but if you've ever been at a range you know the respect for safety and for the power of the weapons that everyone there has, from the participants to those running the range (who are very professional and VERY concerned for safety and VERY detail-oriented and not willing to put up with anyone who is joking around or otherwise non-serious).

(CNN) - U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert said the deadly Connecticut school shooting could have been halted sooner if staff at the school had been equipped with guns.

"I wish to God (the principal) had had an M4 in her office, locked up, so when she heard gunfire she pulls it out … and takes him out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids," the Republican from Texas said on "Fox News Sunday."

– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

The gun control debate has been renewed since 20 students and six adults were killed Friday at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Many lawmakers and politicians have called for the renewal of the federal assault weapons ban, a piece of legislation that expired in 2004 at the end of its 10-year term but has yet to be renewed.

(CNN) - Violent video games and a "culture of violence" found in the media could be contributing factors to mass shootings, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper said Sunday.

"There might well be some direct connection between people who have some mental instability and when they go over the edge - they transport themselves, they become part of one of those video games," Hickenlooper said on CNN's "State of the Union." "Perhaps that's why all these assault weapons are used."

I of course stand by my statement that no amount of policymaking can stop a crazy person who has not done anything criminal yet from shooting up a classroom of kids if he is intent on shooting up a classroom of kids. That act is so depraved and evil that no amount of gun control can stop it.

Isn't history full of examples of a well-armed citizenry successfully resisting an oppressive, much better armed government?

If you take a highly motivated population with access to military grade weapons (not mere semi-automatic hunting rifles) and put them up against a trained, professionally equipped modern army, and have that army limit its range of engagement to cause as little damage as possible to the population from which the motivated resistance comes, the absolute best you're likely to get is the Taliban/al-Q insurgency against the United States in Afghanistan.

I have no interest in owning guns myself, and I have no dog in this fight other than pushing back against bad arguments particularly on the subject of gun control, but if you've ever been at a range you know the respect for safety and for the power of the weapons that everyone there has, from the participants to those running the range (who are very professional and VERY concerned for safety and VERY detail-oriented and not willing to put up with anyone who is joking around or otherwise non-serious).

Tunisia had one of the lowest rates of gun ownership before the revolution. They overthrew a wealthy, well-armed dictator.

"I wish to God (the principal) had had an M4 in her office, locked up, so when she heard gunfire she pulls it out … and takes him out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids," the Republican from Texas said on "Fox News Sunday."

"I wish to God (the principal) had had an M4 in her office, locked up, so when she heard gunfire she pulls it out … and takes him out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids," the Republican from Texas said on "Fox News Sunday."

So I’m a teacher. According to conservative orthodoxy, I’m a parasite on the public’s dime who is only interested in indoctrinating the precious children of America into communism or atheism or whatever. I can’t be trusted to have any control over the curriculum I teach. I can’t be trusted to fairly and impartially evaluate my students, let alone my colleagues. I can’t be trusted to have collective bargaining rights. I can’t be trusted to have an objective view of governmental policy when it comes to my own profession.

But they’ll trust me to keep a gun in a room filled with children.

Even the cynicism-producing neurons of my prefrontal cortex can’t wrap themselves around this kind of stupid ########

It doesn't happen in Japan because of gun control and because their culture doesn't counsel people never to feel shame, never to feel inhibited, and never to strive for personal honor governed by external standards and judgments. Within these showy rampages, there's a narcissism and insistence on the act being its own validity -- "I did this, therefore it is worthy" -- that are utterly foreign to the Japanese culture and way of life.

Isn't history full of examples of a well-armed citizenry successfully resisting an oppressive, much better armed government?


If you take a highly motivated population with access to military grade weapons (not mere semi-automatic hunting rifles) and put them up against a trained, professionally equipped modern army, and have that army limit its range of engagement to cause as little damage as possible to the population from which the motivated resistance comes, the absolute best you're likely to get is the Taliban/al-Q insurgency against the United States in Afghanistan.

(CNN) - Violent video games and a "culture of violence" found in the media could be contributing factors to mass shootings, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper said Sunday.

"There might well be some direct connection between people who have some mental instability and when they go over the edge - they transport themselves, they become part of one of those video games," Hickenlooper said on CNN's "State of the Union." "Perhaps that's why all these assault weapons are used."

Tunisia had one of the lowest rates of gun ownership before the revolution. They overthrew a wealthy, well-armed dictator.

I wonder at the lack of shame involved in voting for Gohmert, Bachmann, West, and the like.

So, you're saying, that when it comes to overthrowing a wealthy, well-armed dictator, it's better to not have weaponry than to have weaponry, or that the level of armament is irrelevant when it comes to otherthrowing an oppressive government?

Don't know why you're arguing with me so much on this, since I agree with you.

It doesn't happen in Japan because of gun control and because their culture doesn't counsel people never to feel shame, never to feel inhibited, and never to strive for personal honor governed by external standards and judgments. Within these showy rampages, there's a narcissism and insistence on the act being its own validity -- "I did this, therefore it is worthy" -- that are utterly foreign to the Japanese culture and way of life.

Googling "how is the white house defended?" will probably land you in Gitmo.

Do you feel the same about stolen cars and stolen steak knives?

This is kind of a salient point, Joe. Clearly there is a continuum in "deadlieness" and "non killing utility". A car is probably MORE deadly than bolt action rifle, but obviously has more utility. Sarin nerve gas or Weaponized Anthrax (also grenade launchers, heavy machine guns, etc.) are way down in the quadrant of "high deadlieness" "low utility".

It reasonable to have steak knives unsecured in your home. Furthermore, if one wants to go on a steak knife rampage, steak knives are readily obtainable without B&E. Cars are a little trickier. Legally you are sort of expected to secure your car - at least by not leaving the keys in it. I don't think the penalties are very harsh though. A car is more deadly than a steak knife, but harder to conceal and not all purpose like a gun or other weapon. It does have a built in escape mechanism though.

Because your argument provides a dodge for people like Ray or Kehoskie. I want them to realize and own that they value the ability to have cheap and lower-hassle guns over the lives of the 27K people who die by guns each year.

I was being half-flippant in my reply above, but I stand by the general point. If people have the Second Amendment right to own firearms, but they can't take them everywhere (i.e., they must be separated from them at times for practical and/or legal reasons), and they're subject to strict liability if someone breaks into their home or car and steals said weapon(s), that looks like little more than a backdoor attempt to gut if not nullify Second Amendment rights.

If liberals really want to put a dent in gun crime, they'd flood the inner cities with police and lock up offenders for longer periods of time.

If liberals really want to put a dent in gun crime, they'd flood the inner cities with police and lock up offenders for longer periods of time.

Awesome. Of course, that'd require tax dollars, so before we fight the criminals, we have to fight the wingers.

I'm going to end the "what if" scenario right here. I don't need the hassle of a visit from government agents. I'm closing all the related comments.

If liberals really want to put a dent in gun crime, they'd flood the inner cities with police and lock up offenders for longer periods of time. But I won't be holding my breath.

If people have the Second Amendment right to own firearms, but they can't take them everywhere (i.e., they must be separated from them at times for practical and/or legal reasons), and they're subject to strict liability if someone breaks into their home or car and steals said weapon(s), that looks like little more than a backdoor attempt to gut if not nullify Second Amendment rights.

I'm thinking more of the deterrent effect a well-armed citizenry has on inevitable government overreach; that an opponent who can badly bloody your nose before you finish him off, and whose resistance and martyrdom might serve as a rallying point, can give real pause, such that violence is avoided. There's a difference between moving into and occupying territory and in the process confiscating a handful of 50 year old bolt action rifles, and trying to do the same against a group of citizens, 80% of whom own effective. modern weapons.

In very isolated cases, the level of armament (the Branch Davidians, for example) of the citizenry won't matter, but I'm thinking of larger scale situations where a government never gets to the point of initiating violence.

Awesome. Of course, that'd require tax dollars, so before we fight the criminals, we have to fight the wingers.

Yes, what America needs is more prisons! You and Lous Gohmert, Joe.
We also have vastly longer sentences than just about anywhere else. ...

So double down on the war on drugs?

While Newtown residents say that "there are many gun enthusiasts" in the area, the origins of Nancy's interest was a bit troubling. Her former sister-in-law, Marsha Lanza, told reporters that Nancy was part of the Doomsday Preppers movement, whose members believe they need to prepare for the end of the world.

Marsha said [Nancy] had turned her home ‘into a fortress’. She added: ‘Nancy had a survivalist philosophy which is why she was stockpiling guns. She had them for defense.

‘She was stockpiling food. She grew up on a farm in New Hampshire. She was skilled with guns. We talked about preppers and preparing for the economy collapsing.’

Since when do right-wingers oppose spending money on police and/or prisons?

The same rationale, applied to the First Amendment, would suggest you have a Constitutional right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater when no danger exists. And if you do, that suggests the Constitution, as currently written, is in need of improvement.

If those drug users and/or dealers are illegally in possession of firearms, yes. Or do you only support disarming law-abiding citizens?

Please provide evidence where I advocated for disarming law-abiding citizens. Thanks in advance.

And... your conclusion based on this observation?

Please provide evidence where I advocated for "doubling down on the war on drugs" (#3132). Thanks in advance.

To the extent the U.S. locks up more criminals than other countries and keeps them locked up longer, it's a feature, not a bug. (We can debate non-violent drug users, but there aren't millions of people in jail simply because they got caught with a little marijuana in their pocket.)

America’s enormously high incarceration rate is a relatively recent phenomenon. According to a 2010 report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), U.S. incarceration rates between 1880 and 1970 ranged from about 100 to 200 prisoners per 100,000 people. After 1980, however, the inmate population began to grow much more rapidly than the overall population, climbing from about 220 per 100,000 in 1980 to 458 in 1990, 683 in 2000, and 753 in 2008.

* * *
The simplest explanation would be that the rise in the incarceration rate reflects a commensurate rise in crime. But according to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the total number of violent crimes was only about 3 percent higher in 2008 than it was in 1980, while the violent crime rate was much lower: 19 per 1,000 people in 2008 vs. 49.4 in 1980. Meanwhile, the BJS data shows that the total number of property crimes dropped to 134.7 per 1,000 people in 2008 from 496.1 in 1980.

* * *
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws enacted in the 1980s played an important role. According to the CEPR study, nonviolent offenders make up more than 60 percent of the prison and jail population. Nonviolent drug offenders now account for about one-fourth of all inmates, up from less than 10 percent in 1980.

You're right. For all the talk of small-government, right-wingers are strangely comfortable with a police state, and raising taxes to pay for it.

According to numbers compiled for a column in Reason -- while it's not "millions" --

There is a very real movement in GOP/conservative state governments to real in the prison-industrial complex and the police-prison complex for fiscal reasons

But how can we trust a left-wing rag like Reason?

At the same time, they've also realized that private prison owners have deep pockets and are willing to donate generously with the right motivation.

Speaking of tyrannical government! ;-)

You kid, but with every 3rd article being about pot, gay marriage, or anti-war; I could imagine some real confusion.

While Newtown residents say that "there are many gun enthusiasts" in the area, the origins of Nancy's interest was a bit troubling. Her former sister-in-law, Marsha Lanza, told reporters that Nancy was part of the Doomsday Preppers movement, whose members believe they need to prepare for the end of the world.

Marsha said [Nancy] had turned her home ‘into a fortress’. She added: ‘Nancy had a survivalist philosophy which is why she was stockpiling guns. She had them for defense.

‘She was stockpiling food. She grew up on a farm in New Hampshire. She was skilled with guns. We talked about preppers and preparing for the economy collapsing.’

As has been previously reported, the weapon Adam used to carry out the massacre — a Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle — was legally purchased by and registered to Nancy, as were the Glock and Sig Sauer semi-automatic pistols found near his body. "

But how can we trust a left-wing rag like Reason?

Obviously this is a job for one of Sheriff Joe's well-armed citizen posses.

Then you read their comment sections and its like a liberal's extreme parody of libertarian would be.

Some of the people on Reason are nuts.

How any sane government can allow people like that to purchase firearms is beyond me.

Not sure I follow. Are (overly) paranoid people not allowed to own firearms? Who makes that decision?

7 Die In Horror Lake Where Susan Smith Drowned Her 2 Sons

BY HELEN KENNEDY WITH NEWS WIRE SERVICES

Monday, September 02, 1996

The murky South Carolina lake where Susan Smith drowned her two young sons swallowed seven people including four children who had come to gawk at the night-shrouded waters Saturday.

In a creepy but accidental reenactment of a crime that horrified the world, the four children went to their deaths trapped in a van that rolled down the same steep boat ramp that Smith used to push her Mazda into John D. Long Lake two years ago.

"It seems like that lake is cursed," said a woman at the Lil Cricket Food Store on Main St. in Union, S.C.

"It's like it's haunted or something. It keeps taking lives," said local resident Tommy Vinson, 46.

Insurance. If gun ownership was managed like car ownership is, your insurance would place a rate to insure you and the liability that you owning a gun cause. ...

So why doesn't it happen in Japan?

A more or less identical attack in China occurred on the same day, with non-identical results.

It seems bizarre to focus on guns.

A court, based on credible information about that person's paranoid state.

Two distinct issues: The right of an openly paranoid person to remain at large within the community; and the right of such a person to possess firearms. If a background check can't screen out people like the late Nancy Lanza, I'm not sure what purpose they're supposed to be serving. The bar for gun ownership should certainly be higher than merely not having been qualified for a certified funny farm.

Yes, why bother with raw cumulative data when conditionals and outliers are so much more telling? Jonathan Sanchez is the greatest pitcher of the last ten years, did you see that no-hitter?

Oh, I'm sure that the NRA would be glad to cough up the dough, just to keep the Nancy Lanzas of the world safe from the clutches of our murderous government.

[The "we shouldn't talk about guns and how they facilitate violence because we'll never be able to eliminate evil from the world" is the biggest, most idiotic strawman on the planet.

This kind of crime is virtually unstoppable by policymaking.

Which? Elaborate.

How do you reconcile this belief with the fact that it does not occur in countries with more stringent gun control policies?

And now, a collection of people spewing racial epithets because they pre-empted football with Obama's speech at the shooting memorial.

So maybe Nancy Lanza was a bit of a loonie, but we shouldn't forget that she's not the one who shot up an elementary school. She was a victim here.

It's not a strawman; it's reality.

Gun control is a lot easier on an island. This argument also ignores that Japan had a sarin gas attack that killed 13 and injured a thousand others.

Sure, there was a sarin attack. That is roughly analogous to the OKC bombings--an act of domestic terrorism. That is something that is very difficult to stop, and requires law enforcement.

The island issue is a total red herring, as numerous other states like Chile and Azerbaijan have similar rates without being on an island.

Japan is an island nation with almost 130 million people. Azerbaijan has 9 million and Chile 17 million.

If the U.S has 310 million people and three or four of these incidents per year, that comes out to 1 in 100 million people. Even assuming that there are no cultural differences, it shouldn't be surprising that Azerbaijan (pop. 9,000,000) has fewer such incidents.

Insurance. If gun ownership was managed like car ownership is, your insurance would place a rate to insure you and the liability that you owning a gun cause. In particular, if its known that you live with or somebody with a prior history of violence or mental illness, your insurance would reflect that.

Chile and Azerbaijan are similar to Japan in their gun control and gun deaths per capita. Obviously I'm not comparing raw numbers to raw numbers. The USA, btw, is comparable to South Africa, the Philippines, Mexico, Montenegro and Paraguay.

I'm not sure how the specific case of the Branch Davidians isn't proof negative for your general theory. There are very few places in American more well armed than the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. Those arms neither deterred nor defended against the government imposing its will on the Branch Davidians. Neither did it become a "martyrdom" for any cause outside of the already committed fringe right wingers that were holing up already. The cause the Davidians inspired resulted in Oklahoma City.

Well, I'm not sure where you're going with that.

In very isolated cases, the level of armament (the Branch Davidians, for example) of the citizenry won't matter, but I'm thinking of larger scale situations where a government never gets to the point of initiating violence.

Armed citizens would last about 3 hours less than non-armed citizens should there be a clash between the government and its citizens.

People who use the argument that a well armed citizenry is protection against the overreach of the government are pretty much in the same boat as those who want to legalize marijuana so they can make hemp rope.

Since when do right-wingers oppose spending money on police and/or prisons?

You're right. For all the talk of small-government, right-wingers are strangely comfortable with a police state, and raising taxes to pay for it.

I'm not exactly following the logical progression from her survivalist bent and irrational fears to the conclusion that she should not be allowed to possess firearms because her nerdy Aspergerish son might go off.

I didn't enjoy the experience the last time. I don't intend to repeat the experience. So, to be extremely clear: discussions about killing people, in any form, are not appropriate on BBTF.

For my part

Why one even bothers is a mystery. We weren't talking about outliers of gun owners, we were talking about outliers of attacks by weapon. Because the question was "Why talk about gun control when you can attack with cars and bombs?" You have answered a question that wasn't asked.