December 19, 2012

Gun control and the "common sense" meme.

I got 19,300 results from a Google news search for "common sense" and "Sandy Hook."

To be fair, not all of the "common sense" is a characterization of gun regulation proposals. Here's "Parenting common sense and solace," for example. And here's one referring to "the common-sense procedures" that schools can put in place — and that in fact were in place at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But most of them seem to be about "common sense" gun control.

Why is "common sense" the meme of choice?

1. The massacre itself feels senseless, and we want things to make sense. Our fervent desire for sense about what happened in the past makes us amenable to related ideas for making sense. Politicians and policymakers step forward to fulfill/manipulate this need for meaning.

2. To say that this "sense" is "common" is to say: a. It's easy, relax, and see what is right in front of your eyes, and b. This conversation is over, and only weird/bad people are cluttering it with other ideas. "Common sense," by offering closure and comfort, seems well-meaning and helpful, but it is also manipulative and power-enhancing.

3. "Common sense" says: I'm moderate. I'm not about banning and confiscating guns, but doing a few modest things that will constrain the bad people of this world without burdening the good people (like you). In that, it's similar to "balanced approach," which is getting a workout in connection with the "fiscal cliff" negotiations. Those who want more taxes — only for the bad guys, not for you! — want to look sensible and moderate. It's those other people who are unbalanced.

4. "Common sense" is a quintessentially American frame of mind. It was the title of the pamphlet Thomas Paine wrote in 1775, stirring up revolutionary fervor. It was completely incendiary and treasonous. And it led to quite a bit of gun violence.
There were those in high places who, while in agreement with Paine's sentiments, voiced criticism of his method. John Adams, ... in his Thoughts on Government wrote that Paine's ideal sketched in Common Sense was "so democratical, without any restraint or even an attempt at any equilibrium or counter poise, that it must produce confusion and every evil work."
Ah! So balanced approach has deep roots too. We are a pragmatic people, and we like practical proposals. We're amenable to arguments framed as balanced and common sense. But if we are indeed practical, we know these are propaganda words, and we look on them with suspicion.

92 comments:

Seeing Red said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

Again, CDC estimates that MSM account for just 2% of the US population, but accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in 2009. And, since the epidemic began, almost 300,000 MSM with AIDS have died, including an estimated 6,863 in 2009.

Gay male sex has killed far more people than semi-automatic rifles in mass shootings.

We need some common sense gay sex legislation here.

Seeing Red said...

Is there an argument to be made that if we legalized drugs, gun stats would fall?

A lot of those stats are because of the drug war & turf protection.




We are not a practical people anymore, private parts rule now.

EMD said...

A lot of those stats are because of the drug war & turf protection.

BANG!



Oops. I mean (bang). Sorry for being so insensitive.

SJ said...

And here I thought it was common sense that a gun is only as dangerous as the person holding it.

Am I uncommon in this?

Mitchell the Bat said...

I'd focus on the word "common."

The idea is to discourage nonconformity.

EMD said...

From Tapper:

POTUS this morning will announce that @VP Biden will spearhead an interagency process to formulate policies in the aftermath of #Newtown


CHAMPIONSHIP!






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

Are there any sweeter words to the human ear than
"spearhead an interagency process to formulate policies?"

Matthew Sablan said...

It's a nice tactic to immediately force your opponent on the defensive. Heck, I used it all the time in Model UN, Youth in Government and mock trial as a kid because if someone wasn't paying attention, you smuggled a bunch of assertions right in under their nose.

EMD said...

Stupid question: Why aren't single-level school classrooms equipped with an open-from-the-inside only access door to allow children to escape the confines of a small, closed space?

Once a shooter is inside, why not disperse the targets outside?

Also, I've noticed that my children's school office has windows that look out onto/into the entry area, so they can see anyone coming.







DADvocate said...

In this circumstance they're trying to advance a nonsensical argument by calling it common sense. For the the leftie libs it's a true statement. Nonsensical reasoning is common amongst them. Just read our resident lefties (garage, shitoh, inga, etc) comments.

gadfly said...

Throughout American history we have gone from ignoring crazies to incarcerating them in asylums and most recently to turning them all loose to prey upon the people who want their votes on election day.

When was it that "Common Sense" came into play?

traditionalguy said...

Juries love the "common sense" argument. It is a claim that a case is simple and turns on one factor; such as, human greed.

Under the group think for banning law abiding gun owners has always been the claim of a right to live in and among safe people. That is wisdom itself.

We ignore the bad areas of town that have a murder or two a day in commission of robberies or enforcement of drug dealers monry relationships that is unavailable in a court of law.

But we cannot ignore the schizophrenic breaks in early 20 year olds facing being turned out into a world the fear and have no tool to handle.

Common sense is to arm the entry guards at the metal detectors at schools. etc. That's what the court houses all do to protect the Judges and the DAs.

Lawyers can get photo IDs to avoid the line, but not all court houses and not under all administrations of Sheriffs...and never in the Federal Fortress. At the Federal Courthouse an attorney can go through a lengthy process and get a photo ID card that ONLY allows them to carry their cell phones past the militant and no nonsense Marshalls. The metal detector line is still imposed on us dangerous officers of the court with 41 years of experience.

F said...

The use of the term "common sense" is an effort to gain the moral high ground. It paints current gun laws as uncommon and inadequate while making new laws seem unthreatening. It is a rhetorical device to defang the other side in the debate over increased gun control. And we all know, gun control is not about guns; it is about control.

junyo said...

Is there an argument to be made that if we legalized drugs, gun stats would fall?

There's an obvious and common sense argument to be made there. Think anyone is going to make it?

There was a study last year that said that schools are safer for kids than home and playgrounds, even factoring in these tragedies. The average child will be exposed to a school shooting once every 6,000 years or so. We'd save more children annually by outlawing cars. But we're not even ever going to discuss the actual risk probability and ROI. We're going to scream "BABYKILLER! BABYKILLERZ!" until politicians cave. Because we're not a nation that lets facts or rationality get in the way of emotional reactions.

Wally Kalbacken said...

I'm all for severe restraints on the dangerously mentally ill before I see any further infringement of rights under the 2nd Amendment.

garage mahal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mr. D said...

Common sense, common knowledge, common courtesy — all aren’t especially common.

edutcher said...

People from Mark Twain and HL Mencken (and probably more than a few before them)have repeatedly reminded us that common sense is one of the most uncommon things around.

When Ann says, "'Common sense' says: I'm moderate.", that's a misnomer IMHO. Someone who invokes "Common sense" usually is saying, "I'm smarter than most". It's the old wheeze about being able to see the forest for the trees.

In this case, it's also about being independent-minded enough not to be swept along with the emotion of the moment.

Seeing Red said...

Well, since it's about control, maybe we should have papers crossing each state's border.

Since all our kids belong to us and everything.

BDNYC said...

Funny how the left disproportionately plays these word games.
"Forward!" (to disagree is to go backwards)
"Progressive" (to disagree is to regress)
"Common sense" (to disagree is to be senseless)
"Balanced approach" (to disagree is to be unbalanced)

Nonapod said...

Obviously because we all know that in places all around the world where ownership of semi automatic assault weapons by the general populace is prohibited that no one has ever gets killed by a person using one.

Seeing Red said...

"meaningful"

Tank said...

Often, when people talk about using common sense, they are really talking about (1) restricting your freedom and/or (2) infringing or taking away your rights.

Marshal said...

Why is "common sense" the meme of choice?

The phrase preemptively de-legitimizes opposing ideas. Perhaps this is a combination of 2 & 3.

Seeing Red said...

Someone might want to check out I think it's Brazil. They had this gun discussion. Gave the UN fits. LOLOL

Why don't I have a right to protect myself?

EDH said...

Stop Making Sense!

Psycho Killer

I can't seem to face up to the facts
I'm tense and nervous and I
Can't relax
I can't sleep 'cause my bed's on fire
Don't touch me I'm a real live wire

Psycho Killer
Qu'est-ce que c'est
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better
Run run run run run run run away
Psycho Killer
Qu'est-ce que c'est
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better
Run run run run run run run away

You start a conversation you can't even finish it.
You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything.
When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.
Say something once, why say it again?

Run run run run run run run away

Ce que j'ai fais, ce soir la
Ce qu'elle a dit, ce soir la
Realisant mon espoir
Je me lance, vers la gloire ... OK
We are vain and we are blind
I hate people when they're not polite


*Stop Making Sense (1984) is a concert movie featuring Talking Heads live on stage. Directed by Jonathan Demme, it was shot over the course of three nights at Hollywood's Pantages Theater in December of 1983, as the group was touring to promote their new album Speaking in Tongues. The movie is notable for being the first made entirely utilizing digital audio techniques.

Marshal said...

Plus it negates the need for empirical evidence.

Michael K said...

" gadfly said...
Throughout American history we have gone from ignoring crazies to incarcerating them in asylums and most recently to turning them all loose to prey upon the people who want their votes on election day.

When was it that "Common Sense" came into play?"

Actually, before asylums were adopted in colonial times, families would sometimes confine the insane in small rooms or basements. Asylums were far more humane. The use of asylums goes back to 1800 in France.

It was only in the 60s that common sense became suspect.

EDH said...

Notice the French.

jimbino said...

Funny to call Common Sense a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine. Except for the one written by God, it is the best-selling publication in the history of the American people in terms of readership percentage, eclipsing even Atlas Shrugged and Harry Potter.

Unknown said...

I will delurk for this. By my count the shooter broke around 10 different laws covering every move he made from taking the guns to carrying in a school zone to brandishing, assault, attempted murder, and murder.
Is it common sense to think calling for another law would have prevented the shooter from committing this atrocity?

bagoh20 said...

It's bullshit. The only effective thing would be having more armed good guys around, but that will never be considered in places where the left has a say like schools, or anywhere that hand wringing is considered analysis, and self-defense is considered dangerous.

Nothing effective will be done, as we have seen over and over again. The only response will be to do the exact opposite of sensible like disarming more of the good guys.

No other species on the planet would respond to a threat by taking away it's own defenses. It's defies nature, it defies science, it defies common sense. It's the classic progressive response to a problem - make it worse, then blame those who disagree with your "solution".

rhhardin said...

Throw out the constitution because of something that happens essentially never but has a huge female TV audience.

It's the women's way.

I Callahan said...

Notice the French.

I always wondered what was being sung there. I didn't know that.

Ran it through google translator, it means "what is it".

Doesn't even fit the rest of the refrain.

Bob R said...

One particular motivation for the use of the device in this context is that many people making "common sense" suggestions know that the suggestions don't make "legal sense." They are in violation of the constitution. I've seen a lot of "common sense" suggestions that we ignore the first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments in the past five days. I'm expecting to read someone suggest that we be forced to quarter troops in our houses any day now.

Colonel Angus said...

I did a bit of digging and according to the CDC website, in 2010,.10,228 people were killed in alcohol related car accidents, which is a third of total car accident fatalities. In the same year according to the FBI there were 12,996 murders, 8,775 of which were committed with the use of a firearm.

If its numbers we are shocked about, in addition to banning firearms, next should be alcohol or cars.

Larry J said...

The guy didn’t kill his mother and 26 innocent people at the school because of the guns. He killed those innocent people because he was mentally ill, just like the guy who shot Congresswoman Giffords and the guy who killed all those students at Virgina Tech and most, if not all, other mass shootings.

Addressing the problem of people who’re mentally ill and pose a danger to others while preventing the abuses of the past is a serious and difficult issue. But hey, let’s write yet another law controlling inanimate objects instead to say we’re doing something. That approach has worked so well in the past, hasn’t it?

Einstein said that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome. By that definition, I suppose those advocating yet more gun control are insane which might explain why they don’t want to address the issue of mental illness.

sunsong said...

I'd like to see this addressed in its complexity. It is not a simple problem that can be solved with a simple answer. The closer we get to the causes, the better. Common sense tells me to ask: Why are people willing to harm others? Why is that acceptable in our culture?

Mental heath issues are primary, imo. Whether Tucson, Arora, or Newton - even Columbine - mental dysfunction is at the forefront. Hollywood is also key. Glorifying violence has impact - especially on mentally vulnerable people. And lastly, guns that are meant to kill many people. They are a problem as well, imo. [However, I would oppose banning them ONLY for the citizenry if cops would still be allowed to have them. It would be dangerous for the police to have such weapons for the purpose of killing the citizenry, while the people had no defense.]

I would oppose any legislation that does not cover at least these bascis. If only gun control is offered. That would be unacceptable to me.

rhhardin said...

An adjective added to "sense" makes it carry higher claims, said Wm. Empson.

Common sense can be transformed into creative imagination with "deep sense," his immediate example.

_The Structure of Complex Words_ "Sense in the Prelude" p.292

EDH said...

I'm mild as a bunny
I'm meek as a lamb
You lead me to slaughter
I'm mud in your hands


She's Mad

Bangin' his head
Stab in the back
Look her in the eye and Buddy, you can tell she's crazy
Smack in the face
Look at 'em go
Take a look around and you can see I don't mean maybe

If sex is a weapon
Who's winnin' this war?
My legs are too tired
I can't run anymore

She's mad
She's sore
I'm getting out for sure
My time
Is up
I just can't stand this stuff

Said look where you're goin'
You don't even know what you're knowin'
Look where you're goin'
You don't even know what you're knowin'
Oh now darlin'

Heaven's above
Look out below
B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B - Baby
Fell on his back
Rubbin' his head
Pretty little girl; sure as hell she ain't no lady

I'm mild as a bunny
I'm meek as a lamb
You lead me to slaughter
I'm mud in your hands

I know - I say
I'm findin' out today
Someway - somehow
I'm gonna pull you down

So blow me away
Leave me alone
I beg you please
Please come on home

Now look where you're goin'
You don't even know what you're knowin'
Now look where you're goin'
You don't even know what you're knowin'
Ooh now darlin'

All over the house
All over the town
Bit him in the hand and he turned around and hit her with a hammer
Flippity flop
Now when does he stop?
Now here they come again
And that's the way they live together

Bob R said...

In fact, out of sympathy for the third amendment and in the spirit of "This calls for a senseless and futile gesture, and we're just the ones to do it," I assert that common sense dictates that all houses in the vicinity of an elementary school be required to house members of SWAT teams and other local first responders.

glenn said...

Actually I think it's "uncommon sense" I sure don't see much common sense right now. For Example: If you lived in a small upscale community and you knew that one of your number had A. A son who was withdrawn, quiet, and really bright and B. A bunch of high powered weapons which she publicly displayed to house guests you might want to caution the authorities etc. But apparently not. Better to demonize the president of the NRA. I can go on and on but it get back to what one of the other posters said about not being practical people anymore. Unicorns gambol in the garder and fairy dust is everywhere. Illegal Mexican immigrants do the heavy lifting, 15% of the population of Los Angeles is on welfare and nobody sees what is coming when the money runs out.

Paul Zrimsek said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Zrimsek said...

"We will never solve (problem) until we enact commonsense (me telling you what to do)." -- Iowahawk

DADvocate said...

Somebody mentioned this in a thread a few days ago. Is it common sense to ignore it?

Homicide Offending Rates per 100,000 Population by Race for 2005: White - 3.5; Black - 26.5; Other - 2.8

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/oracetab.cfm

According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime the murder rate for Europe on the whole: 3.5.

The gun argument by gun control advocates is complete bullshit and lies.

cubanbob said...

If this country were to ever have an outbreak of common sense democrats would be as common as hen's teeth.

Nathan Alexander said...

There are always two elements to a threat, two prerequisites to someone committing mass murder:
- Capability
- Intent

If you restrict gun ownership, you can't stop someone from stealing guns, or someone developing murderous intent after legally acquiring guns, or acquiring illegal guns on the black market (see: UK).

And that's just guns. If you someone manage to eliminate all guns and stop all importation of black market guns, then you have bows/arrows, crossbows, and high-powered slingshots.

So let's say you manage to eliminate the knowledge of how to build these human-powered kinetic weapons.

You still have explosives, knives, poison.

You still have aircraft and cars that can be crashed into mass gatherings of people.

So you can never eliminate "capability" for mass murder.

So why don't we focus our efforts on "intent"?

Those who commit mass murder see some incentive to do so, and they judge the possible negative outcomes aren't enough to dissuade them.

So we need to change their mental calculus.

We need to create the perception of increased likelihood of negative outcomes. Like: failure to succeed in killing enough to make the news.

Passive defenses might help, but can be overcome with planning. The best thing is implementation of an active defense that increases uncertainty. Make the potential murderer unable to plan effectively, and he won't do it.

Colonel Angus said...

Ironic that those who don't trust the government institutionalizing the mentally ill have no problem with the government having a monopoly on gun ownership.

Roger J. said...

The good news is that slo joe is "spearheading" this project--hope that raggedy ass bastard does a better job with this project than he has done as chief of the jobs project.

Colonel Angus said...

The guy didn’t kill his mother and 26 innocent people at the school because of the guns. He killed those innocent people because he was mentally ill, just like the guy who shot Congresswoman Giffords and the guy who killed all those students at Virgina Tech and most, if not all, other mass shootings.

I don't think anyone disputes this. The fact is an unarmed mentally ill person is as dangerous as his fists. An armed one exponentially more so.

The problem is keeping firearms out of the hands of lunatics. We aren't the only country with a high population of gun owners but we do seem to have a bigger problem with gun homicides and mass shootings that say Norway or Finland don't have. I'm sure demographics is a prime reason but not the only one.

It's obvious this incident will result in a paradigm shift in gun rights. It's understandable when you're burying 20 six year olds a week before Christmas.

DADvocate said...

Gun control efforts will mostly lead to more ways to put blacks in jail, something Democrats have no problem with.

garage mahal said...

Ironic that those who don't trust the government institutionalizing the mentally ill have no problem with the government having a monopoly on gun ownership

Ironic the people who don't trust the government to regulate guns have no problem with the government regulating how businesses and unions draw up contracts. Or have no problem with the government drawing up hundreds of bills regulating how/when/where we can vote. Or have no problem drawing up hundreds of bills regulating abortion. And on, and on, and on.

Titus said...

Lets start a dialog, a national conversation. I believe communication is the key.

Thanks,

tits.

Titus said...

I see a table, similar to the Thanksgiving Table in Plymouth.

Where wings and tards break bread.

Yea.

leslyn said...

"...we know these are propaganda words, and we look on them with suspicion."

I bet you'd get even more hits if you typed in "New Jersey" and "Sandy Hook."

So: The terms "common sense" and "Sandy Hook" are common.

leslyn said...

Colonel Angus said...
"Ironic that those who don't trust the government institutionalizing the mentally ill have no problem with the government having a monopoly on gun ownership."

You want to put some facts behind this? No?

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
Ironic the people who don't trust the government to regulate guns have no problem with the government regulating how businesses and unions draw up contracts.


Except you can point to no examples of this you fat idiot.

Jay said...

leslyn said...

You want to put some facts behind this? No?


Your comment is so stupid it is funny.

RecChief said...

2b

Colonel Angus said...

The good news is that slo joe is "spearheading" this project-

I interpret that as Obama telling the gun rights crowd that he's not serious about making any significant changes.

Colonel Angus said...

Ironic the people who don't trust the government to regulate guns have no problem with the government regulating how businesses and unions draw up contracts. Or have no problem with the government drawing up hundreds of bills regulating how/when/where we can vote.

Hysterical much?

Jay said...

Ironic the people who don't trust the government to regulate guns have no problem with the government regulating how businesses and unions draw up contracts. Or have no problem with the government drawing up hundreds of bills regulating how/when/where we can vote.


Um, the Constitution is silent on your "right to vote"

Dummy.

Colonel Angus said...

You want to put some facts behind this? No?

It's my opinion. Last time I checked I'm still allowed to express one.

James Pawlak said...

Perhaps, you should publish the following facts.
1. The cities (Washington, DC & Chicago) with the most restrictive and anti-gun laws are those with very high or, perhaps, the highest murder and other violent crimes.
2. The jurisdictions with the most permissive gun laws (Including those who do not require licenses/permits to CCW) are those with the lower/lowest rates of such crimes.
3. Islamic and other terrorists, "crazies" and other criminals are tyrants and will not give up their guns, but hide them from any-and-all authorities.
4. Those who fear the above-listed tyrants and those misrepresenting governments will also not give up their most effective weapons.
5. The intent of the Second Amendment was to give every free citizen access to the same quality of weapons as issued to Federal, individual, soldiers (That principle is still in effect!).
6. There are well more than 100-milllion firearms in private hands in the USA, many millions of military grade---Most of which will not be surrendered to government demands.
7. In "shooting time" there is very little effective difference between using a 30-round magazine and having some little practice at changing, for example, eight round magazines as is taught in many self-defense classes.
8. The police are seldom, if ever, on the site of a crime to prevent murder and other violent crimes. (When they do show up, as in New York City's recent "Empire State Building Shootings" the police are likely to shoot innocent bystanders. In Milwaukee an armed officer recently found a burglar in his home, fired his side-arm, and missed.)
9. A locked up gun is also unavailable for such defense and need be secured only when not directly supervised-and-controlled by responsible adults.
10. The misuse of guns by those holding CCW permits/licenses is so small as to approach that of "statistical nullity" and the criminal misuse is even smaller among such citizens.
11. Even if "assault rifles" and other semi-automatic weapons (Machine guns are very rare in civilian hands and that only by the most stringent regulations) disappeared from the USA, the real danger is now and then are WMD (Which are not described here for reasons of the common good). These are readily available and require far less technical ability than the Oklahoma City. They can be used well within the time limits set by impulsive terrorists. They also do NOT require entry into buildings to destroy those within.

garage mahal said...

Um, the Constitution is silent on your "right to vote"

Only to a nitwit like you.

garage mahal said...

By the way, glad to see Jay back!

I hope he can talk about all the skewed polls again. That was pretty awesome analysis. Kudos, Jay!

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

Only to a nitwit like you.


Please point to the article & section of the Constitution that talks about your right to vote, dumbshit.

I can't wait to read all about it.

Colonel Angus said...

Garage you clearly mis read my comment since you equate a government monopoly on gun ownership with 'regulation' of union contracts, voting or abortion.

I'm sure even you can appreciate common sense voting regulation such as, you only get one vote, or that you have to be registered. Or common sense abortion regulation like a minor should get permission from their parents, like they do when getting an ear pierced. Or regulating union contracts that requires the union to collect their own dues.

Tank said...

James

7. In "shooting time" there is very little effective difference between using a 30-round magazine and having some little practice at changing, for example, eight round magazines as is taught in many self-defense classes.

9. A locked up gun is also unavailable for such defense and need be secured only when not directly supervised-and-controlled by responsible adults.


7. It is remarkable how quickly you can do this with a bit of practice. Not as fast as not having to reload, but ... fast.

9. I, and others, utilize a quick release combination safe for this reason. Snaps open in one second.

SeanF said...

garage mahal: Um, the Constitution is silent on your "right to vote"

Only to a nitwit like you.


Prior to about 1870, it absolutely was. Even currently, all it does is specify that the government can't keep you from voting for a few specific reasons.

Since the exception proves the rule in the cases not excepted, this means that it is perfectly constitutional for the government to restrict your right to vote for any other reason.

Aridog said...

What @ James Pawlak said....says it best.

There I've spared all y'all one of my rambling rants.

Lydia said...

bagho20 said...
It's bullshit. The only effective thing would be having more armed good guys around

Nathan Alexander said...
Passive defenses might help, but can be overcome with planning. The best thing is implementation of an active defense that increases uncertainty. Make the potential murderer unable to plan effectively, and he won't do it.

Common sense at the federal level is probably impossible, but maybe locally more will be done re armed defense, like in Los Angeles:

The LAPD will have officers stop daily at Los Angeles Unified's 600 elementary and middle schools - and any charter or private school that requests a visit - as part of the beefed-up student security measures sparked by the Connecticut school shooting, officials said Monday.

The deployment of uniformed and plainclothes officers - which Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck called a “significant, significant task” - will complement the armed school district police already stationed daily at every LAUSD high school.

Los Angeles Unified officials are studying the feasibility and cost of expanding the district's police force so that armed officers could patrol the K-8 campuses as they now do the district's high schools.


A start.

Colonel Angus said...

So if James Pawlek a correct and there are 100 million firearms in the US and using 2010 data, 8775 people were murdered with guns, that's .01% of guns used for murders.

You would think with that many guns laying around and being such a messed up and brutal country as garage described us a few threads back, I was anticipating casualty counts much higher.

garage mahal said...

Even currently, all it does is specify that the government can't keep you from voting for a few specific reasons.

It's enshrined in our state constitution. And that is why the law was struck down. And I suspect almost everywhere else it was introduced.

Cedarford said...

SJ said...
And here I thought it was common sense that a gun is only as dangerous as the person holding it.

Am I uncommon in this?

==============
True, just as a nuclear bomb or a MANPAD capable of shooting down a jet liner is only as dangerous as the person that can push the button.

The difference being that lone psychpaths steeped in violent media product since childhood can access a ton of people killing power in modern firearms weapons - while we do our best to block lone psychopaths living in Mommys basement until he shoots her face off - not having access to nuke bombs or MANPADs.

The argument is not won by stating the obvious truth that any tool of destruction is "blameless" and thus should be allowed ownership by all, because only the criminal or crazy person is to blame.
There are crimnals, there are crazy scumbags that do 85-90% of the mass slaughters.

The problem is the nexus of dangerous nutballs, their violent indoctrination, and all too ready access to firearms.
And an even larger problem is the nexus of dysfunctional black culture with black thugs with access to weapons - because the black thugs kill and maim 200 times more people each year than in the much beloved by media moguls who want more money for more ratings in 24/7 coverage and speculation on "Mass Death Events"

Colonel Angus said...

It's enshrined in our state constitution. And that is why the law was struck down.

What law was introduced to keep you from voting?

Lucien said...

Although the Supreme Court has clarified the fact that the rights protected by the 2nd Amendment include individual rights, I do not believe I have seen any argument that the Constitution ought to be amended to limit individual rights to keep and bear arms. This certainly seems like it could be a reasonable position, just as it is reasonable to think that laws concering keeping and bearing arms might well be different in New York than in Wyoming (for example).

Instead, many people advocating limitations on gun ownerhip and carrying just seem to assume that this can be accomplished by legislatures, nothwithstanding Heller. This is troubling to the extent that other consitutional rights are not viewed in the same way.

This essence of a right is the ability to exercise it without having to give the government a good reason for its exercise. Thus, people might argue that no one needs to have a 30 round clip to go hunting or a collection of 15 weapons to defend themsleves, but would never argue that no one has a need to make extreme or vituperative political arguments when more civil arguments could be more persusasive, or that no one needs to have powerful encryption software to protect the privacy of their communications.

If you want to change the Constitution, propose an amendment, don't argue that judges should dishonestly do it for you because it is too hard to amend the Constitution the right way.

It's supposed to be hard to change the Constitution.

Colonel Angus said...

Personally I have little issue with common sense reasonable gun control such as background checks, requiring a CC permit, and I'm indifferent to bans on AR15s and the garden variety AKs and SKS permutations floating around. That said, the gun control fanatics want a total ban on private ownership of guns.

Hagar said...

Lauderdale vet linked to a good article on AR-15's on the previous thread.

An AR-15 is basically the receiver unit, which is the only thing that carries the serial number that is registered to the owner.

Everything else is detachable and can be replaced with some unit configured more to your liking.

Actually, I guess that should be called the lower receiver unit (contains the trigger mechanism), since there is something called the upper receiver, which needs to be replaced along with the barrel, if you wish to change calibers.

So, how do you outlaw something based on its exterior appearance, when its defining component is almost entirely hidden from view when the various custom designed components are assembled into a functioning unit?

I don't see any reason why you could not build a rifle looking very much like a Winchesteer -73 or a Weatherby Mark V around an AR-15 receiver, and then paint either an attractive pink for the ladies.

So, would it then still be an "assault rifle," or not?

John Cunningham said...

these are some "common sense" solutions--
1. re-open the mental hospitals, lock up a million or two dangerous lunatics.
2. ban any press coverage of the name, bio, background, etc. of mass murderers, as they do in Canada.
3. put metal doors with serious locks on classrooms, as they do in Canada.
4. seek out retired cops and retired military to serve one day per week as armed guards in schools on voluntary unpaid basis.

Alex said...

Why am I not surprised garage turned Sandy Hook into his latest rant on unions.

DADvocate said...

Another indication that we need to use some common sense and look more closely at our mental health system:

U.S Murder Rate per 100,000 - 4.2
U.S. Suicide Rate per 100,000 - 12.0

Men in the U.S. kill themselves at nearly 4 times the rate as women, but that doesn't matter either. A lot of those European countries with few guns and/or low murder rates have higher suicide rates than the U.S.

jr565 said...

Colonel Angus wrote:
So if James Pawlek a correct and there are 100 million firearms in the US and using 2010 data, 8775 people were murdered with guns, that's .01% of guns used for murders.

You would think with that many guns laying around and being such a messed up and brutal country as garage described us a few threads back, I was anticipating casualty counts much higher.

Now let's get some stats about the number of cars in circulation versus the number of cars involved in deaths (be it collisions, drunk driving accidents, hit and runs etc).
THen lets look at the number of pools that people own and the number of deaths of kids in pools. Perhaps we will need to have national conversations over the need for pool/car control.

This for example makes it clear that if you are a parent with young kids it is far more dangerous to have a pool than a gun:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/

Revenant said...

Speaking of common sense.

It should be common sense that if we're still experiencing mass-murders by crazies three thousand years into the era of big governments, there isn't a common sense big government *solution* to mass murder by crazies.

What, you think the previous 150 generations were all dumber than you? Wise up.

mikesixes said...

When somebody says their position is "just common sense" what they're really saying is "I can't offer any rational justification for it, but I demand that you go along with it". Anybody who wasn't familiar with the English language would probably think that common sense is composed of equal parts ignorance and arrogance.

Paul said...

The word 'common sense' means different things to different people.

I find it is common sense to put insane people in institutions.

I find it is common sense to training teachers to protect children, even if violence is needed to do that.

I find it is common sense to have the citizenry armed just in case the government goes to far to the right OR left due to the history of governments to take power by force.

I find it is common sense for people to be armed to resist criminals who do not wait for a policeman to be around.

What I don't find is common sense is to in the wake of a tragedy to blame a inanimate object that was use to do the crime and not the people involved.

What would have happened if the insane man had used a can of gasoline? Or used a propene bottle fashioned into a bomb? Blamed gasoline? Blamed outdoor cooking propane bottles? Availably of glass bottles and cloth wicks?

And you see that is the real problem. You have insane people allowed to be unsupervised. Most don't go around killing but because the are INSANE they do have a tendency toward irrational behavior.

leslyn said...

Jay said,

Please point to the article & section of the Constitution that talks about your right to vote, dumbshit.

Well, mine is in the Amendments, and last I heard, they wer still part of the Constitution.

leslyn said...

A meme that's conspicuous by its absence:

"If so-and-so had had a gun, they'd be alive today."

Adam's mom?

Marshal said...

leslyn said...
A meme that's conspicuous by its absence:

"If so-and-so had had a gun, they'd be alive today."

Adam's mom?


I guess the left is past the waiting period before the murder to 20 kids and 7 adults can be politicized. Revealing they're still using that same line about Benghazi isn't it? What is it about these two cases that allows such a disparity in treatment? I feel like it's just at the tip of my tongue.

Kirk Parker said...

Nathan,

It's actually a 3-part analysis:

-Capability

-Opportunity

-Intent

Involuntarily committing the dangerous insane is actually addressing Opportunity, the one you omitted. The dangerous one may still have all the abilities and intents, but by being locked up they no longer have the capability of reaching their victims.