Gabrielle Giffords Shot

[Clinton Huxley]

On a purely anecdotal basis, I've only been to the US twice and I was shot neither time.

[Coito ergo sum]

On a purely anecdotal basis, I've only been to the US twice and I was shot neither time.

Did you brandish your sidearm?

[Clinton Huxley]

On a purely anecdotal basis, I've only been to the US twice and I was shot neither time.

Did you brandish your sidearm?

There was a bit of brandishing.

[Coito ergo sum]

On a purely anecdotal basis, I've only been to the US twice and I was shot neither time.

Did you brandish your sidearm?

There was a bit of brandishing.

That's how you managed to survive your visit to 'merka....any furrener is shot on sight here, generally speaking. A bit of brandishing by an Anglo Saxon can make the locals think you are actually a 'merkin and they will leave you alone. It's not recommended that you have any sort of a tan, though, given the 'merkin propensities regarding the darkies.

[Clinton Huxley]

I event went on the Washington DC subway thing and I didn't get shot. Useless Merkins.

[Brian Peacock]

I see those nice people at the Westbourne Baptist Church want to picket the funerals.

Yeah, that'll help.

[Coito ergo sum]

I event went on the Washington DC subway thing and I didn't get shot. Useless Merkins.

You see - the thing is, some of you Europeans blend in, especially you limey blighters, because your hides are almost indistinguishable from most 'merkins. Like Canadians, you blend in with the general population, and move among us - almost with impunity - without being identifiable by our marksmen. Now, the Spanish and Italians are at greater risk, because they are easily confused with Mexicans.

[Coito ergo sum]

I see those nice people at the Westbourne Baptist Church want to picket the funerals.

Yeah, that'll help.

Now, if uncivil rhetoric led to violence, don't you think those fuckers would be dead already?

[JimC]

I agree. Surely there must be a way to reduce the weapon supply to the crazies ready to go postal. Otherwise, Americans will continue to pay a high price for their right to carry concealeable handguns (that being the relevent factor, not sporting rifles...)

Generally, you need a permit to carry concealed weapons. Since this fella bought his gun legally, there's not much that could be done about it. I mean - I suppose you could administer a psych test to everyone getting a gun, but given the lack of accuracy on those tests, I would imagine that they would be quite a blunt instrument. Alternatively, you could ban all guns smaller than a rifle. But, then again, Kennedy was shot with rifle....so, why allow rifles either/ Just ban them all.

One of your standard arguments against government control of anything is the "why stop there" approach, inviting the reader to think of government controls as an inevitable slide down a slippery slope. It is an emotive argument which adds little to the debate. It is perfectly possible to develop rational government controls which compromise between interest groups, but do not go further than is reasonable. Tighter controls on handgun ownership can be achieved without affecting ownership of sporting rifles; exactly how tight, and how owners are vetted needs careful thought. Sure, you will still get some rifle crime, but you could still get a real decrease in crime where the easy concealeability of handguns is the key.

I made no slippery slope argument. I'm not against gun regulation, anyway. So, what are you even talking about?

I guess it wasn't really a slippery slope argument, but I meant where you said "But, then again, Kennedy was shot with rifle....so, why allow rifles either/ Just ban them all." That added nothing sensible to the argument, which should be about how easily people can get and carry handguns...

The facts are: in Arizona as in every state, you need a permit to carry concealed weapons. Also - fact - Jared monster bought the gun legally. He passed the background check. If there is an alternative here other than banning the 9 mm handgun that would keep it from him, I'd love to hear it. And, the point is very clear that a guy who is good with guns could still buy a rifle.

So what is the argument?

"Standard argument?" I don't make slippery slope arguments when it comes to commercial regulation. I make arguments from reason - a regulation needs to make sense in terms of having a reasonable goal (that is within the government's lawful power) and then the mechanism or means used by the government must be reasonably related to achieving its goal.

From Mai's post a while back (an article from somewhere...)

Arizona law allows anyone to carry a gun in public if it’s in full view, making it what’s known as an open-carry state. Until recently, gun store owners say, it was common to see people carrying weapons in grocery stores or coffee shops. That’s less true today, because last year that state passed a law allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

Great timing, Arizona...

Here's an idea. Make it illegal to possess and carry a handun unless you go through a very rigorous vetting proceedure...

We will hear the usual screams of outrage about personal freedom here, but that cuts no ice with me. Increasingly, I wonder at how cut off from world opinion many Americans are. Almost universally, the world looks at gun crimes like those in the States, and looks at the absurd laxity of your gun laws, and the romantic illusions of wild-west freedom you cling to, and collectively rolls its eyes...

[Clinton Huxley]

Read something in the Guardian today about regulating extended clips. Said this chap had a clip with 33 bullets in it. If he'd only had 6 he would have needed to reload.

[JimC]

Read something in the Guardian today about regulating extended clips. Said this chap had a clip with 33 bullets in it. If he'd only had 6 he would have needed to reload.

The freedom to buy such clips is a direct facilitator of mass murder. Absolutely fucking crazy.

[Coito ergo sum]

Great timing, Arizona...

Here's an idea. Make it illegal to possess and carry a handun unless you go through a very rigorous vetting proceedure...

We will hear the usual screams of outrage about personal freedom here, but that cuts no ice with me. Increasingly, I wonder at how cut off from world opinion many Americans are. Almost universally, the world looks at gun crimes like those in the States, and looks at the absurd laxity of your gun laws, and the romantic illusions of wild-west freedom you cling to, and collectively rolls its eyes...

The "world?" Or, the few countries in western Europe?

As we discussed in detail above - the statistics in the US on intentional homicides, even with our "lax" gun laws, are far lower than most other countries, and lower than Europe as a whole (although the US is higher than western/central Europe).

Why isn't the world "rolling its eyes" at the intentional homicide rate in Mexico, which is 15 per 100,000 - three times that of the US rate of 5 per 100,000. Why are eyes not rolling on almost all of South and Central America, Africa, Eastern Europe and most of Asia?

The numbers relative to intentional homicides in the US are a testament, actually, to a country that can live with handguns readily available and still maintain quite near the middle of the pack in terms of actual killings overall.

[Coito ergo sum]

Read something in the Guardian today about regulating extended clips. Said this chap had a clip with 33 bullets in it. If he'd only had 6 he would have needed to reload.

The freedom to buy such clips is a direct facilitator of mass murder. Absolutely fucking crazy.

My gut tells me that there wouldn't be a constitutional impediment to a regulation of clip sizes like that. The individual right to keep and bear arms does not include the right to bear arms of all kinds, in all manners, in all places, for all purposes, without restriction.

I would, however, be interested in seeing if it matters - the evidence. I'm not big on symbolic laws. If there isn't a correlation between a reasonable goal to be achieved and the means adopted to achieve it, then I'd rather do something that works. I don't know how effective such a measure would be. But, I don't oppose it in principle.

[Brian Peacock]

It's like a fucking war out there...

Brady campaign to reduce gun violence >> >>

[Coito ergo sum]

It's like a fucking war out there...

Brady campaign to reduce gun violence >> >>

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) the estimate is about 52,447 deliberate gunshot wounds per year (or 0.017% of the population per year). Another 23,000 are accidental, nonfatal. Obviously, a "Brady Campaign" site would be interested in jacking the figures up. 7 gun homicides per every 100,000 in the US. The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides - so, they're going to not likely be saved by gun laws. Suicides will likely find another way to off themselves.