us all how much we should trust the Media's judgment and perspective.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

David Begley said...Let's bring back the militia.

They never went away, David; in the sense of a large body of armed citizens ready and able to protect themselves and others, independently but also in coordinated fashions if called upon to do so. Legally armed free citizens constitute an unorganized militia just by their existence. If you/Powerline are saying we should move towards a more formal citizen militia (with training, regulation, etc) it's not a terrible idea, but you'll have to overcome very real and deep distrust for the government (and it's sincerity/good will) among the very people you'd like to recruit. (What I mean is if you said "let's form an organized militia" and asked people to join, register, etc, many of those people would be hesitant to do so out of fear that their membership or participation would later be used against them either to confiscate their property [weapons], put them on some watch list, etc.)

Christopher said...

I am a bit surprised to hear that the shooters' guns were legally acquired especially the rifles. If they really had contacts with the terrorist underworld, they could have surely have gotten the real thing for half the price they paid in the gun shops.

I'm not familiar, thank goodness, with the weirdness that is California gun law, but at the moment in most of the country you can get a respectable AR-15 for $1,000 and a serviceable one for $600 or so, through legal channels. I'm going to assume a fully automatic version would be considerbaly more. You can actually acquire automatic weapons legally in this country but I think the starting tax/license is $10,000. I'm not up to date on the black market but I'd wager the price will be somewhere between those points. You don't need automatic weapons for this kind of project anyway, especially in, er, gun free zones.

Monkeyboy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Monkeyboy said...

They keep emphasizing the "several thousand rounds of ammunition" like that means anything
FOX mentioned several hundred rounds of .22 Long Rifle. I could fit that in my coat pocket.
I'm collect more than I shoot but even I have at least 500 rounds of various calibers in the house. When I see a good price on .303 British, .38S&W, or black powder 45-70 loads I tend to stock up.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

AReasonable Man said...Not just another public health problem to be managed, but an object of religious devotion. Weren't elephants or cattle available that day?

Let's find some common ground, ARM. I agree violence is a "public health problem to be managed." I agree firearms are used in America in violent, illegal ways, and their existence and use means the public health problem of violence is likely worse than it otherwise might be (only in the sense that if firearms didn't exist and you had the same number of violent crimes some portion of the victims killed by gunshots might live if only stabbed, etc). We agree (I assume), hooray!

It does not automatically follow, however, that since violence is a public health problem and firearm existence/availability contributes to the severity of that problem therefore the only reasonable path is banning firearms (or whatever similar step you seem to think is self-evidently correct--if I'm misunderstanding your proposed step please let me know).

I'll argue that since you're the one proposing to get rid of firearms it's on you to show both how that would solve the problem (in a cost-beneficial way) and that your solution is feasible (in both political and practical senses). I'll admit that I don't think that's possible, but I am willing to listen to actual arguments and evidence; I'm not willing to give bald assertions and insults much weight.

Here, an analogy regarding viewing firearms as a "public health problem" and why that doesn't prove much as far as what could or should be done (vis a vis banning): in the late 70's-early 80's we didn't fully understand HIV/AIDS but we knew it was a public health problem and roughly understood how it spread. From that fact we couldn't just say "we must immediately imprison sexually active male homosexuals and intravenous drug users indefinitely, in order to solve this massive public health problem." Doing so would obviously violate some people's Constitutional rights and wouldn't necessarily solve the whole problem in the long run, but it would have help manage a very real and important public health problem. I doubt you would have accepted that rationale alone for taking those actions then, though, and similarly I don't accept your rationale alone as a convincing argument for banning legal personal firearm possession now.

Peter said...

Jihadi murders are just a medical problem, the best answer is more public health research: "Federal funding for research into a troublesome public health problem is simply common sense. We need to know more. Hargarten says the epidemic of gun violence demands the rigor of a public health approach."


http://www.jsonline.com/news/turn-loose-americas-best-researchers-on-gun-violence-b99627813z1-360482111.html

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Christopher said...
I'm not familiar, thank goodness, with the weirdness that is California gun law, but at the moment in most of the country you can get a respectable AR-15 for $1,000 and a serviceable one for $600 or so, through legal channels. I'm going to assume a fully automatic version would be considerbaly more.


Legal vs. illegal, market vs. black market--there's really no easy comparison. I couldn't fund much on M16s, but there's lots of info on AK47's (and AK family rifles), really full-auto ones, and the prices aren't really related to the US market price for legal weapons. This World Bank report from 2007 gives the price as $267 in Africa & the Middle East and $442 in N. And S. America. You'd need to be hooked in to a network and/or have access to the black market (smuggling, illegal manufacture, etc) to get that price, of course, but if you do the real things are actually cheaper than legally-purchased semi-automatics.

Mrs Whatsit said...

ATF is saying today that the guns were legally purchased by somebody else, and illegally used by the husband and wife - they had complied with California law when purchased but had then been modified to make them both illegal and more effective in a mass shooting. How would any gun control law prevent that?

(However, I'm still certain that it was definitely workplace violence provoked by a coworker's insensitive comment. Those poor peaceful Muslims just acquired and modified the guns IN CASE somebody was rude to them someday.)

Lewis Wetzel said...

Cassidy wrote:
"U.S. gun laws are so lax"
Apparently Cassidy has never tried to buy a gun in New York.
"This, tragically, is the country we inhabit."
Perhaps Cassidy could move to a country more to his liking. He would not be missed.
"In Britain, for example, firearms laws have always been strict"
Cassidy is lying. Britain had no laws concerning the ownership of firearms until 1903.

Birches said...

ARM ranting about guns and religiosity sounds a lot like Bernie Sanders complaining about 14 kinds of deodorant....

Perhaps we should make a rule: only one chef's knife per family, since they're so dangerous and all...

chuck said...

> In a different country,

Damn, the US sucks. If only we could be more European...

clint said...

"But since there are already an estimated three hundred million guns in private hands (nobody knows the exact number), and U.S. gun laws are so lax that many Americans believe that they need a weapon, or many weapons, to defend themselves and their families."

I love that. It's not a complete sentence. The 'but' strongly implies the conclusion, but the author couldn't bring himself to write it. So he just stopped the sentence and the paragraph and went on.

The elided ending must be either... 'gun control laws wouldn't help' or 'gun control laws will continue to be a political loser', depending on which of the two clauses subordinate to the 'since' you look at.


"Cassidy's so nervous that he nattered "exacerbate" twice in 3 sentences."

Hard to blame Cassidy. That's the kind of thing an editor is supposed to catch. You know -- the difference between a highbrow periodical like the New Yorker and, say, some law professor's blogging hobby.

Lewis Wetzel said...

If the fourteen people killed in San Bernadino are really just a drop in the bucket compared to overall gun deaths, isn't the same true about the killing of Michael Brown? Really, one gun death in Ferguson is nothing, even if it was the result of racism. It doesn't matter. Nothing to get excited about.

mikeyes said...

I doubt that there are many gun owners who approve of mass kilings af any kind (and the left seems to conflate crazy people, urban gangs and terrorists), the use of guns in crime, murder or even the careless use of CCW like that moron George Zimmerman. In many respects there is far greater agreement than differences between the right and the left (and don't forget that there is are plenty of "liberals" who own guns and use them) which begs the question of why the left seems to demonize gun owners without critically thinking through the issues.

My experience has been that those who are not thiking critically about gun violence ("gun safety" is about being safe with guns, something the NRA has been preaching for over a century) are making any practical solutions impossible. The low hanging fruit ideas (magazine capacity, "assault weapon ban", "cop killer" bullets", etc) have done little or nothing - see the extensive CA rules and laws - while answers to the very difficult problems of poverty, crime, and mental health are either ignored or resisted since they are not politically sexy or may cost too much (or those affected don't vote.) I think this may be what Ann is talking about: in the light of an obvious assymetric terror attack by suicidal fanatics the first reaction on both sides should not be a discussion of gun control.

The problem, of course, is that there are two cultures that have a stake in this game, gun owners and those who want to control access to guns. The facts are 1) the Second Amendment exists, 2) every state has concealed carry, 3) there are 350M guns legally owned by law abiding citizens, and 4) murder rates vary considerably and are, for the most part, going down. There are other facts, of course, but I am preaching to the choir. These facts do have political aspects.

There are restrictions on gun ownership, Heller even mentions this fact, and there may be more in the future that most of us can agree with, but we are a country with unique civil rghts that require a lot of change to dismiss and it is politically unfeasible to make those changes that would make a difference.

So what can be done? For one thing the gun owners have to come up with better solutions than "if only everyone had a gun" (as much as I like that solution) simply becaus it plays into the hands of the chicken little left. First there has to be a concensus that murder and terror are wrong (without the ad hominem atachments) and that there is a severe problem with how mental health issues are dealt with. Secondly we need to use spokespersons who are not obviously related to the gun industry (this is optics) and are articulate and well versed in the entire situation about gun violence (and gun safety) and we need to be aware of the almost rituual fear of guns that a lot of the left have and try to assuage (if possible) that fear by whatever means possible.

The politics are on the side of gun owners, mostly the law is too, and most Americans are more or less neutral on the subject but they are vulnerable to bully pulpit cries for "safety" that have no practical effect on the problem but are politcally useful in the short run. We will have to acknowlege that there are restrictions already in place and there may be more. We should not let those restrictions be authored by the left for reasons that we all know but we do have to evaluate some of our absolutist ideas that grew because we are in defensive mode. (Making it madatory that states turn in the names of mentally committed persons for example, right now it is voluntary.)

One problem is that there are no easy venues to make the case for gun ownership. Part of this problem could be resolved by having a different national government, but it has to be grass roots too. The focus has to be on solving the gun violence problems (there are more than one) and doing it in an effective manner.

Michael said...

How many tons of illegal drugs are smuggled into this country every year? Does anyone seriously think that we could prevent motivated people with connections abroad from getting serious weapons no matter what we did? Or that we could meaningfully reduce "mass shooting incidents" without the military occupation of the inner cities? Gun control advocacy is simple virtue-signalling, not serious plans from serious people. (I know that's a lot of "serious." That's what's needed.)

Quaestor said...

You'd need to be hooked in to a network and/or have access to the black market (smuggling, illegal manufacture, etc) to get that price, of course, but if you do the real things are actually cheaper than legally-purchased semi-automatics.

If you smoke weed, you're likely buying it. If you're buying it you're already in contact with a network that can sell you you whatever you want, including real assault weapons. It may take some time, the dealer may suspect you of being a police agent, but eventually cash money up front will speak persuasively.

Rusty said...

AReasonableMan said...
The adherents are out in force today, with their high priests (on the high court) and their sacred text (the 2nd amendment), they proselytize forcefully for the one true religion, guns everywhere.

Meanwhile, those members of our society who live in the secular rational world wonder why guns, among all the artifacts of human civilization, are fetishized with such deep-seated religiosity. They wonder why guns, just another product of human invention, stir such irrationality that they, alone among the myriad of human inventions, must be held sacred, above reason and rationality. Not just another public health problem to be managed, but an object of religious devotion. Weren't elephants or cattle available that day? Why not Gummy Bears or skate boards?

This is why I come here. To watch the clueless left beclown themselves. You have no cogent reasoned argument for your position so spout utter nonsense. We're not impressed. More like amused. Keep it up.

Rusty said...

Monkeyboy said...
They keep emphasizing the "several thousand rounds of ammunition" like that means anything
FOX mentioned several hundred rounds of .22 Long Rifle. I could fit that in my coat pocket.
I'm collect more than I shoot but even I have at least 500 rounds of various calibers in the house. When I see a good price on .303 British, .38S&W, or black powder 45-70 loads I tend to stock up.


I do the same thing except I reload as well. I probably have 7 or 8 hundred rounds of .45 ACP. But I'll run through a couple of hundred just target shooting.

Rusty said...

Hagar said...
I am a bit surprised to hear that the shooters' guns were legally acquired especially the rifles. If they really had contacts with the terrorist underworld, they could have surely have gotten the real thing for half the price they paid in the gun shops.


Unless you're good friends with drug dealers it's rather difficult to obtain badly converted semi auto rifles.

JAORE said...

Cassidy exacerbates excessively.

Sigivald said...

by making Americans even more fearful and providing more fodder for the gun lobby, is likely only to exacerbate the underlying problem....

Ah, the New Yorker.

Where "the gun lobby" operates by fear, and those bad people who think guns aren't evil are simply paranoid (and, in the usual narrative, also racist and probably all male and have small penises - all things I've seen in discussions of the topic, every time).

I'd suggest he actually look at what NRA and NRA-ILA have to say on the matter, but if he cared about due diligence and actually knowing his Other he wouldn't be writing that in the first place.

(As above, let me add in, "lots of ammunition" means nothing, and is in no way a "sign" of impending badness.

Ammunition you have at home isn't any use for shooting people, and more guns than you can carry aren't helpful either.)

Unknown said...

Grammar filter is off

CA already has the "common sense" gun laws liberals are praying to their stategod for.
Farouq "was radicalized". Poor guy. probably didn't know what hit him. Someone must've sneezed on him in Saudi Arabia.

I'm sick of people telling me I have to give up my rights because they can't master simple logic or are too stupid or idealogically blind to see where the real threats are. I'm losing the wherewithal to engage in polite debate.

Someone asked the "rhetorical question" on social media if it would really be immoral to kill the board of directors of the NRA. The real question is how many gunowners would it be morally acceptable to sacrifice to your stategod to achieve your gun-free utopia?

Sam L. said...

It wouldn't have been so awkward if they hadn't been spring-loaded to jump right to gun-banning, but they are not conditioned to wait and see what the story may be. Spring-loaded, with a hair trigger that releases when breathed upon.

Bob Loblaw said...

Keep humping that nonsense Althouse. There's still some true believers.

Hahahahaha. ARM's always good for a bit of irony.

n.n said...

Self-defense is both a legal and moral right. It's morally insane to deny people reasonable tools and methods that enable the right to self-defense. A priori gun control is equal to thought control and presumed guilt. It is only legitimate to construct classes based on common principles or uniform (i.e. realized) behavior.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...
I agree violence is a "public health problem to be managed." I agree firearms are used in America in violent, illegal ways, and their existence and use means the public health problem of violence is likely worse than it otherwise might be ...

it's on you to show both how that would solve the problem (in a cost-beneficial way) and that your solution is feasible (in both political and practical senses).


In the 1950's, eliminating smoking, another public health problem, seemed an insurmountable task. Yet, we have dramatically reduced the number of deaths from smoking over the course of several generations and that was done with one of the most addictive drugs known to man. Comparatively, the problem of guns looks much easier. The idea that there can't be massive generational changes in behavior with respect to public health problems such as gun violence is wrong. But, it will clearly take generations.

Australia produces manly men. They will go to war at the drop of a hat, anybody's war, and their games are as tough and violent as any that can be found in the US. Yet, they found a way to deal with the problem.

Taxing the crap out of guns and ammunition as was/is done with cigarettes is a place to start. Making fun of gun owners is another place to start. The idea that guns are a sign of toughness has to be one of the stupidest ideas ever promulgated by Hollywood, almost as stupid as smoking is cool.

These things are cyclical but the trend is for lower levels of gun ownership. At some point we will begin to converge with the norms in European and Anglo countries.

Original Mike said...

"This is why I come here. To watch the clueless left beclown themselves. You have no cogent reasoned argument for your position so spout utter nonsense. We're not impressed. More like amused. Keep it up."

Like Althouse, I wish more lefties commented here.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Monkeyboy said...
It's not the "pro-gun" side that claims that a firearm is anything else than a tool.


We regulate the hell out of most 'dangerous' products, why not a product that is designed to kill?

Etienne said...

40,000 people died in vehicle accidents this year.

We should get more cars off the road, and we should have background checks before issuing a license.

Illegal aliens should not be able to get a license to drive one of the killers.

Gahrie said...

We regulate the hell out of most 'dangerous' products, why not a product that is designed to kill?

Once more for the slow ones:

The difference is, there is a Constitutional right to own a weapon. And guns are regulated. Heavily.

grackle said...

Meanwhile, those members of our society who live in the secular rational world wonder why guns, among all the artifacts of human civilization, are fetishized with such deep-seated religiosity.

Speaking for myself this little poem explains some of it:

Be not afraid of any man
No matter what his size
When danger threatens, call on me
And I will equalize.

And this:

An armed society is a polite society.

And finally, this:

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.

As for “religiosity,” I leave that to religions and those who practice those religions. BTW, it is not ‘religious’ to revere the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment; it is patriotic. But patriotism is a dirty word to the Lefties – never to be used in any positive way and to be ridiculed as soon as it is voiced. Since the Lefties dislike religion about as much as they dislike the Constitution they are fond of conflating reverence for the Constitution with religion; it efficiently kills two birds with one stone.

Original Mike said...

"We regulate the hell out of most 'dangerous' products, why not a product that is designed to kill?"

We don't regulate guns? . News to me.

JAORE said...

"We regulate the hell out of most 'dangerous' products, why not a product that is designed to kill?"

I presume you mean PEOPLE when you say "designed to kill". In fact MANY guns are not designed to kill people, though they, as well as pitch forks, can be so used.

Even expanding your definition to be "designed to kill animals" you are incorrect.

Buzz words and catch phrases are so easy. So are the tells of those who know little about the subject but have all the answers.

Rusty said...

AReasonableMan said...
Monkeyboy said...
It's not the "pro-gun" side that claims that a firearm is anything else than a tool.

We regulate the hell out of most 'dangerous' products, why not a product that is designed to kill?

They're already regulated.
I'll ask you again.
What do you propose to do that doesn't violate the 2nd?

buwaya said...

Australia is a different place.
I have a large number of relatives there, and I used to work for a software startup out of Brisbane, so I speak with some knowledge.

Guns were never quite the thing in Australia, and were always more heavily regulated, mere much less common, and there really isn't that much scope for hunting or gun ownership there vs the US. An uncle used to hunt, and had a couple of .303 bolt rifles for that, but they had to be licensed, there were never more than a few thousand regular hunters, etc. Not like in the USA where this type was never registered, there are many millions of hunters and always have been, because there is just a whole lot more game here, and its more accessible.

As for the Australian character, despite the Crocodile Dundee image, it isn't quite what you think. Australians are much less "rebellious" than Americans, and IMHO have considerably less personal initiative. They are FAR more respectful of rules.

History is a pretty interesting guide. Despite the image, again, Australians did not win independence with guns, all their rebellions, such as they were, were crushed. There is no confidence or expectation on the part of the typical person that his rights count. They will complain, but will not fight.

And, being a lot of years out of date, my impression is that there aren't the terrific cultural divides as in the US. Australia is a very very homogenous place by US standards. The "rich peasant" factor in US politics is much less intense - i.e., the corrosive, poisonous hate of the aristocrats vs the public that doesn't know its place. And of course vice versa. In America both sides are beginning to think the others aren't even human.

The symbolic point of guns in America is that the proper American cannot be bullied by the authorities, because he always has the option to rebel. Not with guns necessarily, but that gun in the back of the closet is also in the back of the mind. The recent explosion in gun and ammunition sales is driven, I think, by exactly that subconscious idea. The public, or a very large part of it, is preparing for rebellion, mostly unconsciously, as a response to a perception of oppression. And the unconscious impulse is to prepare for war with a military weapon, hence the tremendous increase in sales of this sort of gun. Note that in more "conservative" times, these types of guns were available but not terribly popular. Today is different. Military-class weapon making has turned into a folk industry. This is unprecedented.

The anti-gun side is also, I think, reacting with a subconscious understanding that this is a symbol of rebellion. The fear is rarely expressed openly, but it is evident on occasion. It is the fear of a ruling class that the peasants may revolt, or the hate of one tribe against the symbols of the other.

Both sides are playing with fire. Hate is piling on hate and it may get to an explosion.

Now, being a foreigner, a San Franciscan, and gunless, I suppose I will have to find another manner of rebellion. I am considering taking up smoking. A good cigar in the right place, in San Francisco, is likely to put more noses out of joint than a gun. Viva la revolucion !

HoodlumDoodlum said...

AReasonableMan said...Taxing the crap out of guns and ammunition as was/is done with cigarettes is a place to start. Making fun of gun owners is another place to start.

Taxing the crap out of guns & ammo like we do with cigarettes would certainly reduce gun ownership and use at the margin, but I think you're likely to run into Constitutional problems getting those burdensome taxes passed & upheld. If we added a $5k tax on to every surgical abortion it'd probably reduce the number of those performed (legally), but I doubt that tax would be Constitutionally permissible. If your plan is to build popular support for your side to the point that you'll pass an Amendment (new or just striking the 2nd) then that's not a problem...but surprisingly few anti-gun folks talk seriously about a new Amendment.

Making fun of people you want to marginalize (or people whose behaviors you want to marginalize) could certainly work to reduce some behavior--the story of how Superman (radio and comicbooks) helped "bring down" the KKK is a great example. You'll need to be sure, though, that the group you're trying to marginalize is small and/or susceptible to the type of pressure you want to bring. With cigarette smoking you had a Media establishment that was strongly pro-smoking and turned to mildly anti-smoking, which when combined with publicly-funded publicity campaigns helped change perceptions over time. With guns I think it's fair to say that the Media is already pretty strongly anti-gun (w/r/t US personal ownership) so that's already baked into the cake. I don't know how much more strongly you'd like Jon Stewart or SNL or the NYTimes (or whomever) to ridicule the idea of gun ownership and gun owners, but I doubt there's much more they can do.

Additionally firearm ownership, similar to abortion, is something that you can keep private in a way it's difficult to do for smoking--one can be a gun owner and have very few interactions with others on that basis, whereas with smoking you have to keep buying the things, etc. There are allegedly large numbers of women who are nominally anti-abortion but have had their own (or at least lots who want to retain the option) and there are probably plenty of people who own a firearm (or want to be able to own one) who are nominally anti-gun. It's difficult to specifically target those people with anti-gun ownerhsip campaigns, though, while it's easy to target people who have to buy cigarettes every few days.

At some point we will begin to converge with the norms in European and Anglo countries.
Maybe, but 1. if that's true what're you so upset about, in the long run you're gonna win and 2. trying to force people to accept today what you're sure they'll agree with in the future isn't a recipe for winning hearts & minds nor for settling contentious questions "in the long run." Many people have pointed out that prior to Roe much of the nation had or was moving towards having legal abortion of some form/for some circumstances. Using something like Roe, though, instead of continuing to convince the wider population that you're right might just end up making it harder to achieve your ultimate goal.

mikeyes said...

I know that ARM is mostly trolling, but guns are highly regulated from manufacture to initial sale by numerous federal laws and they continue to be regulated by state and other entities after the sale. They are subject to special taxes and there are numerous restrictions on ownership in spite of it being an enumerated civil right to bear arms. So, in light of this, we regulate the hell out of ownership as it is. In fact, can you name me one product that has as meny laws related to it? And if you can, is there a fundamental right ot the ownership of those products?

The Obama administration had a study done on gun violence (by the Institute of Medicine) published in 2013 that points this out.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...
1. if that's true what're you so upset about


I think you have me confused with someone else.

2. trying to force people to accept today what you're sure they'll agree with in the future

I don't think the people on this forum or like-minded people will ever change their minds. The opinions of older people don't really count. It is the future generations that count and I would guess they will look more like Europe and Anglo countries. Of course, the country could always devolve into Central America, with heavily armed neighborhoods and gangs if guns continue to play a major role. I certainly hope that this does not happen.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

buwaya said...
there really isn't that much scope for hunting or gun ownership there vs the US.


I have lived in Australia and have relatives there. I have gone hunting in Australia, only rabbits, which are a scourge. Australia has become a very urbanized country during my lifetime, which limits both the number of hunters and the enthusiasm for guns. It has also become a very diverse society, with high immigration rates, certainly as diverse as many regions of the US, although not the entire country, which is considerably larger.

The US is also becoming increasingly urbanized, a trend that will similarly limit the enthusiasm for gun ownership. Even in the exurbs, where I now live, the few hunters are a pathetic bunch, limited to small areas and short seasons. It doesn't look like either much fun or very manly, wandering around in what are essentially the backyards of suburban houses. One of my sons used to go to a shooting range. Again, it was a bedraggled affair, not self-evidently the path to the future. He took up mixed martial arts instead. Men will always find new ways to be aggressive and manly, with or without guns, they are just more likely to survive without them.

Rusty said...

It' not about hunting, ARM.
I;m just going to presume you have no answers other than,"guns are bad, mkay."

Rusty said...

Guns don't make you manly, ARM. Nor do they make my daughters any less or more feminine. Try again.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

"We regulate the hell out of most 'dangerous' products, why not a product that is designed to kill?"

Personal safety is one of those things for which authority, but not responsibility, can be delegated. To what extent are you willing that another person restrict the means (e.g. "products") with which you defend your personal safety?

buwaya said...

Shooting ranges in the SF Bay Area, the few there are, even in this place, are mobbed with lines out the door on popular days. Like I said, shooting here is very inconvenient.
I used to take the boys sometimes, renting pistols, (every boy has to learn), but I gave up on it eventually.

And the sheer, incredible volume of sales argues against the "dying off" idea. It is just plain amazing. I can get into any meeting of blue/light blue collar workers and I find just about every man there has guns and most have the ugly sort of rifles we are talking about.
Was definitely not so 20 years ago.

Its not really about being manly - the US thing is cultural and political.

These are tribal symbols. An attack on guns is a personal attack on all gun owners, and there are more every day. Worse, it is an attack on their fathers and grandfathers, tribe and clan.

Drago said...

To return to the topic at hand, ARMeltdown continues to fight the "good" fight in keeping attention off the clear Islamic threat to western civilization.

Why is that you might ask?

Who can understand the delusions and evident self-regard the left possesses?

Drago said...

ARMeltdown: "Of course, the country could always devolve into Central America, with heavily armed neighborhoods and gangs if guns continue to play a major role. I certainly hope that this does not happen."

You can not fix this level of self-imposed ignorance:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/11/cartel-hitman-testifies-to-800-murders-daily-quotas-at-kingpin-trial/

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/04/mexican-cartel-georgia/

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/14/18959838-self-identified-enforcer-for-mexican-cartels-confesses-to-more-than-30-murders-police-say?lite

Leftists will always find new ways to deny reality, with or without shame, they are just more likely to continue spreading their delusions without it.

Big Mike said...

I'm all in favor of Democrats pushing gun control with all their might. The 114th Congress is merely tied for fourth in all time numbers of Republicans in the House of Representatives. Surely if the Democrats push hard enough surely the 115th can smash the old record of 300 seats into smithereens. Heck, if the Dems push hard enough the record-setting 59th Congress under Teddy Roosevelt (250 out of 386 total seats, or 69.8%) can be beaten. Go for it, guys!

For myself I don't see how any reasoning person could conclude that gun control would work any better in the 21st century United States than Prohibition of alcohol or prohibition of addictive drugs in the early and late 20th century worked. If people have to acquire guns illegally then they'll acquire them the same way Syed Farook and his bride did -- illegally.

No, ARM, I do not regard you as being either reasoning or reasonable.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

AReasonableMan said... It is the future generations that count and I would guess they will look more like Europe and Anglo countries. Of course, the country could always devolve into Central America, with heavily armed neighborhoods and gangs if guns continue to play a major role. I certainly hope that this does not happen.

Yeah maybe, but we as a nation have resisted being like Europe and the Anglo countries in a lot of ways for a lot of years already, so who knows. I agree most of our elites and political class members certainly want to make us more like those countries in many ways!

Speaking of the young, though, it's funny that you bring up Central America, since a majority of people in America under the age of 1 are Hispanic/Latino today...and almost all of our population growth is coming (and is projected to come) from immigrant. Most of those immigrants are coming from, well, non-European and non-Anglo, let's say, countries. Many of their countries of origin have very restrictive gun laws, of course, but as you point out that doesn't necessarily translate into a lack of gun ownership and/or use! I'm not sure how those demographic facts play into your certainty that the future of the US is like today's Europe, but there it is.

Original Mike said...

"Even in the exurbs, where I now live, the few hunters are a pathetic bunch, limited to small areas and short seasons. It doesn't look like either much fun or very manly, "

If you Neanderthals would only live an ARM-approved life all would be well. You know, diversity.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Strangely enough, ARM, support for 2nd amendment rights has increased dramatically in the US in the last three decades.
Once again, ARM, reality is where I am standing, and you are way, way out there someplace else.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

That's excessive exacerbation.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

Laslo Spatula said...
Sad, but the people who were shot and killed would probably have said -- on the day before -- that their co-worker Farook was one of the 'Good' Muslims.

At least one of their coworkers said as much, in different words.

Bruce Hayden said...

ARM - Not actually more urban, but maybe less rural. Despite so many on the left wanting to push everyone into central cities, it just isn't happening. Sure, right after college, but then, once they get bored of the filthy, crowded, noisy inner cities, and when they can afford it, people tend to move to your exurbs.

So, yes, fewer people, comparatively, are probably hunting, but that doesn't mean fewer people are shooting. Rather, I think that what we are seeing much more of is shooting for the sake of just shooting. Shooting as a sport, really unconnected to hunting. And, yes, it can be a lot of fun. I load up 100 rounds in magazines, because if I don't, I can easily shoot twice that much in one outing.

Beldar said...

I suppose that makes Cassidy a nattering nabob of negativism, huh?

(RIP, Bill Safire, wordsmith.)

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

mikeyes said...
"...the careless use of CCW like that moron George Zimmerman..." How was that careless? He took one shot, and he made it count.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

buwaya said...
I can get into any meeting of blue/light blue collar workers and I find just about every man there has guns and most have the ugly sort of rifles we are talking about.
Was definitely not so 20 years ago.

These are tribal symbols. An attack on guns is a personal attack on all gun owners, and there are more every day. Worse, it is an attack on their fathers and grandfathers, tribe and clan.


I don't disagree with this but the future does not belong to these people and they know it. Hunter Thompson once wrote about the Hells Angels that they seemed mean and powerful on the one hand but at the same time they recognized their powerlessness as outsiders in society. We have created a lot of outsiders through our decisions on how to organize our economy.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Do you need a 2016 calendar, ARM?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

"A General Social Survey, which has been tracking gun ownership in surveys since 1872, has found that 31 percent of households reported owning a gun in 2014, which is down from approximately half of households in the late 1970's and early 1980's."

Gun ownership is in a slow but steady decline. The people who own guns now own a lot of guns, partly because they are cheap, but votes are counted per person not per gun.

Paul said...

Gun control or not, expect more terrorist of ISIS leaning immigrants. Pipe bombs, pressure cooker bombs, car bombs (using fertilizer and diesel), propane cylinder bombs, gasoline (fire) bombs, cars ran into crowds, acid bombs, etc.

Yet nutjobs like Obama still want more Muslim immigrants.

He just might cost you your life.

Aren't you happy you voted for him? Bet those people shot dead at that party are.

Sydney said...

I have witnessed a different kind of pivot in the past two days, waking up to NPR on the clock radio. (I admit I don't listen to the channel at any other time- only if it is what the radio was set to somehow, usually by someone else.) Yesterday morning, they led with the story of the San Bernadino shootings, assured us it wasn't terrorism, then segued into the Colorado shootings, which they described as the "Planned Parenthood shootings," and which were portrayed as motivated by ideology. Today- same thing. Even though there have been news reports that the woman in the San Bernadino shootings pledged her allegiance to ISIS on social media, and there has been no evidence at all reported that the mentally ill man in Colorado belonged to any anti-abortion groups. All I can say is, this is not how you build trust and confidence in the news business.

mikeyes said...

Char Char Binks,
It is clear that you have not taken a comprehensive CCW course, read a book on the subject or if you have, did not paid attention. I carry every day and, because of certain experiences, know that shooting another humnan being starts a chain of events that never leaves you and almost never leads to a happy ending personally or psychologically.

Zimmerman violated every tenet of self defense and concealed carry: he voluntarily entered into confrontation in spite of Neigborhood Watch rules and he failed to call for help.His actions, while deemed legal, placed him in exactly the situation that they warn you against in all the classes I have been in and now he is the subject of continued scrutiny, living a life in a fish bowl that can't be happy. Had he followed the common sense rules of CCW, none of this would have happened, but decided differently and is paying the price

Concealed carry has great responsibilities. It is not your duty to protect property, especially not your own, just because you have one. CCW is there for personal and family protection but the first rules are to try and never be in a situation that would cause you harm and if you are, run like hell. It's only when you have no choice that you use deadly force. What George Zimmerman did was not illegal, but it was stupid and he is paying the price for it in spite of being warned (in the CCW class he took) that it would happen.

mikeyes said...

ARM,

It doesn't take much research to see that the General Survey Study you quote indirectly is probably an outlier. A similar PEW poll in that period found that there is a 42 percent gun ownership and Gallup reported the same thing. In addition, the Joyce Foundation, and anti-gun organization, funds the GSS.

The assumption made is that while there are increasing numbers of guns sold legally in the States that they are being bought by fewer people, an assumption not reflected in fact, just an assumption. In addition there are increasingly larger numbers of CCW permits, FOID cards (the onwership pernits required by Illinois) have risen by 300,000 in the four year period prior to this survey in spiite of GSS claims that IL has fewer gun owners according to their survey. (Illinios Stae police records.)

This is a good example of cherry picking facts to suit your beliefs. The Institute of Medicine/National Academy of Science report on gun violence that was commisioned in 2013 (by the Obama administration) used the Gallup poll as the standard. The Institute study is a must read for all sides of the gun issue as it tries to be as objective as possible. There is clearly a gun violence problem, but the low hanging fruit solutions offered by the left have not been shown to be effective. If you are really interested in this problem and just a troll, then you should read it and try to look for reasonable and workable answers that involve both sides. This is not a simple issue and there are multiple factors to consider if it is to be dealt with effectively.

MAJMike said...

The LibCong are Hell bent to eliminate our ability to defend ourselves. Whether it be against terrorists, common criminals, or an abusive Government. The Liberal Fascist craves power like a fat man craves a Krispy Kreame doughnut and they see Constitutional limits as mere bumps in the road to total control.

As commented earlier, the main question should be is why no one at the gathering had the ability to return fire. Armed citizens may have ended the attack quickly with little loss of innocent life. Its an idea long overdue for implementation.

Rusty said...


ARMeltdown: "Of course, the country could always devolve into Central America, with heavily armed neighborhoods and gangs if guns continue to play a major role. I certainly hope that this does not happen."

And yet that hasn't happened. Despite the fact that 42% of American households have at least one firearm.
However. There are neighborhoods in Chicago, Detroit, Boston, Baltimore, etc that the police dare not go because they are heavily out gunned. On the other hand there are suburban neighborhoods close to you where the police are heavily out gunned as well.
Gun ownershipisn'r going to go away. I'll go as far to say that there isn't going to be any more "sensable" regulations until the people that own the guns decide there should be more "sensable" regulations. Which, somehow, the people who wish to control firearms cannot articulate.
Odd.That.

Big Mike said...

I don't disagree with this but the future does not belong to these people and they know it.

ARM's favorite song

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

mikeyes said...
It doesn't take much research to see that the General Survey Study you quote indirectly is probably an outlier. A similar PEW poll in that period found that there is a 42 percent gun ownership and Gallup reported the same thing.


A long running tracking poll is more likely to give an accurate representation of trends, which is what I was referencing.

mikeyes said...

ARM,

The GSS survies have always shown lower numbers whereas the PEW and Gallup polls show not ony higher numbers, but a much slower rate of decrease. For example, the Gallup poll, which has numbers from 1960 show an overall lowering of 8% in that time which is almost a flat line. The GSS also was unable to reflect the absolute facts of the IL state FOID numbers even though theya re based in Chicago.

Tom Smith, the director of GSS, has been quoted as saying that a significant drop in gun ownership would propmpt politicians to enact gun control laws. It is unlikely that GSS is an unbiased source.

Rusty said...

There is also the fact that responders don't always answer questions truthfully. Especially if answering what the respondant thinks are personal questions. Which is irrelevent to the conversation because it matters little if 80 million citizens are armed or 100 million. The numbers preclude any efforts to control, regulate or confiscate. The latter being the ultimate goal.
There are no "reasonable" regulations that the majority of firearm owners will agree with.