Domestic Right Wing Terrorists!

[nathanm]

So, like the rest of us, you know what you don't want but don't have something else to propose as a replacement.

No replacement is necessary, because we are also doing the things that actually help prevent terrorism, as evidenced by its rarity in this country. Unfortunately, those things that we are doing to stop al-Qaeda style terrorism from abroad don't do jack smile to keep racists and xenophobes from killing people. The only solution there is to make it socially unacceptable to hold and promote racist and xenophobic views, rather than filling radio and TV with scum as we do now.

Good police work also helps. Rarely do morons like this not blab about their plans beforehand. One can unobtrusively observe from a distance and figure out if they're all talk or if they're actually dangerous. The massive (automated) surveillance state is not necessary. Nor is the idiocy that is airport security, but that's a rant for another thread.

[Conan71]

I can't claim to have a solution to the problem of gun violence.  It's an especially intractable one because it lies at the intersection of both constitutional rights and privacy.  If we believe that the Second Amendment gives each of us the right to keep and bear arms, and we ignore the first part of that badly constructed sentence (something we can and have argued previously), then the only way to prevent some of these violent crimes is to have government surveillance of all our communications and government access to our medical, financial, and employment records.  That's far too intrusive, i think, and it's very unlikely that anyone in our government would propose to do that.

So we have two immutable positions, one that says our Second Amendment rights will not change, and another that says our right to privacy is equally sacrosanct.  Meanwhile, as we're stuck between these two rocks, people will die.

Frankly, I'm at a loss here.  That's the problem as I see it, yet I cannot see any way to overcome it that doesn't involve a re-interpretation of the Second Amendment or giving up any pretense to privacy.

I'm with you.  I'm at a loss as to what the correct answer is. 

Of course, the first response when we see senseless acts like this is to try and figure out a way the government can protect us better from such random acts of violence.  We can retract guns, restrict diesel fuel and nitrogen fertilizer, give everyone a dull knife, a musket with a few lead balls and several grams of gun powder.

The unfortunate reality, is people like this asshat in Wisconsin or the one in Colorado, or the one in Arizona would figure out a way to cause mass harm to people, if that is their intent.  If weapons had not been available, the white supremacist could simply drive his truck into the middle of a crowd leaving the temple.

You simply can't legislate the crazy out of people.  There's intent and obviously some sort of mental illness which causes people to do this, not weapons being plentiful.  

[Hoss]

I'm with you.  I'm at a loss as to what the correct answer is. 

Of course, the first response when we see senseless acts like this is to try and figure out a way the government can protect us better from such random acts of violence.  We can retract guns, restrict diesel fuel and nitrogen fertilizer, give everyone a dull knife, a musket with a few lead balls and several grams of gun powder.

The unfortunate reality, is people like this asshat in Wisconsin or the one in Colorado, or the one in Arizona would figure out a way to cause mass harm to people, if that is their intent.  If weapons had not been available, the white supremacist could simply drive his truck into the middle of a crowd leaving the temple.

You simply can't legislate the crazy out of people.  There's intent and obviously some sort of mental illness which causes people to do this, not weapons being plentiful.  

Being a gun owner and soon-to-be-registered-conceal-carry-permit-owner, I'm a little split on this.

I don't mind having the right to bear arms.  We are reserved it in the 2nd Amendment.  Did the framers really think we'd start concocting machines that could spit 60 rounds in a minute and hold 100 rounds or more?

Did they really think we'd need AKs or AR15s to hunt for our food?

I don't mind people owning the ARs/AKs, but how about limiting the number of rounds these things can fire at one time?  Or even restrict or ban the use of 30 round clips in a .40 cal.  That's where I see it, and I'm sure many would disagree.

I think if you carry a .40 or a .45 and can't get the job done with even a 15 round magazine, you don't even need to be carrying a firearm.

[nathanm]

I think if you carry a .40 or a .45 and can't get the job done with even a 15 round magazine, you don't even need to be carrying a firearm.

This times 100.

[Conan71]

Being a gun owner and soon-to-be-registered-conceal-carry-permit-owner, I'm a little split on this.

I don't mind having the right to bear arms.  We are reserved it in the 2nd Amendment.  Did the framers really think we'd start concocting machines that could spit 60 rounds in a minute and hold 100 rounds or more?

Did they really think we'd need AKs or AR15s to hunt for our food?

I don't mind people owning the ARs/AKs, but how about limiting the number of rounds these things can fire at one time?  Or even restrict or ban the use of 30 round clips in a .40 cal.  That's where I see it, and I'm sure many would disagree.

I think if you carry a .40 or a .45 and can't get the job done with even a 15 round magazine, you don't even need to be carrying a firearm.

Restrict away.  Only people like you and I who are interested in staying within the law will observe it. 

That's the point, how is the government planning on rounding up all the millions of 30 round mags out there?

[Teatownclown]

Restrict away.  Only people like you and I who are interested in staying within the law will observe it. 

That's the point, how is the government planning on rounding up all the millions of 30 round mags out there?

There you go again. Why do you hate government when it comes to protecting it's populace from within. I never see you posting anti government comments when it comes to the military.


James Holmes' Psychiatrist Contacted University Police Weeks Before Movie-Theater Shooting: ABC Exclusive
http://abcnews.go.com/US/james-holmes-psychiatrist-contacted-university-police-weeks-movie/story?id=16943858

We always loved to have the campus cops show up...they had no power to bust us.

It turns out Holmes's psychiatrist (U COLO.) contacted campus police weeks before shooting. Pass a law that as soon as something like this is reported it goes straight to the FBI. Do this  FIRST so the info can be in the nics system.

That is "reasonable gun control."

I think you just need to be lucky and to lower your exposure to gun nutz flipping.

[nathanm]

That's the point, how is the government planning on rounding up all the millions of 30 round mags out there?

You don't have to. You seem to expect instant gratification and perfection from government. You don't get that from any other large organization (and probably not even from yourself), so why do that? Attrition will take care of the problem over time, just as it took care of fully automatic weapons being used more than extremely rarely in crime in the US. Now they're really effing expensive, so nobody bothers.

We have to start somewhere. And by that I don't mean "start taking away all the guns". I mean start making it harder for people to outfit themselves with weaponry really only useful for criminal activity by making it more expensive. On the other hand, I'd be perfectly happy if low-end decent handguns, rifles, and shotguns were even cheaper than they are now.

[Hoss]

Restrict away.  Only people like you and I who are interested in staying within the law will observe it. 

That's the point, how is the government planning on rounding up all the millions of 30 round mags out there?

I never said they had to.  From this point forward would be just fine.

[RecycleMichael]

I think if you carry a .40 or a .45 and can't get the job done with even a 15 round magazine, you don't even need to be carrying a firearm.

Think zombie apocolypse. 15 rounds might not be enough.

[Hoss]

Think zombie apocolypse. 15 rounds might not be enough.

Believe it or not RM, they make rounds marketed as 'zombie killers'.

No joke.

[Gaspar]

Believe it or not RM, they make rounds marketed as 'zombie killers'.

No joke.

12ga rounds with #4 Copper shot and a slug at the base.  They'll put a hole about 6" wide in any zombie that may attack you!

[erfalf]

The only point I was making was that arms ownership is protected under the constitution where voting is not. Whatever you think it should be, voting is a privilege granted by the states.

But one seems to be protected with far more veracity than the other.

[Conan71]

You don't have to. You seem to expect instant gratification and perfection from government. You don't get that from any other large organization (and probably not even from yourself), so why do that? Attrition will take care of the problem over time, just as it took care of fully automatic weapons being used more than extremely rarely in crime in the US. Now they're really effing expensive, so nobody bothers.

We have to start somewhere. And by that I don't mean "start taking away all the guns". I mean start making it harder for people to outfit themselves with weaponry really only useful for criminal activity by making it more expensive. On the other hand, I'd be perfectly happy if low-end decent handguns, rifles, and shotguns were even cheaper than they are now.

I don't expect instant gratification out of government, it's far to big and dense to move quickly on anything.  I'm making the point that regardless of what ever ban or restrictions go into place, it does absolutely nothing to make the rest of us safer.  

I don't think you understand the mentality of people when they know something they want will be restricted or will become obsolete by mandate- they start to hoard items like ammunition or magazines, they don't simply disappear from the streets or people's homes.  If you can't buy the things you want, you steal them or buy them on the black market.  I seem to recall that McVeigh, et al were involved in a large scale theft of fire arms from someone either in Arkansas or Oklahoma.

There you go again. Why do you hate government when it comes to protecting it's populace from within. I never see you posting anti government comments when it comes to the military.


James Holmes' Psychiatrist Contacted University Police Weeks Before Movie-Theater Shooting: ABC Exclusive
http://abcnews.go.com/US/james-holmes-psychiatrist-contacted-university-police-weeks-movie/story?id=16943858

We always loved to have the campus cops show up...they had no power to bust us.

It turns out Holmes's psychiatrist (U COLO.) contacted campus police weeks before shooting. Pass a law that as soon as something like this is reported it goes straight to the FBI. Do this  FIRST so the info can be in the nics system.

That is "reasonable gun control."

I think you just need to be lucky and to lower your exposure to gun nutz flipping.

I fail to see how anything I said had to do with a hatred of government or anti-government.  How is stating they can't possibly round up all the large capacity mags a slam on government?  My point is simple: restrict or ban one popular weapon of choice and the criminally insane will simply find another way to make their way onto CNN 24/7. 

You can't legislate the crazy away, but I agree on one point you made: Anyone who states or indicates some sort of rage incident like the one in Colorado should be reported to the FBI pronto.

A well-armed populace seems to be the only logical solution for their own safety.

[Gaspar]

Magazines are not currently tracked or regulated, so here's what would happen.

1. Government makes big-donkey magazines illegal.
2. Retailers can no longer sell legally.
3. A $10 magazine is now worth up to $100 if sold illegally, making a million dollar industry into a billion dollar industry.
4. Lots of cheep magazines are smuggled around.
5. People are incarcerated for possession of big-donkey magazines even though they may have never committed another crime.
6. Criminals and nut-bags still have big-donkey magazines, because, well, they're criminals and nut-bags.
7. People will still die from criminals and nut-bags.

Sounds like lots of other things we have attempted to outlaw.

Our typical process:
1. Identify the problem.
2. Ignore the problem.
3. Treat the symptom because it's easier.
4. Be shocked because the problem persists.

[patric]

Was the Wisconsin gunman a product of his environment, or was being trained to kill just an enabler?

(after enlisting in the army at Fort Sill, Oklahoma,) Page did well enough after joining in 1992 to be assigned to a psychological operations unit at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The unit is regarded in the US military as exclusive.

But at the time Fort Bragg was also a recruiting centre for white hate groups including the National Alliance, once regarded as one of the most effective such groups and also among the most extreme because it openly glorified Adolf Hitler. The Military Law Review at the time reported that National Alliance flags were openly hung in barracks and, out of uniform, soldiers sported neo-Nazi symbols and played records about killing blacks and Jews.

"White supremacists have a natural attraction to the army," the Military Law Review said. "They often see themselves as warriors, superbly fit and well-trained in survivalist techniques and weapons and poised for the ultimate conflict with various races."

In 1995, two soldiers with the 82nd Airborne murdered a black couple in Fayetteville, the city neighbouring Fort Bragg, in a racially motivated attack.
Others serving at the base during the 1990s were arrested for hoarding ammunition in preparation for an attack on businesses, including media organisations, owned by African Americans and Jews. Soldiers were also arrested as members of skinhead gangs involved in assaults.

A former colleague in the psychological operations unit, Fred Allen Lucas, said that Page called him a "race traitor" for dating Latina women and took to calling other races "dirt people".
"It didn't matter if they were black, Indian, Native American, Latin – he hated them all," Lucas told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/07/wade-michael-page-wisconsin-shooting?newsfeed=true