I wanted to write this post about the elementary school shooting in Connecticut, which saddens me in innumerable ways. There is something about the senselessness of the entire thing that touches a chord. Plus, it doesn’t help any that I have a child right in the age range of the majority of kids that lost their lives on Friday. The one big, personal, promise I made to myself in the wake of this news is that I’ll never drop my children off anywhere without telling them how much I love them, no matter how angry they may have made me only a few minutes before.
While some folks took the opportunity to remind everyone that every day kids across the US are killed by gun violence and that doesn’t get as much press as this situation, I think there is something very different about a situation like this which makes it rise to the forefront of the public consciousness the way that the slow trickle of every day tragedies do not.
In the immediate aftermath, some suggested that the conversation about gun control shouldn’t be had now out of respect for the victims, but as others have notes, if not now, when. It seems like a tragedy of these senseless proportions should be THE time to discuss the state of guns in the United States and just flying the banner of the Second Amendment is not enough of a reason to not have this discussion.
When huge scale massacres like Sandy Hook occurred in other countries, the response is to reform gun laws such as in the case of Australia where they banned the sale of semi-automatic weapons and instituted a huge buy back program. Similarly in Scotland their response to an elementary school massacre was also to pass new gun control laws. But in the US the conversation about gun control keeps getting delayed out of “respect” for the victims and then the outrage wanes and our public consciousness moves on to the next shiny object.
Regardless of all the excuses along the lines of “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” or “I need guns for my self-defense” reasonable small steps should be taken because no one — NO ONE — needs a semi-automatic weapon for their self-defense or for hunting or some other ridiculousness. Arming people to the teeth wouldn’t have stopped any one of these horrific tragedies, the heroes of Sandy Hook were not gunslingers riding in to save the day, they were the teachers and administrators who shielded and hid their children and lost their lives to protect them.
As an avid hunter I will underscore the lack of necessity of semiauto or large magazines for that purpose.
In most hunting situations, you get one shot. If you miss, the game is running away immediately. If your first shot hits but doesn’t kill & you need a finishing shot, the couple seconds — max — that it takes to reload a bolt action or a single shot rifle is more than enough. (And if you need a second shot, there’s a good chance you shouldn’t have taken the first one, as you were likely either at a poor angle or you need more practice at the range. As for large game that requires 2+ shots, you have time for that, I know from experience.)
One sitch where an extra shot can be called for is bird hunting, and hunters have done just fine w/ pump action shotguns & 3 shell limits since forever.
And the self defense issue is usually bullshit too because it often has the opposite effect & increases the danger, to the owner & especially his/her family. In order for a gun to be useful as a self defense weapon, it has to be at the ready. A pistol in the nightstand or an 870 in the bedroom corner will allow you to deal with an intruder, but the risks of keeping an unsafely stored firearm are exponentially greater than the risk of an intruder. Same for concealed carry; the risk of a gun kept at the ready is far greater than the risk of assault for nearly every person. Simply put, a gun needs to be safely stored, and the time it takes to access a safely stored weapon largely precludes almost every self defense scenario.
A gun is a tool. It’s a tool that sends hot lead flying at supersonic speeds with just a millisecond’s thought and a few ounces of trigger finger pressure, a tool designed for putting holes into living things. Such tools have their place and that’s safely, SAFELY, stored for almost every minute of your life, and pulled out only for designated & wisely planned uses, after rigorous training & practice for safe operation. Period.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, what about the person who really is in danger, who really needs it? Notwithstanding the fact that this describes an infinitesimal sliver of the population, and almost none of the howlers who will raise this point, no one is talking about a blanket ban. If you are one the .00001% that really needs a piece for protection, you can get it. You might have to wait a few days for a back ground check (the horror!) or settle for a revolver or an ACP with a mere 8 shot clip (tyranny!) but you’ll be able to defend yourself.
I’ve often thought that if automobiles existed in 1788 we’d have had an amendment protecting car ownership & use. A car is as great a symbol of American freedom as a gun, perhaps greater as it’s far more widespread; damn near universal. There’s never been ANY serious effort to ban or confiscate cars. Hell, even JKW has one. Yet we have regulations governing their ownership & safe use. License, insurance, headlights, seatbelts, vision tests, DUI laws, etc. Many states legally require safety inspections for brakes and other safety equipment. Cars are both useful and dangerous. Cars are not just a symbol of freedom, they ARE freedom, and we sensibly regulate them.
It’s way past time we regulate guns in a similar way.
Here endeth this sermon.
Comment by dave — December 17, 2012 @ 7:09 am
Very well thought out, Dave, and refreshing to have the opinion of an ‘avid hunter’.
Comment by Catherine — December 17, 2012 @ 8:20 am
Gun control? Absolutely, we certainly are long overdue for some major adjustments and it would be relatively easy to do (if the lobbyists would get out of the way). The tougher issue is adequate, effective mental health services. A number of my friends and co-workers over the years have struggled with getting help for a family member with mental illness. Even if you have Kaiser Insurance–about as good as it gets for most people–you will get next to nothing in the way of help if you have a child exhibiting signs of mental illness. Their solution to teen depression? An appointment every month or so with a psychiatrist to check in on meds and group therapy, which most of the kids hate and don’t want to attend. This approach only works with a very low-level of garden variety teen angst. Between that and full-blown psychosis, there are not many options. There are so few beds available that when a kid is 5150′d, it might be 48 to 72 hours before they are even evaluated–a pretty harrowing experience for anyone, especially a distressed teen. The wealthy have the option of private facilities and therapists but there is really is nothing close to “affordable” for the middle class. As for the poor, just walk around the city streets for a while and you will encounter them because they have no where to sleep let alone get help. I have hope for the gun laws being changed, and that would be a big step in the right direction. As for mental health? Until ordinary, physical health care is recognized as something everyone in this country should have access to, we don’t even have a prayer of getting mental health help to those families who so desparately need it, and that is at least as great a tragedy as what happened in Connecticut.
Comment by Denise Shelton — December 17, 2012 @ 8:54 am
You’re right Denise, this is a huge problem. I work in health care, and I have to say, for severe mental illness, the options are horrifyingly inadequate [no matter your wealth]. We pay a terrible price for this as a society.
As an example, did you see this–
http://huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html
Comment by Catherine — December 17, 2012 @ 9:13 am
So, some nut on NPR this morning was saying that if the teachers had been armed they could have taken out the shooter. And Mike Huckabee, a “man of the cloth” said it was not guns, but sin that caused the tragedy. My head is reeling. My husband’s remark “What’s next; arm the kids? I guess that would take care of the bullying problem, too.” made me think that some people might actually think that was a good idea. Where does it stop? And why do we think plugging someone is the solution to making us safe? Far too bizarrely confusing for me to wrap my head around. I am not an advocate of banning all guns; I grew up with a father that loved target practice and taught us gun safety. But we have to do something to keep high powered, big magazine weapons out of the hands of the crazy and the criminals. The NRA needs to step up and help to make this happen.
Comment by Kate Quick,. — December 17, 2012 @ 10:16 am
Here’s a little but of history about the Mental Health Systems Act:
Shortly after taking office in 1977, President Carter appointed the President’s Commission on Mental Health. This commission was charged with assessing the particulars of mental health services, and then making specific suggestions on how things should be changed. The commission collected data by holding regional hearings in order to hear testimony from professionals, relatives of the mentally ill, and other politicians.
The commission made special references to political interest groups throughout both the task panel reports as well as the final recommendations. After the reports were completed and the Congress attempted to codify these recommendations into law, the lobbying organizations continued to be a presence throughout the process. Some groups were by nature opposed to each other: the National Council of Community Mental Health Centers (NCCMHC) and the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directo rs (NASMHPD), for instance. The former of these groups represents the interests of community mental health centers that would benefit by expanding these services. The latter group represents the directors of state mental hospitals. They would benefit by i ncreases in the funding of such hospitals and reinstitutionalization (Armour, 1989, 185). On this point, the commission searched for a compromise.
The final report of the commission to President Carter contained the recommendations upon which the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 was based. Despite the methodological flaws of the earlier report, the act was considered a landmark in mental health care policy. The key to the proposals included an increase in funding for Community Mental Health Centers and continued federal government support for such programs. But this ran counter to the financial goals of the Reagan administration, these were of course to reduce federal spending, reduce social programs, and transfer responsibility of many if not most government functions to the individual states. So, the law signed by President Carter was rescinded by Ronald Reagan on August 13, 1981. In accordance with the New Federalism and the demands of capital, mental health policy was now in the hands of individual states.
It looks like its time to re-visit this and see what’s working and what’s not.
Comment by Karen Bey — December 17, 2012 @ 10:29 am
#4 Someone had sent me this Article earlier today. First I agree with you about options for the mentally ill. However hopefully the author of the Article doesn’t have a stash of (the latest count is 6)
semi-automatic weapons in her house.
Second ‘by law’ Adam was not a child. And just as the NRA is protecting gun rights there are advocacy groups also protecting the rights of the mentally ill. So this also must become part of the current conversation.
This family most likely had access through insurance to coverage that most of us could only dream about. So once this conversation starts I just feel it will be much more complicated.
Comment by frank — December 17, 2012 @ 10:34 am
#1 Dave’s comment is so intelligent, articulate, reasonable and rational, I’m printing it. While I’ve lingered on the Sideline of the gun control subject for years (my ex-husband had a secured and locked closet full – it was a factor in our demise) this event is where I say ENOUGH. It is a complex issue yes. Logistically it is impossible to effectively treat the psychological issues of people that suffer today and will evolve to be future assassins. But we need to start working toward some form of solution NOW. Not after the funerals. Not in a month….but right now while we are all watching the evening news, in tears. Bravo Dave – thank you for such an outstanding post.
Comment by Sideline — December 17, 2012 @ 11:02 am
When you’re done banning guns, how about banning these too.
photo/1
Comment by Jack Richard — December 17, 2012 @ 12:21 pm
Florida just hit 1 million concealed carry permits. That’s 1 million deluded individuals who feel safer because they are packing because of their cowboy fantasies about out drawing the bad guy. It is now an unfortunate fact that the “Gun Culture” is so heavily entrenched that we will likely be able to dial back to a truly rational and practical level of utilitarian gun regulation, we’ll be lucky to re-instate semi automatic ban. Be ready for all the meaningful statistics about how crimes have gone down concurrent with things like increases in concealed weapons permits, like determined and armed criminals are really deterred. Historically we are steeped in myths about the wild west. In reality the average homesteader didn’t even own a fire arm. Don’t tell John Wayne, he’ll roll in his grave.
And guns are half the equation. Is it a fiscal cliff we should be worrying about? Cutting “entitlements” is sure to lead to more responsible health care , right?
O yeah, and rather than worry about our real culpability in the proliferation of guns in Mexico we should focus on the real problem and take down the Obama administration over Fast and Furious.
Comment by M.I. — December 17, 2012 @ 12:36 pm
above should read that we will likely NOT be able to dial back to rationality.
Comment by M.I. — December 17, 2012 @ 12:37 pm
I think there is a direct correlation between gun violence and the rise in mental health issues. Every dollar we have to spend dealing with gun violence – emergency response, criminal investigation, permitting and monitoring costs, is money that could be spent to provide better mental health services. And Denise is right. Mental health services for the poor and middle class are almost non existent.
Comment by Doug Biggs — December 17, 2012 @ 1:34 pm
Thank you Dave and Denise for your thoughtful and informed comments. Something else to consider: “Hours before 20 children were tragically killed in Connecticut, a man attacked 22 school children in China. None of those kids died — the attacker only had a knife.” –Progressive Change Campaign Committee. At this site you can pledge to take action on this issue every month and they will remind you so that our good intentions in the aftermath of the latest tragedy don’t fall by the wayside as the horror recedes (until the next tragedy) http://act.boldprogressives.org/survey/survey_gunpromise
Comment by Frances — December 17, 2012 @ 3:08 pm
#1 Dave’s reasoning and analysis of the issue is sound. I’m saving it too. Proper licensing and insurance may be “workable.” Unfortunately, when legally owned weapons are accessible to the mentally ill, the problem still exists. You cannot lock up all the guns and rifles when someone who is bent on killing will find a way to gain access to them, usually through theft or availablity in the home.
Comment by Basel — December 17, 2012 @ 4:05 pm
Lauren and all,
Thank you for the timely and important post. This is one of those times I cannot help but comment. Like many, I am a parent and even though my daughters are grown and out of school, this is a reminder to give them a hug as often as possible. I have a three year old granddaughter and could not even imagine what the parents in Newtown are going through. My oldest daughter is a grade school teacher and I cannot fathom the horror those teachers were experiencing, and I hope my daughter, or any other teacher, will ever have to experience this.
Every day, innocent people lose their life from gun violence. Yet it’s these types of incidents that bring the topic to the forefront. The bottom line is we need to change the laws. Current gun control laws are simply not working. Some say that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” In my lifetime, I have never seen anything other than a person use a gun. People use guns to kill people. Until the access to weapons, especially assault weapons, is changed, the violence will continue. The laws need to change.
I know some folks argue for the right to bear arms. I understand the constitutionality of that argument and by no means consider myself a historian of the “Founding Fathers” and their intentions when drafting the Constitution. I would, however, argue that they had no intention of having people walk into schools, businesses, or government offices with assault weapons to kill large numbers of innocent people. I have not yet seen or heard anything to indicate the Newtown shooting suspect’s mother was anything other than a responsible gun owner. The puzzling question is why she had this type of arsenal in her home.
Dave made some very valid points. I must respectfully disagree with the comment that a gun is a tool. Pure and simple, a gun is a weapon. Guns have no other use. Weapons such as a Bushmaster .223, AR15, AK47 are designed for one purpose – to cause large numbers of casualties in a very quick amount of time. These weapons are consistently used against innocent citizens and law enforcement officers for one reason – to inflict casualties. This is a weapon designed for military and law enforcement use. They are not for hunting or self defense. They should be banned.
I know that my beliefs will not sit well with some, but I feel it is time to make changes in the area of gun control. There have been too many deaths caused by guns. Whether it is in large cities, schools, or businesses or law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty, we as a society need to do more. If the killing of elementary school kids and their teachers is not enough to review laws and make changes where they are needed, I don’t know what will make us change. Mike Noonan, Chief of Police
Comment by Mike Noonan — December 17, 2012 @ 4:19 pm
Thanks for speaking up Mike Noonan! I agree very much that the mental health aspect of this issue needs to be dealt with, and I agree with you that guns are not “tools” but weapons intended for doing damage to others. One of the major points of my father’s gun safety lectures to us when we were target shooting with pistols was that if you point a gun at a person it is because you intend to kill them. So, never point a gun at a person, ever. Even if you are in jest. And every gun is loaded, whether you think it is empty or not. My father’s guns were not high powered weapons. They were kept under lock and key in gun safes and taken out only for target shooting. He was a military veteran and had seen what guns do to people. I do not believe that there is any reason for individuals to have high powered, huge magazine, fast shooting weapons. If “freedom” is the ownership of these, how “free” are we when we are made to be fearful of going to a movie theater or a mall or sending our six year olds to school because these weapons are owned by people who can get them with ease?
Comment by Kate Quick,. — December 17, 2012 @ 5:27 pm
Thank you for hosting an Alameda discussion to help express our horror and sorrow over the senseless shooting on Friday. Today’s Oakland Tribune Op-Ed summarized it well: “We [need] to recognize that there is a much broader societal problem at play here. It is time to stop shouting and start talking.” .http://www.contracostatimes.com/rss/ci_22209602.
We have passed gun control laws, but there is still more to do, especially in banning assault weapons like AK47s. We have to also recognize that we need better ways to deliver mental health care since “psychotic breaks and schizophrenia can often manifest as violent acts.”. Both should be at the forefront of the conversations. To have these discussions lead to constructive actions will be worthy of the memory for those that perished from gun violence — Ichinkhorloo “Iko” Bayarsaikhan (2007), the 7 killed in the Oikos University Massacre (April 2012) and the 26 victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Comment by Lena Tam, Alameda City Councilmember — December 17, 2012 @ 7:28 pm
I wonder if these Video games have much effect on the minds of these young people commiting these atrocities.
The impact of violent video
games: An overview
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2010-2014/12AW.pdf
According to the most recent comprehensive poll by the Kaiser Foundation, American children aged 8–18 play an average of eight hours of video games per week, an increase of over 400 per cent from 1999 (Rideout, Foehr & Roberts, 2010). Playing is heaviest in the 11–14 age group, with boys outplaying girls more than 2.5 hours to 1. A recent study suggests that around 99 per cent of American boys play video games, along with 94 per cent of girls (Lenhart et al, 2008). It is common
for US children and adolescents to play more than 20 hours per week and it is not uncommon for males to play 40 hours or more per week (Bailey, West & Anderson, 2010). On average,Australian 7–18-year-olds
played somewhat less than their US counterparts in 2007 (4.7 hours per
week: see ACMA, 2007), but this figure could have risen substantially
in recent years if Australian children have followed the steep upward
trend found in the latest US studies.
The types of games vary, but content analyses by Dill and colleagues
(2005) show that the majority of top selling video games and children’s
favourite games contain violence, and often strong violence. More
recently, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 grossed ~$USD 550 million in
the first five days of its 2009 release, at that time more than any other
entertainment product in history (movies included). Next on the list
in 2009 was Grant Theft Auto IV (GTA), with ~$USD 500 million in
five days. Even more recently (a year is a long time in the video game
world) Call of Duty: Black Ops grossed $USD 360 million in a single
day, breaking all records (Ortutay, 2010). According to Wikipedia, the
massive multiplayer online game (MMOG) World of Warcraft has more
than 12 million online subscribers and thus currently grosses more
than $USD 180 million per month (at $15 per month per player). GTA,
which is rated M17+ in the United States and involves such activities
as going on murderous rampages, having sex with prostitutes and then
murdering them to retrieve the money paid, has been played by 56 per
cent of United States children aged 8–18 (Rideout et al, 2010). Clearly, a
large number of children and adolescents are exposed regularly to video
games with high levels of violence and anti-social themes. This makes
it important for parents, educators and professionals who work with
children to have some knowledge of their effects.
Before turning to the negative effects of violent video games.
Harmful effects of video games Video game addiction
In his moving biography, Unplugged: My Journey into the Dark World of Video Game Addiction, Ryan Van Cleave describes the way that a violent online game, World of Warcraft, dominated his life to such an extent that he was unable to function normally and was driven to the verge of suicide. Video game addiction is now taken so seriously by psychologists and psychiatrists that it was recently considered for inclusion in the fifth
edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders
(DSM) as a diagnosable psychiatric disorder and has been lodged in its
appendix to encourage further research. It is clear that many children play video games at a “pathological” level that causes damage to family,
social, school or psychological functioning (see Anderson et al, 2012).
For example, it has been found that 8.5 per cent of 8–18-year-old US
video game players do so at pathological levels (Gentile, 2009). Similar
studies have found figures of 11.9 per cent in Europe (Grusser et al,
2007), 8.7 per cent in Singapore (Choo et al, 2010), 10.3 per cent in
China (Peng & Li, 2009) and 4 per cent for 12–18-year-olds in Norway
(Johansson & Götestam, 2004), with a further 15.5 per cent “at risk”.
As will be seen in the ensuing sections, the amount that children
play video games is very important. Those who play excessively are not
only at risk of a number of negative outcomes, they are also much more likely to be playing violent games (see Krahé & Möller, 2004).
Attention deficits
There are some studies linking the amount of time children spend playing
video games to attention deficits, impulsivity and hyperactivity (see
Bailey et al, 2010; Swing et al, 2010). For example, Gentile (2009) found
that adolescents who used video games at pathological levels were
nearly three times more likely to be diagnosed with Attention Deficit
Disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder than adolescents
who played at non-pathological levels. In a landmark paper, Swing and
colleagues (2010) examined the effect of video game playing on attention
in elementary school children. They used a longitudinal study that
statistically controlled for a range of other factors that could also lead to
attention problems and found that amount of time spent playing video
games predicted increases in teacher assessments of attention deficits
in the children 13 months later. These results suggest that the children’s
level of video game playing played a causal role in their subsequent loss
of attentional capacity.
Anderson et al (2012) believe that on theoretical grounds some
video games should have less effect on attentional problems (for example,
those that require controlled thought and planning) and that those
which require constant reactive behaviours from players (a common
feature of many violent first person shooting games for example)
may be more problematic in terms of children developing attention difficulties.
Increased aggression
Should we be concerned about children and adolescents playing violent
video games? Can this lead to aggressive behaviour? Over 98 per cent of
paediatricians in the United States have considered these questions and
believe that excessive violent media exposure has a negative effect on
childhood aggression (Gentile et al, 2004). Similarly, there is a consensus
amongst the vast majority of violent video game researchers that
too much exposure to violent video games increases the likelihood of
aggressive thoughts, feelings and behaviours, leads to desensitisation
to violence and also leads to decreases in pro-social behaviours and
empathy (Anderson et al, 2010; Huesmann, 2010). There are, however,
a small number of researchers who dispute this evidence and it seems
that the views of this small minority have had a large impact on public
perceptions (Anderson & Gentile, 2008; Dill, 2009). In this section of the
chapter we will broadly examine the arguments for this view and then review the scientific evidence that does find violent video game effects.
In this way, we hope that readers can judge the evidence for themselves.
1. The first argument against violent video game effects is that there
is little evidence linking the playing of violent video games to very
violent behaviours (such as school shootings). To better understand this argument it is helpful to reflect on the difference between aggression
and violence. In essence, violence is aggressive behaviour that
has extreme harm as its goal (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Thus, all
violence is aggression but not all aggression is violence. With this in
mind we make four points.
(a) Ethically it is not possible to use the most powerful methods – experimental
manipulations – to test the causal link between violent video
games and violence because we cannot rightfully incite people to
cause extreme harm in a laboratory. There are, however, ways to
test links with aggressive behaviour, which can be examined ethically
in a laboratory. It is disingenuous to suggest that because there
are no experimental studies that randomly assign children to years of playing violent or nonviolent video games and then measure
which group commits the most violent crimes, that therefore there
are no established negative or anti-social effects. This is like saying
that because there are no experimental studies on humans showing
that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, smoking is not a causal
risk factor. The causal links between violent video game playing
and physical aggression are, in our opinion, well established.
(b) Cross-sectional (correlational) studies and longitudinal studies
of violent video game effects have established significant links to
violent behaviour. Several longitudinal studies in particular
provide strong evidence that these are causal effects.
(c) Aggressive behaviour, which can include bullying, hurting other
people physically, hurting other people’s property or relationships and hurting people verbally, is a very important social phenomenon
in its own right. Aggression does not have to escalate into violence
to be harmful and destructive.
(d) No aggression researchers claim that media violence is the sole or
even the most important source of violent behaviour. The most
common approach, and the one taken by the authors, is the “risk
factor” approach. According to this approach, people can have various
risk factors for aggression or violent behaviour (see Figure 1).
These might include coming from a violent home, having a violent
peer group, high levels of trait aggression, exposure to violent
media and a number of other factors. The more risk factors that young age, the more likely that person is to be aggressive or violent.
Strasburger (2009, p 203) notes that:
The research on media violence and its relationship to real-life
aggression is clear: young people learn their attitudes about violence
at a very young age, and once learned, those attitudes are difficult
to change (Anderson et al, 2003; Bushman & Huesmann, 2006).
Conservative estimates are that media violence may be causing 10%
of real-life violence – not the leading cause by any means, but an
unhealthy chunk that we could do something about if we chose to
(Strasburger et al, 2009; Comstock & Strasburger, 1990).
We believe that Victor Strasburger is right. Many risk factors for
aggression and violence are very hard to deal with as parents, as
educators, as professionals and as policy-makers. Media violence,
though, is one risk factor that can be controlled and about which
action can be taken from the level of the individual home through to
the level of State and federal governments. This makes the research
on media violence effects particularly important.
2. Detractors of the view that playing violent video games increases
the likelihood of aggressive behaviour also criticise the methodology
of video game studies and of meta-analyses of these studies. It is to this
important scientific evidence that we now turn.
Figure 1: Some longitudinal factors for youth violence
Adapted from US Department of Health and Human Services (2001), Bushman and
Huesmann (2006) and Anderson et al (2010).
63
Comment by John — December 17, 2012 @ 7:57 pm
Probably too much money in these Violent Video Games and Violent Movies being made and the News Media feeding on the frenzy. The only way to stop it as a friend said is with your purses , pocketbooks and boycott and shut them down. But our thirst for this seems unquenchable as a country. It looks like they started to address this in Norway.
A Tragic Postscript
I see MW2 more as a part of my training-simulation than anything else …
You can more or less completely simulate actual operations
These were the chilling words with which Anders Behring Breivik
referred to the computer game Modern Warfare 2 in a 1500-page manifesto
disseminated just hours before he was responsible for the deaths
of 76 of his fellow Norwegians (Moses, 2011; Shah, 2011; Townsend &
Tisdall, 2011). The 32-year-old male behind the now infamous bombing of government buildings in Oslo and subsequent shooting massacre on
Utoya island on 22 July 2011 made no secret of the fact that playing the
violent video games Modern Warfare 2 and World of Warcraft aided
him in preparing and executing his attacks. Breivik identified Modern
Warfare 2 as helping him with “target practice” (Shah, 2011) and
involvement with World of Warcraft as providing sufficient cover for
his preparatory activities (Moses, 2011). As a result of the attacks, one
of Norway’s biggest retailers, Coop Norway, issued a ban of indefinite
duration on these and other violent video games that, at the time of
publication, has yet to be lifted (Narcisse, 2011; Navarro, 2011). When
considering the impact of violent video games, particularly in light of
the Norway atrocities, it should also be noted that video games in which
acts of violence are executed in first-person, immersive environments
have long been recognised and used by the US military forces as effective
in both the training and recruitment of their members (Holguin,
2009; Robson, 2008).
Comment by John — December 17, 2012 @ 9:03 pm
Excellent comments! Really pertinent points made. Just as good or better than the previous times we made them. It’s all been said! It is time to get together and do. Governance works one issue at a time. So, how about we agree that this time we don’t splinter into factions. This time we go for passing strict gun control laws now on every level. That’s it. The only thing we the public will listen to or work on until it’s done.
The NRA & Friends wins because they are single-minded and they know we can be distracted by all the other “good and necessary” things on our to-do list. Just look at the comments here. Dave makes several really good points in favor of gun control. Does Denise support and further it? No, she dilutes, by bringing in a different very important need, Karen dilutes further with important, but tangential mental health history, Mike goes back to guns, Jack dilutes, taking us to unfeeling reporters, John dilutes with a whole new pitcher– video games. Round and round we go to nowhere. The discussion finally has no real focus, we’ve defeated ourselves again. The NRAers couldn’t have better help.
It would seem Mike is the most likely to have the background we need to start moving on real control of guns. Surely with a lot of time and effort, we can get truly strictly enforced and regulated gun law in Alameda and also join with others to get and enforce state and federal laws. If there is a better place to start, our knowledgable police have probably already worked it out. So let’s concentrate, hear what to do, stop talking and put our feet on the ground.
Comment by Li_ — December 17, 2012 @ 10:26 pm
Li, I was looking at Cause and Effect and why the big breakdown. The mindsets of people committing these gut wrenching and atrocious acts. I have two friends at work that loss their son’s before the age of 16 in last year to gun violence just at parties.They have been devastated as individuals and families. In one day at work we had a security guard get his throat slashed and a customer murdered less than a block away. There are many examples I can give and I only work a few miles away from Alameda. We have over a hundred murders just in Oakland this year and that doesn’t count all those that were shot or critically injured and lived. People tell me they can’t even sit on their porch anymore in neighborhoods and lock themselves inside and feel like total prisoners. Call what I posted Diluting the topic…But until we know the real cause we just see the effects…… These people are learning this behavior somewhere……That might be a start………I certainly don’t have all the answers .
Comment by John — December 18, 2012 @ 1:59 am
Maybe you missed it. The 2nd amendment issue has been settled by the US Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. Wherein the court affirmed that the 2nd Amendment means what it says: American citizens have the right to legally keep and bear arms; that ‘arms’ means firearms in common usage in the present time, not muskets, etc. and that no entity in the United States has the right to deny American citizens access to arms including ammunition, accessories, etc. with the exception being that all current ‘reasonable’ regulations including background checks, waiting periods and legal status are allowed.
They also affirmed that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. You can look up the ruling and read the court’s arguments.
The USSC ruling applies to all states, even to little towns like Alameda, CA.
So in practical terms anti-gunners have two ways to advance their agenda:
1 – Advance a court case to the US Supreme Court which will have the possibility of leading to an overturn of DC v. Heller.
2. Remove the 2nd Amendment from the US Constitution. Good luck with that – it will never happen.
So all this is already settled. The only thing not settled is how do we deal with the violently mentally ill? To my knowledge every one of these mass murderers were sending out signals like crazy that they were off the hook and intended harm. For one reason and another they were all allowed to roam free until they finally snapped and did the deed. How come?
That’s what needs to be addressed, not already settled law.
Comment by Lavage10 — December 18, 2012 @ 2:52 pm
10.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Supreme Court being the the final arbiter, we are for now bound by this DC v Heller ruling, but it was the usual 5-4 split with Scalia leading the charge and it’s ridiculous. In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court’s judgment was “a strained and unpersuasive reading” which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had “bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law”. Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the “omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense” which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.
According to the slim majority”s strained reading, the Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Yeah, right! In the era this amendment was drafted the “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The 19th amendment only gives women the right to vote, not to participate in the militia so I guess women only have the right to bear children and shouldn’t be allowed in the armed services. If Adam’ Lanza’s mother hadn’t been allowed to bear arms this massacre never would have taken place! When the right appeal comes along Papa Scalia can straighten that out too.
Seriously, laws are human constructs, and are not immutable. The second Amendment is antiquated. The crazed paranoia which inspires so many gun enthusiasts is so intense that trying to repeal the amendment is probably the one thing which could actually induce an attempt at armed insurrection, but despite that commitment to their alleged “right”, they are dead wrong.
Even the New York Post has questions. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/adam_lanza_weapons_NU2tb0tIf9hNsOCZkPJ1XP
As for dealing with the mentally ill, it is not surprising to me that a “gunner” who would cleave to the right to own the means to assassinate others would in their compassionate wisdom find abolishing the 2nd amendment a slippery slope but apparently has little problem entertaining the notion of locking up mentally ill people and throwing away the key. Oh sorry, only the “violently mentally ill”. Well of course, they are so easy to sort out from the rest of us, especially AFTER they have gotten their hands on implements of deadly force. Catch-22.
Comment by M.I. — December 19, 2012 @ 12:20 am
The first comment to your Post link says it all.
Abu Al Salam
Originally, the founding fathers knew the likelihood of handguns and rifles improving.
The 2nd amendment was to provide the people a guaranteed availability to arms that were comparable to the Govt state. They also knew, without the option of citizens with the ability to resist the Federal Govt, it wouldn’t be long before a tyrant used the military to seize control of all facets of life in America.
The Fathers were extremely aware of domination of citizens by corrupt powers, as they had been through it, and had seen it in other countries.
An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a slave.
Punish people that break the law, but leave the documents of freedom alone.
Reply · 74 · · Yesterday at 7:40am
Comment by Jack Richard — December 19, 2012 @ 12:23 pm
23. Hard to understand what you’re trying to say but it sounds like an arm waving rant.
Comment by Lavage10 — December 19, 2012 @ 3:03 pm
You’re new here, aren’t you….
Comment by dave — December 19, 2012 @ 3:42 pm
Lived in this town since the early 90′s. What’s your point? Are you a gatekeeper?
Comment by Lavage10 — December 20, 2012 @ 12:18 pm
Check your sarcasm meter, it seems to be on the fritz.
It was a joke about Jack Richard’s propensity for Angry Old Bastard behavior.
Comment by dave — December 20, 2012 @ 12:25 pm
Letter to editor today in Alameda Journal:
Dear Editor:
Should we be selling semi-automatic weapons in Alameda? In light of the Newtown, Connecticut massacre, I would urge my fellow Alamedans to join me in signing a petition to Steven Miller, CEO of Big 5 Sporting Goods, which sells high powered, rapid fire weapons which can be easily reloaded and equipped with high capacity magazines at their South Shore store. According to Big 5, these weapons are an “ideal training tool for law enforcement, military personnel, and civilians.” Let’s make a start to limit these weapons, which can threaten our children, from falling into the hands of mentally-ill individuals and demand that they not be sold in Alameda! Please sign the petition at http://www.change.org/petitions/steven-g-miller-ceo-big-5-sporting-goods-stop-selling-semiautomic-weapons-at-big-5-in-alameda
Sincerely,
Paul English
Comment by Paul English — December 21, 2012 @ 12:22 pm
27
(small d) gatekeeper dave represents that very large sliver of population that thinks they know what’s best for the small sliver, re.”… Yeah, yeah, yeah, what about the person who really is in danger, who really needs it? Notwithstanding the fact that this describes an infinitesimal sliver of the population,…”
So, how often do Americans use firearms for self-defense?
Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 21, 2012 @ 5:31 pm
24. the quote doesn’t say anything meaningful except maybe gun enthusiasts seem to consider themselves to be gate keepers to the true meaning of the second amendment as if it is obvious what the founders both envisioned with regard to the future and how it should be handles. I infer that perhaps the amendment is so extremely brief because the founders knew they couldn’t read the future and didn’t want to presume too much. The main problem I have with the amendment is that it was written in an era when we had just successfully had an armed revolution, so it was within the realm of imagination, but it is almost impossible to see how any such insurrection could occur today or how anyone might think that seizure of our government in some military coup might be remedied by organized armed citizen’s revolt. People who cleave to the notion that our civil rights are somehow protected from government tyranny by the owning guns are deluded fantacists. With tyrannical rulings like Citizens United the government doesn’t need munitions to suppress the democratic voice of the people, but the rational response to that situation is hardly armed revolt, regardless to what Sharon Angle might think. Was she suggesting things would be improved if somebody like Adam Lanza took a Bushmaster to Congress? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/08/sharron-angle-addresses-s_n_709518.html.
23. was a bit of a mock rant, but I also believe that even though we must live under the latest rulings of the Supremes, that those rulings are ultimately as ephemeral as human life, not immutable manifestations brought to us through any sort of divination of either a god consciousness, or the intentions of the Founders, any more than the constitution itself which was divined from god by the founders, but is instead just a very, very brilliant attempt at continuing to hone reasonable rules for civilized coexistence.
Comment by M.I. — December 22, 2012 @ 10:19 am
21. The culture at large may lend to desensitization to violence over all, but the plague of urban violence, while sharing the proliferation of guns as a root cause, does not generally correlate to these mass shootings when it comes causes of mental illness. Ghetto violence has it’s root in cycles of poverty and inequity which aggravate the situation exponentially. There is a difference between being driven crazy by being trapped in a desperate environment and having an organic mental illness.
I just finished reading a memoir written by a friend about her career as a private investigator specializing in death penalty appeal. Her job is to interview criminals, witnesses, jurors and anybody from the prepetrator’s past in order to build a case that though these individual’s may be guilty of heinous crimes for which they should be locked away for life, their actions should be viewed in the context of their being victims of their own circumstances to a certain degree, and therefore the death penalty to be disproportionate, or cruel and unusual. Many of these criminals grew up too poor to own video games, but those who had them were often better off for having a distraction which kept them off the streets. The interviews of criminals in this book make references to these games and their violence but would lead one to conclude they are the least of the problem when it comes to how a good natured kid can become a ruthless killer. Their actual lives are far more desensitizing than video games. The author was born in Australia and the book is not in print in the US.
Combat was my favorite TV show when I was 8 and we played army by the hour when I was a kid. The Steve McQueen movie Bullitt and James Bond were water shed violence at the time and big hits, much to the displeasure of our parents, but for the most part our middle class existence allowed us to outgrow childhood fantasies about violence because we weren’t steeped in it in our daily existence.
I was exposed to real life tragedy and violence in formative years and I guess I could have grown up to be a total sociopath, but manged to salvage myself and walk away with only bad memories and a short temper. My life line may be that despite all the insanity in my early life my family had just enough means, and just enough human compassion, that I didn’t succumb.
Unfortunately the root of all evil is money, either abuse of it or lack of it.
Comment by M.I. — December 22, 2012 @ 12:34 pm
31/2
Mark, could you explain what you mean in this sentence: “With tyrannical rulings like Citizens United the government doesn’t need munitions to suppress the democratic voice of the people,…”. What rulings did CU make that obviates any need for government munitions?
And Mark, what is your take on a citizen who admittedly takes life using firearms because it gives him pleasure, yet is adamant that other citizens must give up their equally pleasurable outings blasting holes in water filled milk bottles or round circles of steel backed wood composition, all without taking life, merely because others can put holes in their bottles faster than he can in his warm blooded animals?
By the way, I am also an adamant shooter and shoot a lot but I only use a camera. You may have noticed a couple of the results I’ve posted here…not good at it but it gives me pleasure.
By the way, where is the monetary driven evil roots that drove Adam Lanza’s acts? I’m sure they’re there but where?
One last thing, concerning your #24 in “Safety net”, I strongly urge you to read some of Gary Kleck’s writings. He is a criminologist and is the David J. Bordua Professor of Criminology at Florida State University and is a life-long liberal Democrat.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 22, 2012 @ 5:22 pm
Your safer as a US soldier in Afganistan than you are as a Citizen of California. We had over 1000 murders in California this year and have lost about 350 American Soldiers in Afganistan this year. Both have about the equal amout of Population. 35 Mil…. Oakland has 398K residents about 1/100 of the population of Afganistan and has 1/3 to 1/2 as many people murdered……Amazing numbers since we border our sister city of Oakland.
Comment by John — December 22, 2012 @ 6:02 pm
Oakland Crime Rate Soaring As City Loses Officers
Burglaries are up a startling 43 percent in Oakland this year compared to last, part of an ever-growing crime problem in the city.
According to the latest numbers from the Oakland Police Department, more than 11,000 homes, cars or businesses have been broken into so far this year – translating to about 33 burglaries a day.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/11/28/phil-matier-oakland-crime-rate-worries-city-officials/
# 124 for Oakland
Oakland: Woman walking to store shot, killed in gun battle
http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_22228131/oakland-woman-walking-home-from-store-shot-killed?source=most_viewed
OAKLAND — A woman walking to a store in East Oakland was struck and killed during a gun battle between people on the other side of the street Wednesday night, police said.
The woman was walking with a relative and was hit by an errant bullet at 6:53 p.m. in the 9100 block of International Boulevard, police said. The other person was not injured, police said.
Police did not identify the victim, but a longtime friend of the woman identified her as Ramona Rochelle Foreman, 49.
“She was a good person. She never did anything to anybody,” said Al Roberts, who has a 30-year-old daughter and a 32-year-old son and three grandchildren with the victim. “I can’t believe it’s her lying there.”
Foreman lived about four blocks away from the store, Roberts said, and took care of her elderly mother.
No arrests have been made and police don’t know what sparked the gun battle. At least 10 evidence markers were strewn on the sidewalk across the street from where the woman died. The death is the city’s 124th homicide of the year.
Several blocks of International Boulevard are blocked to traffic while police investigate the shooting.
Anyone with information should call police at 510-238-3821 or Crime Stoppers at 510-777-8572 or 510-777-3211. There is a reward of up to $10,000 for information leading to the suspect in the killing.
__________________________________________________________________________________
In 2010, Oakland had more than 500 separate shootings — more than one per day, every day, for weeks and months on end. Some involved so deeply in street life that experts say they have slipped into a kind of alternate reality in which the rules the rest of society lives by don’t apply
______________________________________________
Comment by John — December 22, 2012 @ 6:17 pm
John, are you suggesting that confiscating guns in Alameda will solve the murder rate in Oakland?
Comment by Jack Richard — December 22, 2012 @ 7:33 pm
Jack I believe in the right for an individual to bear arms and protect himself and his home in this country and Alameda. The assault weapons I’m leaning towards some major restrictions or some type of law changes . I think we can probably stop selling some types of ammunition. I have NO Clue how we can get them out of the hands of some individuals without some serious repercussions. Not just NRA members but others. I had this conversation Thursday with a good friend who is retired police officer and asked how can we ban guns in Oakland or even Assault Rifles. .He didn’t think there was a way without mayhem.
We had two live break ins in our home growing up. and both were thwarted by my Dad using his gun to slow down the potential thieves. In the first instance Both were halfway thru windows straddling the balcony and the floor of my parents bedroom when my Dad pulled out his gun.
The Other my Dad and Mom walked in on robbery of the house on their anniversary.
I know how violated you feel when being robbed. Those numbers in Oakland are staggering.
The Homicide and Shooting numbers are off the Charts.
Those numbers are pretty close to projections so it pretty much says were accepting it and not really doing much about it.
Jack I don’t have the answers but we have huge problem…Confiscating guns in Alameda will NOT solve the murder rate in Oakland.
Comment by John — December 22, 2012 @ 9:06 pm
#34
John your statement, “Your safer as a US soldier in Afganistan than you are as a Citizen of California.” is way off the mark. The murder rate in California in 2011 was 4.8 per 100,000 (which, by the way, is the lowest murder rate since the early 1960′s), and the death rate for US Soldiers in Afghanistan in 2011 was approximately 160 per 100,000 and that is the ‘death rate’ which includes all deaths even those that are self-inflicted , accidental or caused by disease)
In fact, the homicide rate in California is in a steady decline since the 1970′s according to
California Law Enforcement Agency Uniform Crime Reports
California Crime Rates 1960 – 2011
Comment by Jack Richard — December 23, 2012 @ 10:14 am
Jack your right……I was looking at pure numbers. ..Comparing total Military Fatalities by our troops in Afganistan to Total being murdered in California . Probably not a fair comparison and way off the mark.
It is interesting to note we have lost more than twice as many Californians to Murder than Total Military Fatalities in both Iraq and Afganistan the last 10 years even with homicide rates dropping .
But our Military risk is about 100 times more than average citizen in California. As usual your right .
Have a fabulous Christmas.
Comment by John — December 23, 2012 @ 12:48 pm
Jack I was using average of Military last 10 years to come up with 100 Times more at Risk than your 32 in 2011.
Comment by John — December 23, 2012 @ 1:02 pm
The first 18-20 comments on this post were thoughtful and compassionate. I especially appreciated Chief Noonan’s comment and dave’s superb leadoff comment.
Subsequent rants about the apparent sacredness of the SCOTUS’ latest misinterpretation of the Second Amendment not withstanding, I think we all agree that significant changes are needed in the ways we regulate and sell firearms, the ways in which we screen and license gun owners, as well as in the attention we pay to healing the sick, ending poverty, and offering mental health services. (Single-payor universal health care, anyone?)
In the season when we celebrate light amidst the darkness (Channukah, Solstice, Christmas, Kwaanza) it is clearly time to act to bring the chance of peace to a shattered world. Sane gun laws are not the only solutions, but they represent a significant step that we could take–IF we were serious about being peacemakers.
Comment by Jon Spangler — December 27, 2012 @ 9:58 am
Spangler, why don’t you take your rant to the head peacemaker himself? You know the one you adore, POTUS who sits in the White House pushing a little button which sends Hellfire missiles into anyone he deems unworthy of living in order to obtain peace.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 27, 2012 @ 5:56 pm
33. Jack , you are twisting the point about government munitions. I’m not talking about drone strikes, but our government use of force against US citizens and in that regard Citizens United makes the all mighty dollar a more efficient and less controversial tool for quashing dissent than something like shooting students at Kent and Jackson State colleges who were protesting the war in Vietnam. Obviously CU didn’t make any ruling, it was the ruling, but just because the Koch brothers for the most part lost the election battle last November doesn’t mean that we can relax about the corrupting influence of unregulated and anonymous sums of money thrown into political campaigns. The more salient point is how ineffectual arms are in the present day for citizen insurrection, which therefore would make the Second Amendment with regard to militias obsolete, militias being in my mind the central purpose of the amendment.
Your second sentence: your reference is so oblique as to be meaningless. Therefore I have no take.
I suppose if I had to correlate the evil of money directly to the acts of Adam Lanza it might be with regard to how materialism has made the entire culture banal enough that a person like that is more likely to be alienated and adrift, but I don’t know. Making such a connection to bolster my contention about the corrupting influence, evil if you will, of money wealth and the power that goes with them, is not something I’m going to get hung up about.
Last, you were 24. and I was 23. I have thousands of pages of things I’d really like to read but may never get to. If you really think there is some reading of Mr. Kleck’s writing which is relevant, it would be helpful if you cited something or narrowed things down a bit instead of more vague inferences.
Comment by M.I. — December 27, 2012 @ 8:28 pm
35. not sure if your post about crime rates in Oakland was in response to my posting about over all crime rates being in decline. I was just repeating what TV pundits have been saying regarding crime in the most general way, like crimes of all kinds are down nationally? I don’t even know, and that actually is my point, that it is stupid to defend gun ownership in the wake of all these rampages by citing those kind of statistics completely out of context. I inferred your references about the efficacy of rifles, or lack there of, for “killing lots of people” to mean you oppose restrictions altogether but in 37. to Jack you seem to contradict that, which is welcome news.
Cities like Oakland, Chicago, Philadelphia are experiencing violent crime epidemics. you posted “In 2010, Oakland had more than 500 separate shootings — more than one per day, every day, for weeks and months on end. Some involved so deeply in street life that experts say they have slipped into a kind of alternate reality in which the rules the rest of society lives by don’t apply” I don’t know if that is a strip and paste or something you wrote, but it rings true. That alternate reality is only alternate relative to the rest of society, but for the folks of East Oakland it is their entire world.
To wander off topic of guns just a bit, the death penalty does nothing to dissuade crime when the criminals don’t expect to live to 20 years of age anyway and all their” homies” are dieing right and left. I think the solution lies with that evil money which is being horded by the 1%. It has great potential to do good as well if it is applied correctly. It is impossible to instantly to undo layers of social dysfunction which have been compounded by years of neglect but we have to start somewhere, sometime, somehow. The young men who are alleged to have shot the former Alameda girls with 36 bullets are real damaged goods. My opposition to death penalty is largely about innocent people who get sentenced and the huge expense of due process related to the death penalty, but I can’t say I’d be sorry to see those guys get the chair, (without the wet sponge like in the Green Mile). But horrible people that they appear to have become, there is a back story to how they came to be.
Comment by M.I. — December 27, 2012 @ 9:03 pm
Hmm…not a single comment yet about the shooting Spengler back east who killed the firemen? Insane convicted murdering felon, and all the laws we have [& none of the ones being proposed] couldn’t keep a Bushmaster out of HIS hands. Somehow, I don’t think money, power, or capitalism had a damn thing to do with it. I also doubt he belonged to the NRA.
Comment by alameda vigilante — December 28, 2012 @ 9:46 am
yes Vigi, not all crack pots are NRA members, maybe he didn’t have the dues money. .In the big picture that proves what? What would lack of commentary prove? We’re numb? Nobody is commenting much anyway. There are plenty of connections between any of these acts and power and misuse of money and wealth, like squeezing social programs for metal health, the prison system being one of the most inhumane on the planet, gun lobby seeing to the end of the semi-automatic ban, Wallmart profiting from easy access to cheap ammo,etc. You and Jack are out to lunch so often maybe you should make a lunch date to commiserate .
Bowling for Columbine has been running a couple times a day on cable for the last couple weeks. Michael Moore is manipulative in some of his editing, like his ambush interview of Charlton Heston who is doddering geezer in the movie, but the movie covers all the ground mentioned here and it does it well. The interviews with Canadians are great. They who own 7 million guns for 10 million households but have less than 100 gun deaths a year, The consumption of our media like action movies and “violent” video games, also covered. The part about locking doors really drove home how we are truly a nation of fear and paranoia. Interview with Terry Nichols brother is pretty freaky and ends with the guy exclaiming “There are are lot of crack pots out there!”, with reference to regulating plutonium which is where he seems to draw a line on “arms”.
I coincidentally got to crime chapter in Andrew Solomon’s book Far From The Tree and read about Klebold’s parents. Disquieting story about bullying. If I’m not mistaken those boys shot 900 rounds but in the end killed 12, some of whom were shot at close range with a single shot, several in the face. Victim’s in Connecticut were shot from 3 to 11 times a piece. Still haven’t gotten total number of rounds fired in that incident. Adam was really mowing them down. Still some folks think adding more guns and ammo is the solution. Only about 36 more hours until we can celebrate the new year with more gun fire!
Comment by M.I. — December 30, 2012 @ 9:40 am
“…and Jack are out to lunch…”
Coming from an avowed Marxist and one of the most stalwart of yes-man-sycophant members of the Bayport Progressive Pogrom I very much consider your description of me right up there with small d dave’s AOM and complementary in the extreme.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 30, 2012 @ 12:13 pm
WORLDU.S.N.Y. / REGIONBUSINESSTECHNOLOGYSCIENCEHEALTHSPORTSOPINIONARTSSTYLETRAVELJOBSREAL ESTATEAUTOSOP-ED COLUMNIST
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: December 30, 2012
ET Tu, Brute?
Washington, DC
Josh Haner/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman
Go to Columnist Page »
Connect With Us on Twitter
For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.
Imagine if academics sat down with ordinary people like you and me and ironed out some real solutions to our gun crisis.
With the election season over, maybe you’ve forgotten about betrayal, but I certainly haven’t. It would be easy to forget that the problem even exists, when our headlines are constantly splashed with the violence in Benghazi, the authoritarian crackdown in Zimbabwe and the still-unstable democratic transition in Costa Rica. But the second amendment problem is growing, and politicians are more divided than ever. Republicans seem to think that semi-automatic rifles can just be ignored. Democratic politicians like Dianne Feinstein, on the other hand, seem to think that shrill rhetoric and impassable legislation will substitute for a reasonable compromise.
But the Democratic party of Dianne Feinstein is not the Democratic party of Bill Clinton. Clinton wouldn’t just filibuster, he’d break ranks with members of his own party because he’d understand that the fate of the country, and his own political career, depended on a lasting solution to the problem of unrestricted gun ownership.
The first rule of holes is that when you’re in one, stop digging. When you’re in three, bring a lot of shovels. If I had fifteen minutes to pitch my idea to politicians, I’d tell them two things about the second amendment. First, there’s no way around the issue unless we’re prepared to bite the bullet : and not just talk more, but talk smarter by investing in the kind of national infrastructure that makes countries without guns succeed. That’s going to require some tax cuts as well, but as they say, “Mo’ money mo’ problems.”
Second, I’d tell them to look at Finland, which all but solved its gun crisis over the past decade. When I visited Finland in 2004, Tintin, the cabbie who drove me from the airport, couldn’t stop telling me about how he had to take a fourth job because of the high cost of armed guards. I caught up with Tintin in Helsinki last year. Thanks to Finland’s reformed approach toward gun ownership, Tintin has enough money in his pocket to finally be able to afford a television set for his kids.
That’s all it takes. Don’t expect to see any solutions as long as fringe bloggers insist on playing a high-stakes game of chess with one another. America’s got to call a time-out.
This article was not really written by Thomas Friedman and this site is a spoof of the New York Times. This generator was created by Yakoop Straus with content from Imagine, used with permission.Generate New Column! About
Comment by Yakoop Straus — December 30, 2012 @ 12:42 pm
http://www.thepessimist.org/
Comment by vigi — January 3, 2013 @ 9:39 am
As an avid cook I will underscore the lack of necessity of pressure cookers for that purpose.
In most cooking situations, you get one try. If you fail, the food is thrown away immediately. If your first try works partially but doesn’t satisfy, you need a finishing desert, the couple hours — max — that it takes to put together a souffle or a hasty pudding will be more than enough. (And if you need a second helping, there’s a good chance you should have taken a larger first one, as you are likely either a fat slob or you need more exercise at the gym. As for large meals that requires 5+ cources, you have time for that, I know from experience.)
One situation where an extra course can be called for is pheasant cooking, and cooks have done just fine w/o utilizing pressure cookers. And the ‘quick cooking’ issue is usually bullshit too because it often has the opposite effect & decreases the flavor, to the owner & especially his/her family. In order for a pressure cooker to be useful as a culinary device, it has to be at the ready. A pressure cooker in the attic will allow you to deal with quick cooking situations, but the risks of utilizing a highly pressurized container are exponentially greater than the risk of disappointing your uninvited hungry guests. Same for the untrained amateur cook; the risk of a pressure cooker kept in the attic is far greater than the risk of un-pressurized slow cookers for nearly every person. Simply put, a pressure cooker needs to be safely used, and the time it takes to check the gasket of a stored pressure cooker largely precludes almost every quick cooking scenario.
A pressure cooker is a tool. It’s a tool that boils water to a superheated steam with just a few ounces of millimeter thick gasket between the cook and total disaster, this is a tool designed for slow compressing but the threat of rapid decompression after the cooking renders this tool much too dangerous for everyone but the trained professional. Such tools have their place and that’s safely, SAFELY, used for almost every minute of cooking, and pulled out only for designated & wisely planned uses, and only after rigorous training & practice for safe operation. Period.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, what about the person who really is in a hurry, who really needs his meal now? Notwithstanding the fact that this describes an infinitesimal sliver of the population, and almost none of the howlers who will raise this point, no one is talking about a blanket ban. If you are one the .00001% that really needs a pressure cooker for cooking, you can get one. You might have to wait a few days for Amazon to ship it (the horror!) or settle for a slow cooker that takes a mere 8 hours (tyranny!) but you’ll be able to live to cook another day. I’ve often thought that if automobiles existed in 1788 we’d have had an amendment protecting car ownership & use. A car is as great a symbol of American freedom as a pressure cooker, perhaps greater as it’s far more widespread; damn near universal. There’s never been ANY serious effort to ban or confiscate cars. Hell, even JKW has one. Yet we have regulations governing their ownership & safe use. License, insurance, headlights, seatbelts, vision tests, DUI laws, etc. Many states legally require safety inspections for brakes and other safety equipment. Cars are both useful and dangerous. Cars are not just a symbol of freedom, they ARE freedom, and we sensibly regulate them.
It’s way past time we regulate pressure cookers in a similar way.
Comment by knave — April 23, 2013 @ 5:44 am