Burnt Orange Report

Let me broaden the debate a little bit. We don't have a problem with guns per se. We have a problem with gun violence and violence generally.

Exactly... how about addressing the issue of capturing and convicting this criminal before launching into your political tirade?

First off, this is extremely unfortunate and extremely disturbing, especially for it to happen near a school. I am glad that the assailant has been captured and I hope they throw the book at him. More importantly, I hope they get this fellow some help, because something ain't right when you go and do what he did and was planning on doing (Need I mention that people who plan these things out very often end up taking their own lives at the end.)

Why this happened, I have no idea. I'm not even sure the guy who did it know why he did it. I think we can all agree that the gun didn't make him do it.

Of course every time we have one of these sensationalistic occurrences, we are tempted to forget that the vast majority of the 11,000 gun deaths are suicides (about 55 to 60 percent are people killing themselves). And I think that if you recall your basic sociology, this is clearly a sign of a society where there's a lot of anomie, and a lot of people who need help who aren't getting it.

Moreover, about 5-10 percent of gun deaths are accidental and are the result largely of a lack of precaution and a lack of training, but ultimately of a lack of respect for the power and responsibility that firearm ownership entails.

So finally whittling down, there's the remaining 30-odd percent of gun fatalities, and these are largely tied to directly to crime. Now, you know, I think the focus here is on the wrong thing wjen we focus on intentional murders. You alot of these are felony murders where people use a gun to rob a bank or commit a rape or do a drug deal, or some other thing, and end up killing somebody in the process. You can argue that guns facilitate non-homicidal crimes. On the other hand, you can argue that the best way to reduce the number of gun fatalities is to get the guns out of the hands of criminals and to reduce the overall crime rate through more effective policing and stiffer sentencing.

These tragic homocides are a tiny fraction of the number of gun deaths per year, and many of them would probably occur with or without access to guns or high-powered guns.

Moreover, I think the case is a lot stronger for semiautomatic rifles than it is for handguns. If you ask people who know about guns, and ask them whether they'd be more likely to go hunting with AK-47 or a 9mm pistol, I think most of them will tell you the AK-47 (then again, there are a few crazy people that do hunt with handguns). Of course neither are particularly great since you know, distance and accuracy are what matters.

(Also, you can have a semiautomatic AK-47 that is not necessarily an "assault rifle" under the 1994 statute, recently expired (depended on what kind of receiver it had). On the other hand, a fully automatic AK-47 is still illegal after the expiration of the AWB. In this case the victim was shot ONCE at relatively close range, he could have been shot ONCE with a flintlock musket, much less an AK-47.)

To sum up, it's a tragedy, but I don't think that the best response would be to debate AK-47s. I think there are a lot broader issues which can be discussed that would do this unfortunate event a lot more justice.

Chris--
I'm not sure where you see a political tirade. I simply opened up a debate because this incident brought a question to mind. If you'll take the time to thoroughly read my post, I said that we should *also* discuss what it is about our culture/society that leads to so many gun deaths. I did not call names, nor did I post inflammatory comments. Those are marks of a tirade, sir. And I did mention that the suspect had been caught. Furthermore, my entry was not a knee-jerk reaction. It was a simple, open question.

Jim,

I DO recall my basic sociology, and guess what? I happen to know that a good proportion of the gun deaths are suicides. I once majored in Education, and trust me, they drill suicide stats into students. My question is, what can we do about it? Is there a feasible solution? Does anyone have an opinion?

You broadened the debate well. What I wanted, as I am not a gun owner, was information on why people need assault rifles. And why is there so much gun violence? You gave some facts and your own opinion, and that is why I wanted a debate.

That's all I have for now--I open the floor. :)

Also the football angry - are Texans too sports-obsessed?

http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/004941.html

Also, sorry if I came off a little snippy. :: hug ::

I agree with Jim D. that the real problem is with gun violence and violence in general.

But guns make killing so easy. They are enablers precisely in the AA sense of that term. They feed and mobilize the fantasies of power and domination and revenge that drive violent people.

And as enablers, the worst guns are not assault rifles but hand guns. They have only one purpose--to kill people in a non-military, close-up, face-to-face encounter. There is no excuse for letting them run freely in a society as violent as the one we live in.

I'm all for well-regulated militias, which could monitor the possession and use of long guns for hunting and varmint control while maintaining an organized, hostile force of millions in case Canada or Mexico ever decided to try anything.

Demo Memo,
I have to agree about handguns, and I tend to agree with your position on guns as enablers. I think that was a great way to put it. The only reason I mentioned that owning a handgun was understandable is because a friend's father was a bail bondsman, and kept a large amount of cash and jewelry in the home. There were robbery attempts--armed robbery attempts, apparently--and he kept a gun with him for protection. But I really have to agree. Although I have issues with assault rifles, you are correct, IMHO, regarding hand guns. There is only one purpose for them.

Thanks to everyone who has constructively added to this debate. I hope we can continue this, as guns and violence are important issues.

Jim--

Don't worry about it. :)

Current news reports are saying that the guy used a .45 handgun, rather than a so-called "assault rifle" as reported earlier.

Does that change your premise any?

Assault rifle, handgun, hunting rifle...they're all the same. You pull the trigger, it shoots a bullet. Either ban 'em all (which I think would be stupid) or deal with the fact that guns, like drugs and unwanted pregnancies, are a fact of life in our culture and we should have rational policies for mitigating the harm that they can cause.

Getting your panties in a wad about how "this kind of gun is OK, but that kind of gun is BAD" is useless and just drives gun-owners further into the arms of the NRA and their conservative friends in Washington.

Thank you for starting this discussion. It has been disheartening that the recent spat of noted shootings has not triggered more discussion about the role of guns in America. Here's my partial list of the recent shootings receiving national media coverage:

- Judge Leskow's family in Chicago,
- the school shooting on the Minnesota reservation,
- the shooting outside the courthouse in Tyler, and now
- the Canton school shooting.*

In most of these cases, the shooters did not have prior criminal records. In the Tyler shooting, I am amazed that the Judge who issued the restraining order let the shooter keep his firearms.

Jeb

* I'm leaving off the Atlanta courthouse shootings, since those occured when a prisoner took a gun from a Sheriff's deputy.

Uh, apologies for the "panties in a wad" comment. I didn't really pay attention to who wrote the original post, Andrea, and I was thinking Byron wrote it. So it wasn't intended as any kind of a "this is man's talk, girly" slight. Just an expression.

Ray,

Thanks for the comments. I just went with the original report, and my premise has not necessarily changed in that we need to talk about guns, period. It happened to be a hand gun, and although I wrote that I could see a couple of situations where someone may want to carry a handgun (this was noted in a comment), I'm really not down with them--or any gun, for that matter. I tend to agree with what you said regarding my statement of good guns vs bad guns, but again, I'm still learning more and trying to form an opinion based on a different perspective. My opinion may change, it may not. I just want to have an informed opinion.:)
Frankly, I think that this type of debate is a great learning experience for everyone--me for instance, as it help me become more informed and therefore a better blogger. And don't worry about the 'panties' remark. I appreciate your apology, so no offense taken at all, no harm done. :) (BTW, I'm really hard to offend.)

Jeb--

Thanks for the encouragement. I'm glad you're enjoying the discussion.

Again, thank you all for enlightening me. Like I have said, I don't know a whole lot of specifics regarding guns, and y'all are informing me and giving pause to consider. Thanks.