Fox News mocks Obama's tears over gunned down kids

http://www.alternet.org/media/fox-hosts-absurd-claim-about-obamas-tears-during-gun-speech

Maybe you saw Obama's powerful (and both emotional and logical) speech about exec. action for gun control. Even Trump called it sincere and that Obama's meant well (but of course disagrees with his proposal). But the shock-and-awe attention-whore pseudo-anchors at Fox insinuated that Obama faked the tears to be more convincing, and that he should cry about other problems like ISIS terrorism as much as he cries for gun victims.

Well, if you have that degree of bias and hate, there's nothing more to say really. We've had way too many threads about gun violence, but I'll offer this position:

• In a society, you implicitly or explicitly give up some personal freedoms/liberty/resources/happiness for the greater good (according to our values, but of course "good" can be subjective)
• Seat belt laws, hunting licenses, child abuse laws, etc.
• No society manages this sacrifice/balance perfectly, but the US is relatively low corruption, fairly transparent, and at least maintains some public channels for change/redress
• The US is already one of the most libertarian nations on earth due to our laws, Constitution, and culture
• We are accustomed to bitching about "the gov't", but really we don't know how spoiled we are vs. places like France or god forbid, Iran
• And so we have our 2nd Amendment and the modern warped interpretation of it... but no right is absolute
• The gov't can take away your right to vote, or your right to life if you are convicted of a certain crime
• We can debate the prudence of such policies, but some gun control is sound and lawful
• I don't know why pro-gun folks are so defensive; gun laws have generally relaxed more than strengthened since Sandy Hook
• Therefore, the pro-gun arguments about standing up to gov't tyranny and upholding freedom & the Constitution are pretty much invalid
• That crap is mostly NRA propaganda; a majority of gun owners do want the things Obama proposed (universal bkgd. checks, closing of the gun show loophole - and plenty of other loopholes still remain)
• But I suppose the NRA's position is that they can't give an inch, or the US will start to accept/see the benefits of gun control and want more (similar to how the GOP feels about Obamacare)
• Some minority groups get the "short end of the stick" for socially-beneficial decisions:
• Alcoholics might lament that some bars must close at 2AM
• Speed freaks could be disappointed that the limit is 65 mph
• So gun sellers (either businesses or hobbyists) should accept more paperwork/oversight due to the social threat of their wares
• And some gun nuts should compromise that while they might prefer 50-round magazines on their assault rifles, people really shouldn't have those things
• And there are still plenty of lethal and less controversial alternatives like semi-auto shotguns and .44 magnums they can own instead
• The "rights and freedoms" of the pro-gun camp need to be subordinate to the right to life of gun victims, within reason
• But some people are selfish pricks and they want the status quo to persist, even if it contributes to innocents getting killed (i.e. someone else's problem)
• In other words, they don't mind if others suffer as they benefit (externalities)
• Now to the next issue: most of us agree that innocents should not get murdered, but will more or fewer guns (or less mass-murder-capable guns) reduce that problem?
• The gun lobby has prevented public research and data collection on the issue, but there is literally zero credible evidence that more/deadlier guns makes us safer, and a decent amount of trustworthy evidence to the contrary
• So even if the research is partly flawed/wrong, how much social harm is there to limit magazines to 10 rounds, with the potential upside of preventing dozens (or hundreds, or more) of murders a year?
• Same goes for better background checks/tracking, assault weapons bans, more oversight of online/private sales, etc.
• It is way harder to get a student loan than to get an assault rifle - is that the type of society we want?
• In some cases, the atmosphere of regulation can deter crime, even if the actual laws and enforcement are flawed
• E.g. how much tax fraud is avoided just by the mere specter of the IRS, even though they may not audit and catch much of the fraud?
• In other words, what do we have to lose, apart from pissing off a privileged minority group of gun nuts, gun makers/sellers, the NRA, and the politicians who enable/benefit from them (and remember, they will still have the right to buy and sell plenty of other types of weapons)?
• Since the gun violence problem is so large (~30K killed per year in the US), it's possible that these new regs won't make much of a dent. But as Obama said, isn't it worth it to save even a few kids (some of whom might grow up to be the next Einstein or Obama)?
• So gun control is legal and responsible (see points above), economically justified (limiting guns might reduce some revenue/taxes, but will likely pay for itself through social cost savings), and morally good (in many people's minds)
• Anyone who opposes gun control on these grounds does not have their arguments based in facts and logic (likely emotional/ideological instead)
• But that's the problem, in Polarized America, you can't persuade anyone with facts and logic; you just have to ram your agenda through and not care about your opponents' wishes
• So that is what we should do re: gun control, stop letting the minority terrorize the majority

Do we want less gun violence, or don't we?

980+ mass shootings (defined by 4 or more dead, non-drug/gang/war related) in the US since Newtown. That says it all. And keep in mind that the vast majority of gun deaths do not occur in mass shootings, but the less-reported suicides and "regular" homicides.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/02/445379809/stuff-happens-comment-creates-firestorm-for-jeb-bush

And the typical tone-deaf, uncompassionate, guns-before-people response from GOP leaders (in this case, my favorite guy to hate, Jeb). Basically after a national tragedy relating to guns: "shit happens." But when Muslims attack us: "Bomb them to hell!" I hope Jeb's rivals and the MSM call him out on this.

http://gawker.com/you-dont-pass-a-pool-fencing-law-after-a-child-drowns-1734383068

Jeb is saying we shouldn't rush to impulse legislation after a tragedy. But after a kid fell and drowned in a pool in FL, Jeb's gov't rushed to create a pool fence law. Was that such a bad thing? How many people and pets were saved by that knee-jerk reaction? Like Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow," sometime you want to think fast for your survival. Don't let the trauma fade away so you delude yourself into thinking that it's not a big problem and it won't happen again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/books/review/thinking-fast-and-slow-by-daniel-kahneman-book-review.html?_r=0

And for those who say it's a mental health issue and not a gun issue, I disagree. The vast majority of mentally ill or "weird loner" people are not violent. So unless you want to infringe on the rights of millions of innocents (in a Minority Report style preventative action), I don't see how this will help. Sure it's better safe than sorry to report to authorities if someone you know is concerning you, and those authorities have to respond to legit threats effectively (like how we're trying to deal with suicide prevention warning signs). Of course we as a society should pay more attention/resources to mental illness, hate ideology, and isolated youth. But it won't prevent most mass shootings.

Only locking up guns will do that. Some would say that the Oregon shooter purchased his guns legally and no bkgd. check would have blocked him. So maybe that's the problem: properly interpret the 2nd Amend. (how the courts did pre-NRA) and strictly limit private ownership of guns (or ammo, or both). Maybe people can still buy them, but must store them with 3rd party highly regulated gun locker companies (so it's not the evil gov't controlling our guns). In order to check out the guns, the owner has to be lojacked and have a witness legally vouch for their mental/emotional state. Maybe critics would say that such a system would leave us vulnerable to criminal attacks. Then buy a dog or mace, or support leaders/laws that address the root causes of crime like poverty, education, and racism.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

Alternatively, some people think that the gun culture in SUI "works" because of a deep tradition of safety and personal responsibility (hard to measure). Like how strongly Americans feel about personal freedoms (and football), if we placed a similar or larger emphasis on gun safety, peaceful conflict resolution, and accident prevention, then maybe we could have our guns but not the tragedies (but we have a long way to go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBIOJJkEQT4). Keep in mind that SUI's gun deaths per capita are still one of the highest in the 1st world too.

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

The staggering social costs of gun violence in the US

This was a good interview about a Mother Jones article on the indirect costs of US gun violence: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201504300930

The author's team performed an established economic analysis to estimate the total costs of gun violence - not just the direct costs of law enf., ER visit, and justice/penal system processing, but also lost productivity and diminished quality of life from long-term disability, incarceration, and death (affecting not just the victim but their family, workplace, and community). The article estimates that of the ~30K gun murders each year, on average it costs America $500K each. Add to that the ~80K cases/year of serious injuries from guns, and the total price tag is over $200B/year. That is 1/3 the value of Apple's stock, and more than US medicine spends on obesity each year. It's freaking huge.

But we're not talking about this because the NRA and others make the data so hard to access. And if people do try to study it (like the CDC and Harvard School of Public Health and Obama's recent nominee for Sgn. General), the gun lobby paints them as gun-control activists with a political agenda. Conservatives want to cut waste and spending left and right (social programs, research, etc.), but somehow the military and guns are exempt?

BTW - the study also found a correlation between states with weak gun laws and higher gun violence costs per capita (LA, WY are the worst, while HI and MA are some of the best - also with stricter gun laws). It's a no-brainer to us, but the 2nd Amendment crowd clings to the myth that more guns make you safer. They might also argue - what about the economic savings from all the crimes prevented by conscientious citizens with guns? Well there's just no data to support that claim, if it's even true (which is doubtful). You're much more likely to hurt yourself or a loved one than prevent a crime with your gun.

----

This is pretty heartbreaking stuff about the effects of violence on Oakland's youth:

http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/04/29/violence-causes-ripple-effects-for-thousands-of-oakland-students

For a kid who turned 18 this year in Oakland, he or she lived through 111 kids getting killed in that city, not to mention the trauma that caused for everyone else. At least Alameda County is deploying more mental health resources for them now - but really this is an issue that no kid should have to deal with. Especially if they're under 10, children often can't deal with the difficult emotions generated from experiencing violence, so their ability to learn is impaired and they may lash out in negative ways.

----

NPR did a story based on this article and the most persuasive outcome, to me, was that there needs to be science and data applied to this stuff.  One of the guests was talking about the idea that if you even ask for data you are anti gun.  That there is this all or nothing approach.  Why wouldn't the dates show all the loves being saved if guns are great?  Couldn't we also find that, for example, people with lots of gun training have better outcomes related to fun violence?  It seems weird to assume data can only be anti gun.

----

Agreed. I guess it's like climate change and cop racism issues - if one side of the argument is confident in their position, they should have no problems whatsoever with full data transparency. When you are "trying to hide something" and suppressing info, that is a tell-tale sign that your argument has a problem. Actually if those folks really love gun rights and "freedom", then they should welcome data transparency to help improve gun use and gun culture in America (like a majority of NRA members favor better background checks, but NRA leaders don't). Or do they think that everything is OK? Don't they know that the most successful (legit) companies and gov'ts in the last 50 years are obsessed with data to help them succeed and improve?

Bottom line, the gun industry/lobby's only goal is to sell more product. Gun ownership in the US (as % of households) is on a huge decline since WWII, partly driven by urbanization, less interest in hunting, and I would like to believe social progress. But the # of guns in circulation may have gone up, so someone is buying them. There are fewer gun owners now, but they own more guns (and more deadly ones) per capita. Police departments upgrade their guns more frequently, and lord knows where their used guns go (I think there are accounts of cartels/gangs using former US police firearms).

So to accomplish their goal, the gun lobby has to oppose anything that would potentially hurt sales, and of course social costs data is a big threat. And when the costs are so obvious (even without hard data), they pull the freedom and liberty card. Sure guns are destructive, but the costs are "worth it" because we have to sacrifice to keep the communists from taking our freedoms. We have to tolerate the side-effects of guns because I need to protect my family from the bad guys. And when it's poor/black people shouldering most of the costs, it's easier to ignore - until incidents like Columbine and Sandy Hook happen, which affected affluent whites and jarred the nation.

I use data to put food on the table, so I'd like to think that I have some sense of "data ethics" and best practices. When the pro-gun side decides to actually use data in their arguments, I can honestly say that they are the worst in terms of ethics and rigor. Total intellectual dishonesty (or maybe ignorance). I have not read any NRA white papers (if there are any non-laughable ones), so I am basing my judgment mostly on the sound bites you hear in the gun debate.

Examples:

• "Chicago has strict gun laws, but they still have plenty of gang violence and murders, so gun laws don't work!" Because we don't have borders. Thugs just have to buy a gun 30 miles away in easier places like Indiana, and then drive back to the city to shoot someone.
• 
  
• "Since the Brady Bill/Assault Weapons Ban expired, there have been fewer mass shootings, so assault weapons in the hands of 'the good guys' is an effective deterrent." Not enough sample size to assess a trend, and what defines a "mass shooting"? Public mass shootings are fortunately still pretty rare (it's much more common for someone to slaughter their family in a private residence). But Mother Jones and Harvard ran a statistical analysis to handle rare events, and they concluded that mass shootings are actually more frequent after the loosening of gun laws. Of course correlation is not causation, but it invalidates the pro-gun claim.
• 
  
• "Guns don't kill people; people kill people - address the mental health and anger issues instead." But guns kill people A LOT more effectively than a knife or bare hands. Yes there will always be a baseline level of violence and murder intent in any society, but if you restrict access to the murder tools, people won't be able to carry them out as effectively. Look at AUS/UK vs. US. Fairly similar culture, demos, etc., but we have all the guns and murders. Canada is an exception (many guns, few murders), but there will always be outliers.

Cleveland child shooting by police

http://gawker.com/video-cops-shot-12-year-old-two-seconds-after-arriving-1663814827

Re: the Cleveland shooting - the video doesn't tell the whole story (at least there is a video though) and I am not familiar with all the facts, but...

The initial 911 caller told police that he/she thought the firearm was "probably fake", but that info never got to the officers on scene. The shooter was a rookie cop on the job less than a year (of all the officers in the area, why dispatch him to a potential firefight situation?). So lapses in police procedure seem to be contributing. If the officer killed the kid within 2 sec of the vehicle coming to a stop, when exactly did they ask the kid to put his hands up and observe that he didn't comply? Maybe they asked him from their loudspeaker before 0:21? Either way, to me it makes no sense for the other officer to drive the car into the park within 10 feet of the potentially dangerous suspect. Again, that is an act of escalation rather than diffusion that frankly is putting his partner on the driver's side at undue risk. What is the benefit of doing that? I don't mean to be a Monday morning QB, and I am ignorant on police rules-of-engagement, but it doesn't seem logical/effective. So is poor training/procedure also to blame (in addition to poor judgment)?

Why not use their loudspeaker at distance (handgun shooters generally have low accuracy beyond 25 yards) to ask any bystanders in the area to withdraw? Then from behind cover, they can have time to converse with the suspect, evaluate the risk, and discuss with HQ if needed. Why the need for such immediate violent response; the suspect was seated and not posing a threat to anyone at the time (i.e. there was no Hollywood style hostage standoff)? Shouldn't deadly force be the last resort? All of this seems to be circumstantial evidence supporting the theory that black life is not valued by some Americans (esp. in law enforcement). They wouldn't act this way if the suspect was a relative or friend, right? 

For perspective, the Richmond PD has not killed anyone in 7 years, despite the fairly dangerous climate in their city (but that PD is known for good community outreach). And they average  less than 1 officer shooting incident per year. So obviously there is a choice and violence is avoidable, unlike what Wilson claimed.

The psychology and sociology of gun rights

I was reading a short exchange on gun rights on FB (yes, with a kid now that is my only connection to the outside world LOL). I don't remember all the details, and either I or FB (or both) are too stupid to have comment searchability, but my thoughts were:

Gun rights proponents often fail to consider how other parties are impacted by their stance. Yes, I suppose it is important that they feel that their rights to have the option to commit violence (in a patriotic, lawful manner of course) are not infringed, but does that supersede the rights of others to feel safe, or even to live? And what about all the extra costs imposed on society to try to safely manage gun ownership/use? Maybe pro-gun folks would say that any regulation is unnecessary then - so would they be OK with their neighbors owning artillery and doing target practice in the church parking lot? In a society where none of us is king, we make rights tradeoffs all the time. We have the right to be offensive jerks in most situations, but we don't, often because of the self-serving (and totally valid) reason that it is not prudent. Unless you are a guy like Rush who gets rich by being a jerk.

We practice self-restraint and self-censorship when it serves our interests, so why can't we do the same when it serves the greater social good? First of all, we're selfish. And that is the essence of the Prisoner's Dilemma: if you decide to be good and a team player, you may get taken advantage of and end up worse off than if you continued to be bad, because everyone else is being bad. Of course gov't incentives and regulations could resolve the dilemma fairly easily, but the 2nd Amend., NRA, and such make that nearly impossible.

So who has the right to the option of violence in society? I remember in a previous email thread, J said something like in orderly societies, the state has a monopoly on violence. Otherwise you have Mad Max if citizens are permitted to resolve disputes and settle scores with weapons. We surrender some of our individualism and freedom to be part of society, because society confers some benefits and advantages that we couldn't get on our own. It's a good deal for many of us. Sometime we don't have a choice; if we want to be a recluse in the woods, I think we still have to file tax returns or the Feds may come after us. Maybe that is a violation of our individual freedoms, but as far as I know, no human has ever lived with absolute freedom (especially while having a family!). Even the cave men were restrained by the elements, hunger, and predators. Even Adam and Eve couldn't eat the apple. So this bizarre conservative fixation on absolute liberty as an attainable goal is puzzling to me, especially since many of them have a fairly negative view on human nature. Even the hardcore Marxists set limits on their grand plans to collectivize everything.

I know I am wading into philosophical territory where I am not knowledgeable enough to make much sense, but I hope you get my drift. Looping back on the "monopoly on violence" issue, obviously the risk is: what would happen to the poor citizenry if the gov't decides to abuse its monopoly and subjugate us? Well isn't that the whole point of political engagement and civic responsibility? Our gov't is of/by/for the people, so if we notice that it is descending toward tyranny, we take peaceful, proactive, corrective action. Relying on guns as a check on gov't abuse is like relying on surgery in medicine. Sure it may accomplish the goal, but there are plenty of less extreme, less risky alternatives that you can employ to fix the problem before ever needing to resort to the nuclear option. So gun patriots likely can do more good for their country and their loved ones by educating themselves, voting, and volunteering, instead of stockpiling more AR-15s and open-carrying them to Starbucks. But that is not glamorous enough I guess.

Obviously, the NRA and gun industry have pitched the "guns = freedom and defense of liberty" narrative pretty well, and plenty of politicians are echoing it. Now all of a sudden you are Capt. America if you buy a Glock (an Austrian product by the way). It's pretty intoxicating. Why go through the effort of doing all the boring, thankless work of being a good person/citizen when you can just arm yourself, and voila? It's like the choice between the unending discipline of healthy dieting and exercise vs. the one-off liposuction and surgery to look good. If you have the money, why not take the easier shortcut? It relates to the whole freedom argument - being good all the time is hard work; it cramps your style. I am not sure if this reflects the schizophrenia or genius of our system, but in order to ensure liberty and freedom for all, we have to sacrifice our freedom to diligently maintain it. Guns give us a lazy opt-out.

There is the whole potency and self esteem angle too. Somewhat related to the Rodger UCSB case, many men (and gun culture is overwhelmingly white male) probably feel emasculated and minimized by society at times (try being a woman, or an underprivileged minority then). That is partly due to unrealistic and frankly juvenile expectations. Nearly omnipresent messaging has told us that we are supposed to be "the man" with all the wealth, power, women, etc. We're supposed to be winners who get our way every time. Obviously that can't happen unless everyone's interests are aligned, and then we are back to Marxist territory. And a society of all alpha males is a scary thought to me (that is called frat row at USC).

It's frustrating and hard on the ego to compromise, feel disappointment, and get crapped on by others. So again, instead of doing the hard work of self-improvement, setting reasonable limits/goals, and strategic decision making so that we can feel happier and more successful, we lazily stay the course and blame everyone else instead if we're not living the perfect dream life. We buy a gun because the marketing tells us we'll be more of a man with it. And tragically, some of us may turn to that gun when things don't go our way, or we use it as a shortcut to get what we want unlawfully (or lawfully if you are in a Stand-Your-Ground state). That is one reason why guns are so dangerous - they channel all our internal insecurities, angst, and flaws into physical harm. Men just need Fight Club instead? But maybe that is why guns are so alluring too. They give some people an outlet to release all their baggage and demons to the world, and damn the consequences. Again, juvenile selfish thinking. Guns enable people, in their deepest moments of fearful desperation, to think they can employ violence to take back the power that society has unfairly deprived them.

So what is the remedy? Sadly, enough data suggests that more killings won't change our ways/laws, even if it worked in Australia and parts of Europe. We can't expect lawmakers and bureaucrats will solve the Prisoner's Dilemma for us. Unfortunately it has to start with each of us. We have to visibly commit to the hard work of being a peaceful, well-adjusted, engaged citizen (amidst all the dysfunctional messaging that continually tempts us to do otherwise). Noblesse oblige: we have to be happy and proud to give up some freedoms so that we can all have more freedom and liberty (same thing applies to the climate change and economic inequality issues, among others). That is why I personally do not think mental health is the main driving force behind America's gun violence epidemic. Most murders are fairly rational, which is the problem. We have to change people's values and mental calculus so that guns and violence are not the rational option. Of course changing minds is hard, but it can be done (racism, smoking, gay rights, etc.). Every revolution started with one person.

------

Jon Stewart on the intersection of Open Carry and Stand Your Ground (a.k.a. Perpetual Violence Machine):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/jon-stewart-open-carry_n_5457760.html

"You guys are idiots there are kids in here." - Chili's patron

Amazingly, some gun nuts are scary enough to even bully the NRA into submission! The Texas Open Carry club was first criticized by the NRA for drawing unnecessary, negative, risky attention to themselves and the gun rights issue (all true). But after an angry response from parts of the "gun base", they issued new statements supporting the right to Open Carry.

Another controversial Stand Your Ground killing in Florida

http://www.npr.org/2014/02/03/270874416/murder-trial-reminiscent-of-zimmerman-case-to-begin-in-florida
http://news.yahoo.com/murder-trial-opens-florida-shooting-over-loud-music-060201995--sector.html;_ylt=A0SO8yR2u.9SE2gAsPNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBsOXB2YTRjBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAw--

Yes, again the shooter is a middle-aged, suburban, white man and the victim is an unarmed black teen. It all started when the victim (Davis) and 3 friends were filling up gas next to the shooter (Dunn). Davis' car was playing loud music and Dunn asked them to turn it down. They complied, but later turned it back up and allegedly made some threatening comments to Dunn. Dunn claims to have seen one of them "reach down for something" in the car, so he pulled out his 9mm from his glove box and fired 4 rounds. No warning shot, no "Stop what you're doing I'm armed!"... just shoot first. But here is the worst part - the youths then proceeded to flee (understandable), and Dunn fired 4 more rounds into the departing vehicle (GREAT job Reuters for failing to include that important detail - of course NPR didn't forget).


I am not sure if any of those "gratuitous" shots were the kill shot, and a later search of Davis' vehicle revealed no weapons. That seems to violate SYG to me - there was no more threat, why keep shooting? He is not Dirty Harry. Was he trying to stop them from blasting their music next time? Some people think that violence is the default response to difficult situations, and they don't consider how that perception will make things worse for everyone.

-----

Yeah, and it's not like these guys had no choice. Both Zimmerman and Dunn were not having a crime committed against them. In both cases, they did/could have called the police to resolve it, and not directly confront. And in both cases, their escalating actions made violence more likely to ensue. To be fair, if Zimm or Dunn did those things to you or I, likely no one would be dead at the end of the day. But that's the point - they have no idea who they are dealing with. So maybe they should think about whether loud music or a hoodie is enough of a problem to risk the possibility of a gunfight. But a gun in your belt/car suddenly makes you Mr. Badass, so it changes your risk calculations.

That is one of the biggest problems associated with SYG laws and America's gun culture in general. Like Bill Maher joked, America's foreign policy is "What the F you looking at!?!" Same with domestic - why is violence too often the default response to an unpleasant situation? And in a competitive, free society, unpleasant altercations are inevitable. Do we have to go OK Corral every time someone else does something we don't like? The hubris and egoism associated with the rationale behind SYG is shocking to me. I can't believe higher courts haven't looking into the Constitutional implications too.

Pretty much this is the only situation where vigilantism is justified, when a fanatical drug cult takes over your community, there is no rule of law, and your corrupt government/military is ineffective:


http://latinousa.org/2014/01/31/michoacan-101-inside-civilian-militia-uprising/

We do not and should not live in a comic book.

The Zimmerman jury may have gotten it right, but now what?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57593459-504083/george-zimmerman-verdict-former-neighborhood-watch-leader-not-guilty-in-death-of-fla-teen-trayvon-martin/

Most of us probably believe that it was wrong for Zimmerman to confront Martin in the way he did, and it was a tragedy that the boy died. But in terms of a conviction, unfortunately there just wasn't enough there to prove the strict definitions of 2nd degree murder and/or manslaughter. It's not like he killed Martin outright... he first put himself in dangerous proximity, and escalated into some sort of verbal and physical altercation. He's misguided and showing poor judgment, but not a murderer. Obviously he is a child killer, and yet a hero to many.

What about the trial's greater implications? Our culture, racial policies, and gun laws were not on trial - but they are still open issues for debate. Obviously after Oscar Grant, Martin, and many other examples, I assume the black community and many other Americans are tired of seeing young, lower income, unarmed people of color getting beaten or killed, while the lighter-skinned, gun-toting perpetrator is acquitted or given little punishment (in their opinion). Anger is high and some may want to lash out violently. On the other side, Zimmerman and his supporters may expect that. These folks probably favor concealed-carry, stand-your-ground, unrestricted 2nd amendment, and other legal provisions that enable firearms to be lawfully used for more self defense and vigilante scenarios. So they may want to carry their weapons more often, and may be even more paranoid when confronted by others whose appearance scares them. That's a volatile combination of circumstances.

We discussed this a bit before, but as you'd expect I find such laws that enabled Zimmerman to legally create the tragic situation in Sanford fairly outrageous. We know almost any adult can purchase a gun in America with next to no "qualifications". And in states like FL, you can easily get a permit (if you even need a permit) to carry your gun loaded in public - as long as you are not intoxicated, brandishing it so others feel threatened, etc. Americans get buy guns easily and have loaded guns almost everywhere in a variety of situations - thereby increasing the likelihood that a Sanford type killing, an outright crime, or an accident occurs.

Adding SYG to that, in incidents where conflict ensures and the shooter feels in danger, he/she can use deadly force as self defense and be legally justified. Premeditated malice and aggression aside, it barely matters how you got into the mess (especially when evidence is sketchy, if it's even relevant/admissible), as long as you can prove you were under attack - you have "a license to kill". Does that mean any moron can start shit with anyone else, and when they get in over their head and things go south, they can "kill their way out of trouble?" What if 2 armed people get into a fight? Whoever shoots first under threat will be the "winner". So will that incentive people in those states to be even more hasty and trigger-happy?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/03/23-other-states-have-stand-your-ground-laws-too/50226/

FL and 23 other states have some sort of SYG. They are basically every state below the Mason-Dixon, plus IL, WA, NV, OR. Maybe the best way for blacks and concerned citizens to "have their revenge" against the system and our gun-happy, conflict-happy culture is to boycott. Move out of those states, don't do business with them, don't contribute tax dollars to them. If enough people do it, leaders will start to get the picture and maybe change the laws/norms. Plus, with all the non-pistoleros leaving those communities, the only people left will be the Zimmerman types. It will be more likely that they get into armed altercations with each other, thereby reducing the pro-gun population and creating a lot of negative press for the gun/vigilante/self defense crowd. Because maybe that is the only thing that will really move the debate - when a non-poor, fair-skinned, pro-gun shooter kills a non-poor, fair-skinned, pro-gun victim. Unfortunately it seems that dead black people piled up to the ceiling (forgive my crudeness, but just look at the Chicago and Oakland cases) is not enough to get America and its lawmakers to care.

Or another option is, "if you can't beat em, join em". Zimmerman opponents can start acting like him. Imagine if Martin was an adult and went through the necessary steps to carry in public. Once Zimm. was following him and starting stuff, he could have just killed Zimm. and the trial would have been inverted. It would have been even easier to argue self defense since Zimm. was armed, was the instigator, and his prior 911 call showed prejudice and intent to confront aggressively. With Mark O'Mara, the gun lobby, AND the NAACP defending Martin, no way he would be convicted (unless the FL justice system is truly racist). Maybe that is what is needed, legally armed black people fighting back and killing gun-toting racial profilers who mess with them? Obviously I'm being facetious here, but my point is: look at what these laws and culture could lead to. A nation where almost everybody has the legal authority to be armed in public (with ever more deadly weapons), and use those arms to lawfully kill in an increasing multitude of situations, is not a freer or better society. It's goddam Tombstone. And it won't make your suburb any safer, it won't protect your kids from a deranged school shooter (who likely outguns and outcrazies you), and it won't defeat Al Qaeda or our tyrannical socialist gov't.

So yeah, I would advocate the boycott approach before the Tombstone approach.

-----

Maybe you saw last night's Daily Show: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-july-15-2013-aaron-sorkin

For the record, they also compared SYG to Tombstone - but I called it first. ;) They also showed footage of Zimm's brother discussing how George would have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life because people may want to take matters into their own hands. It was pathetic that the brother didn't grasp the irony.

Also, CNN aired an interview with one of the anonymous jurors (who already landed a book deal, but it got cancelled after her interview aired since it seemed wrong to profit from what some see as a blatant injustice), a married middle-aged white female gun owner. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvrpp4SODBE
http://www.npr.org/2013/07/16/202566703/juror-b-37-speaks-out-about-zimmerman-verdict

When asked if race played a role in Zimm's actions, the juror said that, "[it wouldn't have mattered to Zimm if Trayvon was] Spanish, white, Asian..." Do we want to trust the verdict in a racially-charged trial to a person who can't even articulate the major ethnic groups? Heck, as the defense joked, the main criterion for juror eligibility was a lack of prior knowledge of the incident. This was the case with previous high-profile trials as well, but that's kind of scary that the court has to select the most un-informed and apathetic among the juror pool. The interviewed juror also admitted that she did not follow the judge's orders when coming to a verdict. The judge ruled to disregard the lead investigator's (Chris Serrino, sp?) testimony that he felt Zimm was truthful, yet the juror said that quote made "a big impression" on her decision because of Serrino's experience. Justice definitely served. Lastly, the juror said that of the 6 women, 2 initially believed Zimm to be guilty of manslaughter, but eventually were persuaded to join the acquit crowd (1 of the 6 abstained or still supported manslaughter). You'd think that harassing and brandishing a firearm to an unarmed minor on a public street would break some sort of US law.

Like the Ted Stevens and OJ trials, I'm getting tired of prosecutors wetting the bed. Trying to make a name for themselves or under external pressure, they over-reach with big charges that may not have enough evidence to support them. And then they totally botch the execution too. How can they agree to a jury of all women and all having common ethnicity with the defendant, but not the victim? How can they not prepare their witnesses better (the defense basically turned them over), and not put Zimm on the stand himself? I am fairly ignorant about legal matters, so I'm sure other factors were at play, but I'd like to see an explanation or expert evaluation of their decision/performance. Just not from a juror's book deal.


I think this trial did produce a conviction on US society. We are guilty of tolerating and perpetrating a culture of hostility, fearful stereotyping & over-reactions, shoot first, and "violence solves problems" that will continue to result in civil rights violations, misunderstandings, and tragedies (if not actual crimes).

-----------

From all objective legal accounts this couldn't have gone any other way.  The judge instructed them that Z was within his legal rights, per Florida state law, to follow Martin, approach him, etc.  And once a scuffle ensued if he felt threatened it would not be manslaughter to use his weapon.  Florida does not require you to retreat as part of a self defense act.  Given no other witnesses to the activity, relatively poor circumstantial evidence, etc how could someone not have a reasonable doubt that this was a legal act as opposed to manslaughter?  Are we saying there is NO reasonable doubt that Z started the fight?

 

And the ethnicity thing is killing me.  So all the women were half hispanic?  Is there some evidence somewhere that this was motivated by race?  Zim has previously stood up in city council to berate a white officer whose son attacked a black homeless man.  Not a particularly racist thing to do.  Profiling sure, i'll grant that, but those aren't the same thing.  

----------

I agree with you about the verdict - it's pretty much a slam-dunk actually, and the prosecution were morons for trying to pin him with murder 2. By the strict interpretation of the law, he was not guilty. I am not sure how the verdict would have changed in NY or CA. I never said that Z was a racist and I do think his actions were motivated mostly by a "civic duty" to protect his community from crime. But from a jury standpoint, it's hard to believe that race played zero role in their decision making process, even though the lawyers did their best to avoid the issue. Humans have biases, so if we can't remove them, at least we should balance them out and cancel them out. I'm not saying the jury was all racist either, but we tend to relate better to people who are similar to us. Isn't that why it's rare to have a very homogeneous jury? I don't know why it was only 6 instead of 12 people (maybe FL law?), but I think a mixture of backgrounds is often good to avoid tunnel vision and groupthink. Despite the racial makeup of the jury, 2 of them were initially favoring manslaughter for Z anyway, but were persuaded to change.

You'd think that harassing and brandishing a firearm to an unarmed minor on a public street would break some sort of US law (or it should, right?). I guess this trial did produce a conviction of US society. We are guilty of tolerating and perpetrating a culture of hysterical hostility, fearful stereotyping & over-reactions, shoot first, my gun is my freedom, and "violence solves problems" that will continue to result in civil rights violations, misunderstandings, and tragedies (if not actual crimes). 

-----------

Listen to the 911 call and tell me about harassing him.  And no one has any factual reports that he pulled his gun anytime but the last minute as far as i know.  

He would be guilty for sure in ca or ny or any of the more narrowly defined self defense law states.

-----------

I have not been following the case closely, but while Martin was on the phone with his friend, couldn't you hear him say [presumably to Z], "Why are you following me?" That could suggest there was harassment (and who knows what else happened that wasn't caught on tape?). 

Based on Z's initial 911 call and his motivation for being a "watchman", I think we can assume that he prejudged Martin and confronted him with the intent to run him out of the neighborhood (ostensibly to thwart a crime), possibly by intimidation/threat.

I wasn't a witness obviously, but I find it doubtful that Martin would just suddenly attack an adult stranger who approached/followed him on a dark night. So I think it's plausible that Z did something to scare/provoke Martin, and made the teen feel the need to react and "defend himself" first. But that's the problem with fighting... how do you differentiate between attack and defense, because a punch is a punch? Even straddling and pummeling a person could be defensive, if the purpose was to prevent the person on the bottom from drawing a deadly weapon.

There are "good Samaritan" laws to prevent people trying to help in a volatile situation from getting sued later if they accidentally did harm. But I think there are limits to that protection, like gross negligence voids it. I would hope that SYG laws have limits too - if the shooter puts him/herself in a bad situation and escalates it (if that can be proven), then he/she is no longer covered. Otherwise the law incentivizes violent confrontation, regardless of intent. What if I went into Little Havana with a loudspeaker and started to yell pro-Castro slogans? Assuming people took enough offense to approach me with demonstrable intent to physically harm, I can just shoot them legally? I am not an expert in SYG so maybe there are such common sense limits.

And just when you thought things couldn't get any more effed up in FL, this is another case where a jury (racial composition unknown) found a woman defendant ineligible for SYG protection. She is a PhD, mother of 3, with no prior record, and black. She previously took out a restraining order against her husband for abuse. During their latest alleged altercation, she retrieved a gun in her home and fired a warning shot (according to her) into the ceiling to keep him away. But the court decided that she could not prove she was in imminent danger, so instead she was sentenced to 20 YEARS. I am not sure what the charge was, possibly attempted murder of the husband and/or child endangerment (since their kids were present). This is because FL has mandatory minimum sentences for crimes involving guns (10 years if you have a gun, 20 if you fire it). Some have alleged that mandatory minimum sentences are immoral and maybe racist. So I guess FL enables "lawful" gun owners to have a lot of leeway, but throws the book at gun "criminals". Based on circumstance, economics, etc., one of those populations is predominantly darker skinned and poorer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2143313/Abused-Florida-wife-sentenced-20-YEARS-firing-warning-shot-husband-Stand-Your-Ground-defence-fails.html

Glock's rise and gun control

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/01/170752391/how-the-glock-became-americas-weapon-of-choice

This is an older interview, but related to the gun control debate now. Technically speaking Glock is an excellent firearm vs. its early peers, but its marketing was leaps and bounds ahead:

- They fed on the negative press that Glocks were the weapon of choice of terrorists and bad people (if those hardened killers choose Glock, maybe I should too!).

- They made overtures to Hollywood armories to make sure Glocks got exposure in big time TV/movies like "Law and Order" (and unintentionally in many rap songs).

- Around the time the Glock was invented, cops were using old S&W revolvers and the military was using heavy Colt 1911-like automatics. The Glock was futuristic looking, with a sensitive trigger, made of plastic, and with no external safety. People were skeptical about using it. The genius of the Glock is that it is super-reliable, super-simple design, and made in a very efficient manufacturing process. Their original idea was to leverage that cost advantage to sell cheap and undercut rivals. But then they decided on a premium price, in order to signal to customers that it wasn't a flimsy plastic toy gun - it was in fact a premium, high-performance, superior gun. Though for hesitant police departments, Glock basically had a "name your price" + trade-in policy (subsidized by superior margins to the public). Cops were also motivated to get Glocks because they were tired of being outgunned by criminals with them. So this strategy got them impressive market share, and got the gun double exposure from the "good guy" cops and the "bad guy" crooks.

Here's the gun control side of the story. Glocks were made to accommodate a variety of magazines, some as high as 30 rounds. The gun control community were very opposed to Glocks, and looked foolish after they claimed that the plastic gun would get through airport security (half of the gun is still metal, and its outline would be obvious in an X-ray). But they got momentum after the Killeen, TX mass shooting (the worst in US history at the time) where the perpetrator used a Glock and other firearms. So capping magazine capacity was part of the assault weapons ban, though not retroactive (i.e. existing guns would be grandfathered). Legislation is slow and Glock anticipated this change, so for years prior their plants were pumping out a ton of Glocks and large mags. They sold like hotcakes leading up to the ban, in some cases at 3X higher prices than before Killeen. I guess like the AR-15 now. 

Glock was also the punching bag for many police departments, despite being their supplier. They employed a controversial practice of "trading in". In order to drive more sales, Glock reps would reach out to PDs and offer to buy their old guns in exchange for new, better Glocks (sometime every 1-2 years). PDs agreed, and then Glock would sell those used guns on the secondary market. Of course some of those guns got in the hands of criminals. Cops were blaming (and even suing) Glock for "flooding the streets" with guns, but where did those guns come from - the holsters of cops! If PDs resisted the urge to get the latest-and-greatest guns (subsidized by their current guns), then the problem could have been much reduced. They could have mandated that Glock melt down their old guns and sell them as scrap instead.

Obama's underwhelming speech in Newtown

Not sure if any of you saw Obama's speech in CT about the shooting (since they interrupted the 49ers game for it, I expected it to be good). But I was terribly disappointed. He's not the inspirational, transformational leader of 2008 anymore, and it just looks sad when he tries to be these days.

This was from an interview on NPR Weekend Edition with Pastor Eugene Peterson, who was offering advice on what to do (and not to do) for a grieving person. He brought up examples from his own life and ministry.

[At my mother's funeral, this man] put his arm across my shoulders, and he started giving me cliches and talking God talk. And after a few minutes of that, he left. And I said to my daughter Karen: Oh, Karen, I hope I've never done that to anybody. And she said - she was so dear. She says: Oh, daddy, I don't think you'd ever do that. But I had done that. But you learn not to do that when you've been through this a few times.

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/15/167346785/spiritual-strength-in-times-of-great-need

Obama's speech was at an "interfaith" service, so we can expect some spirituality, but I think he really went overboard with the "God talk", obvious parenting advice, and other cliches like "our children are our hearts". To me it's patronizing, which is exactly what Peterson said grieving people don't want to hear. It's of very little comfort when a stranger tells you that the dead "are in a better place now" or we "have to have faith that this is part of a plan." What are you saying, that we shouldn't grieve and be happy instead? That is not empathy, that is lecturing. Or if Obama insists on this course, at least do it powerfully and succinctly like JFK (crescendos delivered in <1 br="br" min="min">
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf4eQhrHbKA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyR_b98weiQ

Sometime (or too often) Obama speaks like a wimp - too guarded and professorial, which makes him come off as weak and un-authentic (compare this to the fiery Obama of 2004-2008). I really think he should fire his speech writers (and definitely his debate coach). It's not campaign season anymore, he doesn't need to blabber on for 20 min with vague, colorful, but distracting language. Otherwise people tune out. I realize it is was terrible situation for a speech, and it is not an easy task even for a gifted orator. Plus Obama is clearly not a natural like Bill (see how well he handled the OK City tragedy, in just 9 min: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DgXx_evi6Q). Even if he was a total phony (which I doubt), he came off as an expert of humility and empathy, as a great source of comfort and inspiration, as the president we needed then. No wonder why Bill would be the runaway pick for the Dems in 2016 if he could run again. But I guess that's not fair for Obama if he has to try to measure up to that (but I think he compares his presidency to Clinton's a lot).

If I was part of the Newtown community, I would appreciate if he said what he would do to spare other Americans the same pain. Something CONCRETE. A promise, not the other BS he spewed after the last 3 mass shootings during his presidency. Maybe he was heartfelt, but we didn't feel it, and there are no points for effort. I am sure Obama did better meeting solo or in small groups with the victims and local community. But in a nationally televised speech, he has to do better or don't bother at all (since as pastor said, silence is sometime the best thing you can give). After Obama's speech, I don't feel like things are going to get better. I just wonder when he and the Dems will puss-out to the gun lobby, and when the next horrible shooting will be. Obama made me feel cynical, upset, and defeated, whereas JFK and Clinton made me feel energized and hopeful, even if their words are decades old (and we now know about all their personal flaws).

Everyone already knows (apart from the NRA) that the status quo is not good enough. Everyone already knows that protecting our kids is our top priority. Tell us how we're going to get to a better place. The GOP isn't totally wrong; Obama is very thin on details at times. And I'm not talking about a deep dive into policy minutia, research findings, and wonky specifics. There has to be a middle ground between fluff and wonk, and that is where most Americans prefer to communicate and understand. Clinton got that right almost every time, it was uncanny. I respect Bush Sr. for at least having the sack to promise no new taxes, even if he had to break it later. At least he put it out there and the people knew where he stood. Same thing for JFK proclaiming that an American would reach the moon before the decade was out. Maybe he had his doubts, but it helped to quell America's fears about Sputnik. So Mr. no-drama, play-it-safe Obama, can you just say that it's going to be harder for deranged shooters to get their hands on weapons and commit massacres? Maybe attacks won't go down to zero, but please reassure us that things will improve. You said we have to change, and you are Mr. Change, so tell is WHAT exactly is going to change, dammit!

What's it going to be, Barack? What do you want your second term to be remembered for? You somewhat mocked the people who were unsure about you in 2008 as "clinging to their guns" - now you won't even say the word (it's not Voldemort!). Sometime a leader has to tell the people the hard things they may not want to hear, but need to. He even said tonight, good parents can't hope to shield their kids from the world forever. That would be doing them a disservice. Wasn't he all about doing the unpopular thing as long as it was the right thing? Didn't his former chief of staff Emmanuel admonish to never let a crisis go to waste? And he may be surprised that there is more latent support for stronger gun restrictions than the Beltway pollsters suggest. 

---------

The excuse-for-inaction machine has already started to rev up in DC:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-highlights-obstacles-taking-action-guns-205115017--politics.html

Jay Carney: "I think we all recognize that this is a complex problem and there are obstacles to taking action coming from a variety of places... no single piece of legislation, no single action will fully address the problem. So I don't have a specific agenda to announce to you today."

---------
Critics say the Obama administration hasn't done enough to combat gun violence. Carney responded to that criticism Monday by saying the president has supported an assault weapons ban and that the administration has "taken steps" to improve background checks, "but as you heard the president say last night, we all need to do more."
When pressed by ABC News' Jake Tapper to name specific legislation pushed by the administration, Carney cited "actions" on background checks and again stressed that more action needs to be taken.
Actually the Obama admin. has done nothing of substance. The only notable change was in the other direction - guns are now permitted in national parks.

----------

Following the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., in July, several Democratic lawmakers pushed legislation to outlaw the sale of high-capacity gun magazines. At the time, Sen. Dianne Feinstein  (D-Calif.) was one of the voices cautioning against wading into gun control during an election year. "It's a bad time to embrace a new subject," Feinstein said.

Only FOUR members of Congress pushed for renewed discussion on gun legislation after Aurora. And Feinstein, who was known as one of the strongest gun control advocates in the Senate, basically told them to shut it down until after the election. Well the election is over now and we have another shooting. Now what?

-------

But at least some NRA A-rated Congressmen (Manchin, Warner) are now joining the call for an assault weapons ban ("No hunter I know uses an assault rifle").

Some good comments in the discussion below. Sadly, it is pretty much the same discussion as the one post-Aurora. The pro-gun guy rehashed the same "solution" - armed school staff could have stopped the shooter. But the gun control researcher believes that America is different now. A shot Congresswoman and a shot-up movie theater wasn't enough it seems, but now a pile of slaughtered children may have actually woken the nation up. He predicts this could be the beginning of the end for the NRA, as there is a trend of more NRA-funded politicians losing their elections. Bloomberg has proposed starting a well funded opposing advocacy-lobbying org to directly challenge the NRA. Some gun-owning conservatives (who also want more gun restrictions) called in and they said they are tired of having the NRA be the blanket face and voice of all US gun owners. That is like the Tea Party speaking for all Republicans. Very true. Like how the Tea Party really just represents extreme libertarian pro-business interests, the NRA really just represents the gun industry, and indirectly others who benefit from loose guns, like criminals.

An Australian called in and commented on his nation's ban on many types of guns. He said that Auzzies aren't lamenting their "loss of freedom" to possess certain guns, but instead are thankful that they have the freedom to walk in the street without much fear of getting shot.

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201212170900

----------

http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/111151/could-newtown-change-gun-control-politics#

Cohn makes the argument that the politics of gun control have changed. It used to be that Democrats needed at least some percentage of rural conservative voters in Ohio, Virginia etc to win the presidency - Clinton got them, Gore didn't. But over the last few elections those folks have gone entirely towards Republicans, and Democrats have won anyways. The basic argument is that rural gun-lovers are going to vote Republican no matter what, and they're going to lose. So there's no point trying to pretend you care about them, especially if ignoring them allows you to win over real swing voters who prefer fewer guns and fewer massacres.

----------

Thx, J. Yeah, the modern Dems seem predisposed to at least try to reassure voters that they respect the 2nd Amendment and don't want to confiscate all types of guns (just as they feel the need to reassure America that they will be tough on terrorism and rein in spending). I guess it's a knee-jerk to demonstrate that they aren't pansy pinkos. But yeah, it seems we are past the days of Kerry getting a photo-op while hunting to woo rural independent voters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50527-2004Oct21.html

It seems the Dems can win elections without this segment in their corner, but what about passing meaningful legislation? They may not even be able to keep their own tent in line on this one, much less persuade many Republicans. I can see a lot of the GOP speaking out about gun control (they are probably rightfully outraged and it's also conveniently the political thing to do), but when it comes down to an actual vote, they could cite some technicality to vote no. Though I think a lot of politicians are wary that if they oppose even a toothless, ceremonial gun bill in the wake of Newtown, they would look like heartless bastards with 2014 not far away. Getting 60 senators could be tough, especially since the gun lobby may rightfully realize that this is an existential moment for them and go all-out.

I know I have been contradicting myself regarding how powerful the gun lobby actually is, and how pro-gun Congress actually is, because the truth is I have no idea. Like with health care, the problem with the gun issue is that conservatives always pivot to the personal freedoms, Constitutional rights, and gov't oppression stuff. "No one wants more mass shootings, but having the bloated federal bureaucracy regulating our guns is not the answer. The people and the states can make their own firearms decisions." They justify doing nothing as preventing bad legislation.

It is also possible that we are in the heat of the moment now, but passionate interest in gun control will wane with the holiday shutdown and fiscal cliff looming (not to mention NFL playoffs and Oscars). A massacre of kids is a major downer, and I don't think the MSM will be covering it heavily after Xmas, especially because the "villain" is already dead (no periodic court appearances and criminal profiles like with other shooters). The pro-gun camp may be counting on this, so they are just biding their time until America naturally forgets? Sorry for the cynicism.

----------

http://ktla.com/2012/12/17/sen-diane-feinstein-to-introduce-gun-control-bill/

http://science.howstuffworks.com/5-most-popular-guns3.htm

Hope it passes, but it's not retroactive. Sadly, the AR-15 is one of the top 5 most popular gun models in the US, if not the most. This is shocking to me considering a base weapon is like $1,000, vs. a  decent hunting rifle, shotgun, or revolver for $300. Also the AR-15 is not exactly compact to transport and store securely, and cleaning it must be a bear. An ATF agent on NPR tonight said that he predicts AR-15 sales to spike this holiday season, even though Lanza used one to massacre kids. There will be worries about a possible ban, it is a very "cool" looking weapon now with more notoriety, and people will justify it by claiming they are owning one to stop any future Lanzas. Some people are taking notice though, as Wal-Mart has now pulled the AR-15 from its website (you can't buy it online but they show you the stores where it's legally available).

After the first assault ban expired in the 2000's, there was a flood of such guns into the country. So even if we put up a new ban now, how do we deal with the many in circulation?

Our ground wars are winding down and it's getting harder to legally arm overseas warlords, so the death dealers need US consumers to pick up the slack.

PS - Wal-mart's role in the US gun culture ("Save money, kill better"): http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/walmart-ar-15-online-store/60077/

You can even put rifles on your wedding registry:

http://www.walmart.com/browse/hunting/guns,-rifles-amp;-ammunition/4125_4155_1088608?search_query=&tab_value=all&ic=60_0&search_sort=3&cat_id=4125_4155_1088608

You'll remember in "Bowling for Columbine" how Moore et al. got K-Mart to stop selling ammo (they didn't sell guns at the time)... no such luck for the world's biggest retailer.

-----------

Yep, anecdotally AR and overall gun sales are spiking now. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-sales-spike-virginia-colorado-record-highest-background-174415554.html

But some major investors are closing their positions in the (highly profitable) gun industry, such as the CA Teacher's pension fund (understandable) and Cerberus private equity (the owner's father lives in Newtown). Could the gun industry be the new black mark industry like tobacco?

What the foreign press is saying about us after Newtown: http://news.yahoo.com/connecticut-school-massacre-world-sees-us-105500647.html

An interesting discussion of assault weapons: http://www.npr.org/2012/12/20/167694808/assault-style-weapons-in-the-civilian-market

- The guest (Tom Diaz) said that we have made way more significant legal changes, spent way more on research & countermeasures, and fundamentally changed our society (and other societies) in response to terrorism (namely 9/11) than we have for gun-related civilian violence - even though the death toll from terrorism is tiny vs. gun violence. I can understand that terrorist attacks are often large and traumatic vs. the "slow bleed" of (generally unreported in the media) daily gun violence. But mass shootings of kids with military rifles may change perceptions.

- M touched on this already, but the original assault weapons ban wording was so weird with a bunch of irrelevant restrictions on pistol grips, bayonet mounts, etc. Ironically, this helped companies like Bushmaster rise in the 1990's because they redesigned the M-16 into a simplified model that met all the assault weapons ban requirements. So basically you had the same potent weapon that was now legal. Assault rifle designs have been around for decades, so developing nations started to pump out clones at bargain prices. When our ban was lifted in 2004, these cheap weapons started to flood the US and elsewhere.

- There is a recent marketing push in the gun industry to equip US civilians with "military looking" weapons. In some cases, they are the exact same weapon with the same damage potential (e.g. a .50 cal sniper rifle with armor-piercing rounds). Gun makers don't make high margins on military contracts, due to the Pentagon's bargaining power and maybe some legal issues. The civilian market is larger and a lot more lucrative. So gun makers developed a strategy to win military contracts with a low-ball offer, and then their weapon would gain a lot of publicity, prestige, and visibility (movies, ads, video games, news footage, etc.). This would be free marketing and whip up civilian demand for the same model (but with higher markups). Beretta pioneered this trend with the M9 sidearm.

- Most data on gun usage in America looks bad for the gun industry. So they pushed Congress to enact the Tiahrt Amendment (R-KS, NRA stooge) preventing the ATF from using its budget to publish any gun data to the public. Plenty of private orgs research and publish gun studies, but they don't have the deep access and "big data" resources that the ATF does. We could know which gun models were most often used in which type of crimes, smuggling/lethality rates, etc. But this could severely impact sales, so the info is not available to the public.

- Both Clinton and Bush signed executive orders to limit or block the importation of gun models that do not have a "clear sporting purpose." So far Obama has not, but he could with the stroke of a pen. It wouldn't regulate domestic manufacturers, but would still help. 

Tired of mass shootings

Individuals Generally Support Regulation
The NORC survey further showed that citizens support stricter firearm limits. The vast majority (91%) support making it illegal to use guns while under the influence of alcohol. High percentages (85% and 82%) want limits on the sale of high-powered 50-caliber rifles and semiautomatic assault weapons. Similarly high percentages favor criminal background checks for all gun sales and the requirement of a police permit before a gun can be purchased. Interestingly, three-quarters of respondents believed that terrorist attacks have increased the need for stricter gun control. Compared with the sale of illegal drugs, 54% want illegal gun sales to be punished more severely, while 37% want the punishments for illegal gun sales to be as tough as penalties for selling illegal drugs.(Marketresearch.com)

The only ones who want less gun control is the NRA and the gun industry - but they are dominating the issue.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/guns-america-statistical/story?id=17939758#.UMgr7HfrWea

Some stats about the industry, most of which is probably familiar if you've seen "Bowling for Columbine". Please don't fwd the attached reports around, but just FYI and for talking points.

I've owned and occasionally enjoyed firearms for about a decade. I don't need it at all, never had to use it for its intended purpose, and it is an expensive hobby. Not sure why I started, maybe like a "manhood" thing or just curiosity. I generally handle it safely, but in the past I have done foolish things where an accident could have happened with people I care about. There were times when my emotional state was not great, and if I had quick access to my firearm, maybe it could have been really bad. It's 99.9% liability, 0.1% asset. This situation makes no sense, so I will look into a gun trade-in program with the police. No point selling the gun and transferring the risk to others. I can't in good conscience criticize the industry and perpetrators of violence when I am like one bad day from becoming a major part of the problem.

There are more gun stores than gas stations, and more guns than people, in America. The industry has yearly sales of about $12B, which puts it about 40th percentile of all US industries (and revenue growth is outpacing GDP). All that is under an "anti-gun, socialist" president. Cars and guns each kill over 10,000 Americans per year, despite "technological improvements" and safety education. In contrast, about 5,000 people died on 9/11 and Katrina combined. But we love our cars and guns, so that's that. Clearly guns are doing their job just fine - why the need to ease rules on expanded magazines, assault rifles, ATF powers, stand-your-ground, etc.?

What does that say about the gun industry that they have to spend so much of their revenue on political lobbying and PR? If you have a good, necessary, and safe product - doesn't it sell itself? Why the need to organize and change the laws to protect your product? Ironic that the most harmful industries seem to have the most lobbyists, political spending, and trade associations (dirty energy, tobacco, guns, gaming, financial svcs., junk food, monopolies, etc.). Uncompetitive and obsolete industries rely on propaganda, cheating, and gov't handouts to survive. At least Solyndra never killed anyone. "War profiteering" is the sickest form of income. They make us fearful about everything, so we buy their weapons to feel better, and god forbid we actually use them on other people (usually not due to self defense).

The pro-gun lobby would argue that they are just protecting their interests and your rights from the onslaught of socialist, un-American gun control. Because a disarmed public is one step away from bondage. We all know that is BS. Yeah, disarmed nations like the UK and Japan and are soooo terrible, and gun-heavy nations like Iraq and Somalia are model states. And if gun control was such a threat, then why is the pro-gun camp outspending them 17:1 in Washington? It's not like the left was "gunning" to outlaw guns since the beginning. The Brady Bill and other regs were written in response to horrific, preventable attacks. So-called gun proponents did nothing in response to tragedies like Columbine. They don't even acknowledge a problem. If you love guns for sport or whatever, and you see that there are lapses where bad people can sully the hobby you love, don't you want to make reforms and protect the sport? Even unresponsive and stubborn Major League Baseball realized that rampant steroid use was tarnishing its rep and hurting the business, so they made changes. It didn't fix the problem 100%, but at least it's improving. The gun lobby is just getting in the way of progress, and some gun fans acknowledge that the NRA is actually bad for the sport.

http://www.republicreport.org/2012/the-anti-gun-control-lobby-spent-17-times-as-much-as-the-pro-gun-control-lobbying-last-year/

The NRA argument just doesn't hold water. Basically they proclaim that owning guns is an American right and even a patriotic duty. But average modern American civilian life is less gun-centric than ever before (i.e. as hunting for food and protecting your homestead from Injuns have declined to almost nil, the gun is mostly relegated to the domain of criminal violence). In a recent survey, only 9% reported that they hunted in the last year. So if they want to hunt, fine. Have your registered long guns stored at a secure gov't depot, and you check them out when you want to use them (after passing a sobriety and police check). Of the greatest Americans that we remember in history (Lincoln, Edison, MLK, etc.), did guns play a big role in making them great? Did those people even care about guns? You know which Americans love guns - mass murderers. I know there are plenty of law-abiding, upstanding gun enthusiasts out there, so let me put it this way: gun affinity is necessary but not sufficient to be a mass murderer, and not necessary at all to be a good American.

On a more practical level, they say guns are necessary to protect yourself, your wealth, and your loved ones from "bad people" - specifically bad people who are armed. So we need to buy guns as protection against gun-toting enemies? At any moment you need to be ready to grab your gun and neutralize a threat (maybe even keep in on your person or in your purse). But NRA-endorsed safe gun ownership requires that you store your gun unloaded with the safety on, and preferably in a gun safe or with a gun lock (more things to buy on top of the ammo, cleaning kit, etc. - a lot of ancillary costs like a car). After the 1-2 minutes to unlock and load it, your child could be kidnapped already. OTOH, if you have your loaded gun ready for action by your bedside, what is to prevent Junior from finding it and bringing it to school (it has happened)?

So guns are both the salvation and the threat, the problem and the solution. It makes no sense. Premeditated rampages aside, most gun owners would admit that people can snap at any moment, and if they are armed it could get ugly (the football player Belcher example recently). But it's never them, it's always other people. Well if everyone thinks like that and shootings still occur, then obviously introspective opinions on gun safety are not entirely accurate. I am sure Belcher never thought of himself as a potential murderer before the day he became one. And he must not have been that bad of a guy when the whole stadium had a tearful moment of silence for him and his victim. I am not proud to say this, but I believe that it could have been me. Amazingly and fortunately, gun murders are relatively rare considering the obscene number of circulating guns and opportunities for random conflict in US society. Maybe that is a testament to our better angels. But it is poor public policy to rely on better angels. Most narcotics and explosives are illegal. In some places gambling and even abortions are basically illegal. We don't have and shouldn't have absolute freedom; there is legal precedent for restrictions to reduce the chance of us harming ourselves and each other when the risk-benefit make sense. Yet guns are available to purchase in virtually every city, in some cases without even a background check or waiting period. I guess we have to chalk that up to the 2nd Amendment, and more recently the NRA.

----------

Obviously this particular mass shooting is of interest to me because of the Oregon ties, and I have to admit that last place I'd ever expect a shooting like this to happen is in a suburban Portland mall.  I remember the year before I went to college up there they had a school shooting in Springfield, OR, but that area is more rural and redneck-y (stereotypes are fun).  Obviously the similarities are an (apparently) disturbed individual with access to weapons.  

The only thing I can really comment on was the TV coverage of this incident.  I flipped to CNN, expecting wall-to-wall coverage of the event and was a tad disappointed with the sense that these types of incidents are becoming blase to reporters.  Fox News didn't cover the event AT ALL, they had Bill O'Reilly on yelling at some people.  I guess that's not surprising.  Is the new normal that these disturbing shootings are just going to happen every 3 months, and unless more than 10 people die there's scant amount of coverage?  Even right now on CNN.com, the front headline is "GLOBE GOES GAGA FOR 12/12/12" while the Oregon shooting is crammed off to the side of the page.  Who the F cares about 12/12/12.  

T, I appreciate your point that NRA people say guns are necessary to protect themselves and their wealth from bad people.  But it's funny... the real bad people we should all be worried about are bankers and financial institution pulling strings behind the scenes that affect the livelihood and health of our economy.  No gun could stop them. 

----------

Well a gun could stop them, but who wants to get lethal injection for knocking off Blankfein (who will just be replaced by a nastier guy)? :) Dang I am on the watch list for sure now. But it sends the wrong message that powerful bad people can only be defeated by violence. Maybe that was true during the European revolutions, but it is inspiring that blacks, Mexicans, women, and gays in America won more rights without having to kill any of their oppressors (though plenty of them were killed). It can happen on rare occasions at least, and is a testament to the good parts of our political system. 

Yeah I hope Daily Show at least shames the MSM for their lack of coverage on this. My theory is that since it happened a a suburban mall in a city known for nice people during Xmastime, it would scare away a lot of holiday shoppers nationwide (or maybe inspire copycats). And the corporate-media complex definitely doesn't want that. But aren't people killed like every year due to Xmas shopping stampedes, fights over parking spots, etc.? That is an issue for another day.

As you said, these occasional shootings are the "price" that the gun lobby and Washington have decided that the public should pay for our "freedom to bear arms" (and their freedom to make $$$ off us). I don't think the CEO of Smith & Wesson and some redneck senator from GA should be allowed to make that call for everyone though. It will only change when someone of import or their loved ones are randomly killed by a deranged shooter who should not have been able to own a gun. But even Giffords didn't move the needle. After Columbine, public support for more gun control hit an all-time high, but the NRA weathered the storm and the public eventually forgot (as we always do). Now in the post-9/11 & great recession eras, there is no hope.

----------

Do you all feel that more coverage is the right answer?  I feel at this point it is local news and a blurb on the national level.  What benefit can there be with nonstop coverage?
Secondly, is access to guns really necessary for large scale killing?  Aren't these mass shootings generally organized and planned?  Guns may be easier to get but the barrier to entry for a home cooked pipe bomb isn't terribly high.  Napalm, poison gas, all relatively simple to make from household products and Google.  What about a knife and some pepper spray with a gas mask?  I have a hard time believing these things would stop happening with more gun laws.  that was stuff I came up with in 30 seconds.  Imagine months of thought.


----------

I thought the coverage over the CO shooting was fairly substantial. Maybe because it occurred near Littleton, and the shooter was such an "interesting" character. It was also noteworthy that he was so heavily armed, much more than past shooters. More news coverage is not the "fix" to this problem, but more awareness and outrage is better than ignoring it.

I agree with M's comments that now we are desensitized to these kind of shootings and they aren't even shocking anymore (to some). I don't want the US to be like Baghdad or Juarez where the people are used to beheadded bodies showing up in a ditch every week. And more guns is not the answer to fix that. I think the scary part is that these shootings are "random-premeditated" and lack the traditional crime-of-passion profile. What I mean is that the shooter carefully planned to lash out at society over some grievance, but attacked random innocents rather than people who directly hurt him. How can you stop someone like that? I guess you can look for mental "warning signs" (there was much discussion of this after VA Tech and the cinema shooter), or you can do the easier and more effective thing - curtail access to guns. Every society has violent sociopaths and otherwise good people who get angry and do something they regret in the heat of the moment. You can't stop that from happening, but at least reduce the chance that those people can do major harm to others.

To address M2's comments: yes there is plenty of knowledge on the internet on how to harm others - either bombs or kung fu or whatever. But those take some effort to master and execute. Guns are the easy solution for mass violence. Based on US history, guns are a prerequisite for mass killings. There are notable exceptions like OK City and 9/11, but those were perpetrated by "professional" terrorists. With a $300 gun bought at Big 5, any Joe who poses no threat to anyone can instantly become Rambo. That is the problem. I guarantee that if guns were outlawed tomorrow, violent crime would plummet. In general, violent crime stats have been going down in the US since the 1990's, but the % of those crimes involving a gun has not declined and may even have risen. I think there are fewer gun murders per year combined in GER, FRA, and UK than Oakland. What's the difference? There are far fewer guns and no NRA/2nd Amendment in Europe.

----------

What is worse?

(a) A sick, pathetic man who fantasizes about harming innocents

(b) A sane, rational, powerful man who enables said sick man to actually carry out his fantasies, due to his own negligence, obsolete ideology, and/or the profit motive

Men in category (b) often lay 100% of the blame for tragedies on men of category (a) without ever considering their own involvement. I guess this issue relates to the free speech vs. Muslim violence topic we discussed before. How do you divide up blame between those who exercise their "freedoms" by provoking/enabling others to commit violence, and the actual physical perpetrators of the violence (who probably wouldn't have harmed anyone if those freedoms were exercised and regulated more responsibly)?

----------

Someone on Twitter said they need to rephrase "gun control" to "massacre prevention."

----------

Very good comment. Let's stop the NRA from framing this really simple issue only on their fallacious terms.

I would encourage everyone to write their elected officials and protest. Let them fear us more than the gun lobby. Of course I doubt anything much will change, because if our leaders were the type to care more about public good than political survival, then we wouldn't even need to have this discussion. 

But here is my attempt:

Dear X,

Stop being a coward and start showing leadership. 10,000 Americans die each year from gunfire, and there has been one major shooting tragedy after another on the news. I am fed up. We are not talking about an absolute ban here (though it seems to work fine in many other nations), but there should be more scrutiny as to who can own guns, and how they should be legally used and monitored. It shouldn't be easier than getting a driver's license or a bank loan.

You are in office to protect the people, not to care about the antiquated platform of an extremist lobby and how it might affect your party's political prospects. The majority of surveyed citizens want more gun control, or as some would put it, "massacre prevention." But Washington politics is more pro-gun now than the Columbine days. Even the shooting of one of your own, Rep. Giffords, did nothing to move the debate.

Do something about it, or we'll replace you with someone who will. Only Mayor Bloomberg had the guts to speak out against guns. Will you join him, along with millions of victims' loved ones and concerned Americans? Because if you don't, then the blood of more innocent children (outrageously sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed and petty politics) will be on your hands.
 
----------

I thought this was interesting, although I can't verify if it's all totally legit or not.

http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-illegal-gun-trafficking-arms-criminals-and-youth/

One thing I would like to point about the gun control issue is that most crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns, as the above link mentions. From the Freakonomics book, they did some research and found that gun control in general, gun buybacks, stricter laws, etc.don't have much of an effect on gun ownership because illegal guns are obtained so easily anyway, at least here in America. In other words, gun control has little to no effect on obtaining illegal guns, at least according to Freakonomics.

Also this: http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/10/06/why-gun-traffickers-should-live-in-arizona/

To be clear, I'm not expressing any sort of stance on gun control laws other than to say gun control's lack of effect on reducing gun ownership. Much like the drug war and prohibition when a LOT of people want something, they can find a way to get it one way or another. If you're looking to seriously reduce gun ownership I think one would should look at anti-tobacco campaigns. It's an useful comparison, as less people smoke than ever and yet, a whole lot of people still smoke. We're at a point in our culture that gun ownership is ingrained and it would take several generations of increasingly stronger social taboos (much like smoking) to even make a dent in the percentage. It makes me wonder if it would be more effective to try to prevent people from shooting up public places to begin with, whatever those reasons may be.

----------

Agreed. The pro-war people got so upset when all those white crosses were put up by Lafayette BART to remind us of the war dead. Why get mad at the protesters - they didn't send our troops overseas to die? We care more about unborn fetuses in this country than victims of violence.

Gun control DOES work, and there are literally dozens of examples in the world. America's patchwork, corrupt, and stupid gun control system is terrible, so we can't use that track record to totally dismiss the relationship between gun control and gun violence. Remember the GOP strategy: they want less gov't, so they have incentive to make gov't appear as corrupt and ineffective as possible, so voters will side with their views. Pro-gun forces want gun control to look as wrong, stupid, and counter-productive as possible, so that it may encourage people to oppose gun control. That is probably why the right has made so much out of "Fast and Furious" when it is really not a big deal (definitely not as bad as Iran Contra). Pro-gun politicians have handcuffed the ATF and made the laws so ridiculous that gun control is almost guaranteed to fail. But that doesn't mean it has to.

The article is right that the NRA has blocked the ATF and other law enf. from better tracking guns and sellers. Why? What do honest sellers have to fear? That isn't stopping our right to form regulated militias. It has nothing to do with gun rights, but it would impact gun sales. That is another problem for them. The gun industry doesn't really care who buys its products (African warlords, Mexican cartels, unstable people, etc.). So they are actually fighting law enf. and making our society (and the world) less safe because they want to sell to bad customers as well as lawful ones. I know there is the argument that "If people really want to get something, they'll find a way to get it." But criminals in Western Europe definitely want guns, and most still can't get them. And guns are not like drugs and booze. Prohibition was stupid (one of many reasons) because it erroneously assumed booze was the primary driver of social decay and undesirable behaviors. So they thought the cost-benefit of outlawing booze would be worth it. But with guns, they ARE the primary driver of gun violence, obviously. So in that case, prohibition or more regulation should produce better results. Some may argue that criminality, anger, and other human social forces are the main causes of violence, not guns themselves. Maybe so, but as we already discussed, humans are always going to be angry and violent at times. We probably can't 100% exorcise that from any society. But when we get crazy and mad and violent, at least we shouldn't have access to WMDs. Knifings and hit-and-runs may spike without guns, but fewer people would die. It's really not that complicated.

I agree with you that better socialization and education will help de-emphasize the gun in American culture. But already we see a difference. As that market research pdf I sent out showed, if you live in higher income, urban, educated areas, you are less likely to own a gun. It's just not a part of your lifestyle, so you probably are less opposed to gun control. But then again, the majority of mass shooters in the US have been somewhat educated, suburban, non-poor people. We tax what we want to discourage, right? Maybe it shouldn't be so cheap to buy body armor and assault rifles. I mean, those are expensive already, but quite affordable for the middle class. Tax guns, ammo, etc. 100% and I'm pretty sure violence would decrease. Use that money to fund education, counseling, and violence prevention programs. As you said, follow the smoking example.

----------

In general I think we could do with more and better gun control, and obviously these mass killings are tragic. But I worry about my own ability to be objective given that I'm not really a member of the culture around guns. That is, guns and gun ownership are a stereotypical red-state activity, and San Francisco is about as opposite-end from that as can be.

So let me play devil's advocate with this problem I've been thinking about: Why should alcohol be legal in the US?

Firearm homicides totaled 11,493 in 2009 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm). Drunk driving fatalities totaled 10,228 in 2010 (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html). Obviously drunk-driving fatalities include both the drunk driver and the bystanders, but the overall fatality figures are roughly the same order of magnitude.

Both firearms and alcohol have recreational uses. Firearm recreation tends to be red-state only, while alcohol recreation cuts across cultural lines, but they both have that component.

Firearms have uses as tools, for protection (from wild animals, criminals, tyrannical governments, etc). Alcohol's use as a tool … social lubricant?

So why should firearms be illegal, but alcohol should not? My immediate, emotional reaction is "well guns are bad, and I like alcohol, so … obviously." That's the difficulty being objective about firearms vs alcohol.

I think the proper reason has to do with preserving the state's monopoly on violence. That is, guns undermine the rule of law by enabling a coercive strategy outside the law. If criminals have guns, they can be more effective at enforcing and sustaining their criminal culture outside of the rule of law. On the public safety side (deaths vs legitimate uses), I think we should draw the line in favor of more liberty, such that we'd allow both guns and alcohol (ignoring the rule-of-law effects of guns).

---------

Thanks, J. You are right, guns kill about 10K Americans per year. I said 50K in my OP, but that was over 2006-2010. Apologies.

For alcohol, of course there are more ways to die from it than car accidents, but I get your point. Culture aside and just thinking about policy here, I would say this:

From a personal freedoms and American values standpoint, I think we should allow some guns and booze in society. But not all forms and under all circumstances, obviously. Alcohol is not freely available. You have to be a certain age, the alcohol has to be inspected by gov. agencies, the seller has to have a license, and in some states you can't buy on Sunday or if the alc% is too high. All that makes some sense (to some people) and doesn't really preclude most consumers from using alcohol for its intended purposes and deriving some happiness from it. Not all users approve of all the current laws, but you can't please everyone. The goal is to maximize social utility without harming minorities too much, and accommodating some minorities if it doesn't cost overall society too much.

For guns, even the NRA would probably agree that private citizens should not be allowed to own and use depleted uranium rounds and anti-aircraft cannons. So some "reasonable" limitations on personal firearms makes sense, especially in the interests of public safety. You can't practice medicine without a license, you can't even be a sleazy realtor without passing some exam. So why in many red states can you buy and use a gun just by signing on a dotted line (even signing a false name)? You just need to pay some fee to get a "hunting license" - you don't even need to demonstrate basic knowledge and skills. It is reasonable to enforce background checks, cooling-off periods, mandatory regular training and certification, magazine size limits, concealment regs, etc. Many gun users will still be able to use guns for their intended purposes, and derive some pleasure from it. Some will be disappointed, but their sacrifice is probably worth more people being alive and un-maimed.

These regs may help reduce gun accidents, but I am not sure how to really stop murders. Maybe if we change the framing of the gun in society. Now it seen as a sign of being badass, how to settle scores, power, revenge, to get noticed, take what you want, etc. That is really bad. As you said, we can't condone violence as a means of resolving disputes (but as Michael Moore's film suggested - what message are we sending when our gov't uses violence to get what it wants overseas?). Of course guns are also seen as protection, deterrent, sporting equipment, etc. Maybe if people perceive them more from a risk and caution angle (what could happen if misused), we wouldn't be so cavalier about them (same with cars and booze). Some think of alcohol for the taste, for social lubrication, etc. Others think of it as a means to get crazy and date-rape women. Most products can be used for good and bad, and we can't really control how they are used once they leave the store. So all we have are social norms and expectations of behavior. Also, people think of sports cars differently than minivans. People think of assault rifles and hi-cap magazines in only a few ways, and they're generally detrimental to society. So outlaw or heavily restrict them. People think about .22 rifles and .38 revolvers much differently. Any of those weapons can bag a deer or stop a home intruder. But some are much more likely to be used in a school mass shooting.