The Observation Deck

.

If the NRA types insist on their right to own assault weapons, so be it. Just make the sale/possession of ammunition for them illegal.

A few interesting reads:

When Your Town is Newtown
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324407504578183312848676912.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

Breaking the Gun Control Stalemate
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324407504578183392516362534.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

speaking of interesting reads...

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2012/12/14/ ... mon-sense/

As for the people against people violence, putting aside fairly anarchic places such as Brazil or Peru or Mexico, America still doesn’t even rank near the top of the list. The most violent place to live if you’re afraid of your fellow citizens is . . . drumroll please . . . England, a country with ferociously stiff gun control laws. (See the chart, above.) Incidentally, the violent crime rate in England increased dramatically from the moment the Labour government put extremely harsh gun-control laws in place. Not only was there more gun crime, there was more of every kind of crime. If you read the British papers, you learn that the Brits got very creative about violence, resorting with ferocity to knives, broken bottles, head stomps, drowning, choking, poisoning, etc. People who want to kill will kill.

http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/ ... e.html?m=1

I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am James Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.

Crime generally and violent/gun crime specifically are complex issues. Many factors are involved including both mental illness and gun availability. Since the UK violent crime rates are higher but their homicide rates are lower, that suggests to me that guns are in fact a much more efficient/lethal means. Personally, I'd much rather take my chances against a knife than a gun. Violent people will be violent (without help) but I don't think that means we need to provide them the most terrible tools on a silver platter.

I've gone on and on about this elsewhere but here are a few "interesting links":

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/1 ... ide_a.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... speed.html

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... estigation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tomtol ... 052010.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... morial.jpg

and a very "interesting read" from Facebook:

Apologies ahead of time but the constant barrage of stupidity over the last 24 hours has prompted me to address a couple things.

1: “Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.”

Yes. Thank you for adding such insight into a very difficult topic. Until your statement, I was under the impression that guns actually aimed and fired themselves. Now that you have informed me otherwise, I must change my view point and accept that guns are perfectly safe.

The reality is that guns do not kill people. Bullets kill people. Specifically, bullets fired from guns kill people. When we break that down we have two components: We have the intent and actions of the human and we have the tool.

While we certainly need to deal with our societal issues and mental health issues (which are obviously at the heart of all this), history and human nature shows us that there will always be people who snap, people who make bad decisions and people who are just terrible human beings. We cannot entirely stop those people from attempting to harm others, which brings us to the the “tool”.

This is where the idiotic argument that “if it wasn't a gun it would have been a rock” comes in but the simple fact is that VERY few people would be able to murder 30 people with a rock. In fact, they would probably not even be able to get past maiming one person before they were stopped. On the other hand, when a 20 something year old with no training or particular skill set can easily kill almost 30 people with an assault rifle, maybe that “tool” is far too powerful to make available.

GUNS =/= ROCKS

2: “It's our right.”

Technically it is and while I don't believe that the initial intentions of the founding fathers are represented by how guns are sold and used today, that is beside the point for this discussion. So yes, it IS our “right” but just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we SHOULD.

I have owned multiple weapons including sniper rifles and assault rifles. There was a time when we would shoot 4-5 times a week and collectively have 20-30 guns ranging from Ak's to Dragunovs out with us. Our studio was called “Full Clip Audio” and by every measure we were gun enthusiasts. I LOVE shooting and I am a responsible gun owner. What I also am is a rational person and while it sucks that I have to give them up, it couldn't be clearer that the fun I get out of them is NOT worth the absolute devastation that they cause to our society as a whole. I am simply not that selfish and anyone that screams “It's our right!” as children are gunned down is either an idiot, sociopathically selfish or both.

3: “We need them to protect us from the government.”

This is a simple one. If you believe that your small arms are going to protect you from Predator drones, tanks, stealth bombers and the US military then you are batshit crazy!

4: “If everyone was armed, we would be much safer.”

This is my favorite because it is also the most unbelievably idiotic. What people mean by this is that if everyone was armed, when a bad person started shooting innocent people, a good person could step up and shoot them. To be fair, there would be some cases where this would be true. In fact, maybe even in the case of the CT shooting this would be true. Maybe an armed and trained teacher would have been able to take him out and save many of the children. The problem is that these are only the tiny, isolated cases where it would make anything better.

If you are going to arm everyone with the intention of making things safer you have to look at the overall numbers. On the other side you have all of the innocent people who would be killed and just the true accidents alone would FAR outweigh the few cases where lives were saved.

Worse yet would be the number of murders committed by regular, non criminals simply in a moment of rage or frustration. We all have moments where for a split second we lose control and lash out. Since most of us are unarmed it usually results in punching someone or something, breaking something or releasing that burst of energy in some other way. In that split second, most people are capable of doing something as crazy as pulling a trigger but it only last such a short time that it never happens. Most of us are not going to go get or buy a gun, load it and shoot someone. You put a gun on everyones waist, one movement away and the entire equation changes.

Next up is fights or situations where people feel threatened. There is no better way to escalate an incident from a fist fight or even just a feeling of unease to a deadly situation than introducing guns. Add alcohol to the situation and it gets even worse.

Next we have the issue of innocent people being struck by bullets fired by well meaning people at legitimate targets and missing. The police are HIGHLY trained and disciplined yet people get hit by stray rounds from them all the time. Can you imagine if everyone was shooting at the guy robbing the store?

Lastly you have situations like the movie theater shooting or other mass shootings. The claim is that if people in the theater were armed, they would have been able to shoot and stop the shooter and I am here to tell you that if you TRULY think a bunch of people with guns in a dark movie theater where someone just opened fire would end up in anything but pure chaos with bullets flying everywhere then you are out of your mind. In reality, a LOT more people would be dead today.

In regards to safety, I have one question.....

How many crimes are or have EVER been stopped or prevented by assault rifles in the hands of the public?

All of these claims are bullshit. The fact is that people simply want guns because they can and because they like them. It comes down to the attitude of "You can't tell me what to do! I'm an American". These people are so foaming at the mouth screaming "It's MY right" that they give absolutely no thought to what actually IS right. No one in their right mind can actually believe that guns have made or will ever make a positive impact on our society so it comes down to ME,ME, ME and a lot of people refusing to give up their toys even at the expense of children's lives and our society as a whole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9LWioXY ... e=youtu.be


Interesting opinion on gun gun control....

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

A lot of data....

3: “We need them to protect us from the government.”

This is a simple one. If you believe that your small arms are going to protect you from Predator drones, tanks, stealth bombers and the US military then you are batshit crazy!

The Afghanistans have held their own against both the US and the former Soviet Union. Also, Al Qaeda has put up a resistance in Iraq and many other places with small arms versus stealth bombers, tanks and drone attacks. The Syrian rebels are also putting up a fight against a much superior armed government.

Jeff

Awesome post! I agree 100%.

I'd also like to add that mental illness IS an issue, but at present, we are unable to deal with it effectively in the US. First, access to care and ability to pay are still a problem. Second, once a person is 18, it is extremely difficult under current law to FORCE anyone into treatment or to take medication. In most cases, the mentally ill do not seek treatment on their own. Families with mentally ill members face an uphill battle to help the ill - they cannot force them to see a doctor. In fact, even when they DO consent to see someone, the family is unable to discuss any diagnosis or treatment program with the caregiver without permission from the patient, which is often not forthcoming. Many times the patient will lie about their behavior but the family has limited opportunity to discuss this with the therapists due to HIPAA laws.

Focusing away from guns and on the person is a futile exercise.

This is where the idiotic argument that “if it wasn't a gun it would have been a rock” comes in but the simple fact is that VERY few people would be able to murder 30 people with a rock. In fact, they would probably not even be able to get past maiming one person before they were stopped. On the other hand, when a 20 something year old with no training or particular skill set can easily kill almost 30 people with an assault rifle, maybe that “tool” is far too powerful to make available.

GUNS =/= ROCKS

You forgot about box cutters or a Ryder truck full of explosives..

Knife?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2 ... fe-attack/

Jim O'Bryan wrote:


.

I believe that the President has done an excellent job during this crisis. I was very moved by his reaction and speech on Friday.

Sandra Donnelly wrote:If the NRA types insist on their right to own assault weapons, so be it. Just make the sale/possession of ammunition for them illegal.

I don't believe that every person who wants to own an assualt weapon is capable or responsible enough to own one... Something needs to change..

lisa shaffer-gill wrote:Where is the common sense discussion about gun control? Certainly the there is a difference from banning all guns for all citizens and allowing easy access for most that include few checks. The NRA and gun supporters can't be so entrenched in their view point that they see that they see it as a "slippery slope" to ban assault weapons and make requirements to obtain a gun more strenuous.Who could possibly need a military style assault weapon? I would think that reasonable people who support gun ownership should be the loudest voices clamoring for more regulations to ensure the public's safety. And, I'm so tired of hearing , "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Give us all a break. If you walk into a room with intent to do harm, you can't do harm to 26 from the doorway with a knife.

Lisa, I use to be an NRA member and supporter (no more). It seemed to me that the majority of NRA members wanted change (in reference to assualt weapons) but the people at the top were to entrenched in their ways. A lot has changed since 1791. Assault Weapons should not be easily or readily available. The law must change..

Stephen Eisel wrote:

Sandra Donnelly wrote:If the NRA types insist on their right to own assault weapons, so be it. Just make the sale/possession of ammunition for them illegal.

I don't believe that every person who wants to own an assualt weapon is capable or responsible enough to own one... Something needs to change..

I would say the fact that someone needs one, indicates mental health issues.

That someone needs hundreds of rounds of ammunition, indicates mental health issues.

The need to defend the right to own these weapons...

Guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns.

Easy equation, get rid of one, or the other.

Seems like getting rid of assault weapons would be the sane first step.

FWIW

.

Certainly we are all shocked and saddened by the murders in Connecticut, with the possible exception of those who see this as an opportunity to advance their political positions.

But I think we should take the time to find out just what happened and, if possible, why. The media are babbling like idiots, and the "facts" reported one day are found to be untrue the next. I have a lot of respect for the authorities in Connecticut who have said it will take time to complete the investigation, and they will not release the results of that investigation until it is complete. I wish our politicians and media hacks were so wise.

Whatever comes of this investigation, and the political grandstanding that will accompany it, there are a few things that we should keep in mind. First, we should ask why some countries have a large number of weapons, with a very low crime rate, while others have a large number of weapons with a high crime rate. This is not as simple as it would appear, as some countries have their citizen soldiers keep their weapons in their homes. Is this to be counted as gun ownership or not.

Second. is appreciation for a fine piece of machinery, such as a gun, evidence of mental imbalance? I would say no. There are plenty of target shooters, and even hunters, who are stable. I know that Mr. O'Bryan asserts otherwise, but I think he is often irrational in his postings, and if we were to lock up the lunatic fringe, he would be among the first to go.

Third, I think it is common among tyrannical regimes that the public is to be disarmed. A dictator wants to have all the guns himself.

And fourth, it is far from clear that the government could seize all weapons, and their attempts to control guns have been far from successful. Recall some years ago the ban on so-called assault weapons (they didn't actually ban assault weapons; they banned scary-looking weapons, but they did their best) that was so ineffective it was abandoned.

There are certainly other factors that should be considered, such as the liberal attempt to deny certain citizens the right to assemble and to speak on political issues, but I have to get out to the range to keep up my skills.