Good Lord, please don't read too much into this. After all next to Glen Beck ANYONE looks like the voice of reason.

Yup, agreed, this says more about Glenn Beck. We may not like Bill O, but I'd have a very hard time calling him unintelligent. Beck, on the other hand, is not exactly a rocket scientist.

Funny how the rampant availability of guns isn't brought up in the right's discussion of the causes of these rampages.

Well, the Media are "far gone" Steve, and that's part of their business model and the sentiments of their Owners. But Beck of course was plying the slimy idea that government/liberals were to blame, but likely the company and its downsizing and profit-centered mode was really what put the shooter over the top:

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/131201/workplace_massacre_in_alabama%3A_did_endless_downsizing_and_slashed_benefits_cause_the_rampage/

Beck said: "But as I'm listening to [the description of McLendon]. I'm thinking about the American people that feel disenfranchised right now. That feel like nobody's hearing their voice. The government isn't hearing their voice. Even if you call, they don't listen to you on both sides. If you're a conservative, you're called a racist. You want to starve children ... every time they do speak out, they're shut down by political correctness. How do you not have those people turn into that guy?"

Beck is basically saying that the propaganda that he and Rush Limbaugh preach on the air every day -- relentlessly hammering a bunch of weak-minded, ignorant, mean-spirited dupes with the message that they are the poor, pitiful "conservative" victims of powerful "liberal" elites -- is bound to turn some of them into mass murderers.

In other words, Beck is claiming responsibility for these killings, much as Osama bin Laden would claim responsibility for mass murder committed by deranged victims of his propaganda.

It appears that a significant number of the victims were relatives of the shooter and according to the account I read, a possible family conflict was over a family bible.

Yeah it's a bitch being a conservative I guess.

Beck is simply the village idiot of FOXNEWSVILLE! -Kevo

Glenn Beck and Timothy McVeigh would have understood each other.

Beck isn't a nut. He's worse. He's an ideological opportunist who looks for every chance to make a painfully strained analogy. There's lots of 'em out there; on Fox, it's what they're paid to do.

"Funny how the rampant availability of guns isn't brought up in the right's discussion of the causes of these rampages."

Funny how the rampant availability of fertilizer wasn't brought up in the discussion of bombings and massive terrorist attacks like Bali and OK City. Maybe it's because the "cause" is mental illness, and the means are simply the tools?

The point here isn't about guns, it's about mental illness and Beck's absurd inability to see why equivocating about it exposes him for the abject loon that he is.

Also funny how the discussion from folks like you about the causes always seems to omit that all the strict gun control laws in the world didn't stop what happened in Germany.

If you really wanna see Democrats squander the political goodwill and capital they've earned in the last couple years...keep it up with that line of thinking.

And every time they do speak out, they're shut down by political correctness. How do you not have those people turn into that guy?

Oh, I know. If there's one place in the country where a white guy gets slapped down for speaking his mind, particularly about the colored folks, it's southern Alabama.

Sounds like Glenn Beck is saying conservatives are a bunch of potential mass murderers . . .

Flipping through the channels the other night, O'Reilly was on and when he said this, straight-faced as Walter Cronkite, I nearly fell out of bed laughing:

"We are not, and never have been about ideology here."

Sorry I didn't catch the context, but I'm sure it's out there on the tubes.

Yeah, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But the availability of guns makes it a lot easier for them to do it.

That said, this has been a losing issue for the Dems. But I keep hoping some clearly reasonable positions on this question--child safety locks, for example--will finally trump the absolutist position of the NRA.

If there were a competition for the dumbest and craziest pundit that has their own show, Beck would win, hands down.

I tune into Beck's radio show from time to time for a good laugh. Just a bit ago he was ranting about how "going galt" is indeed coming (atlas shrugged is his 2nd bible) and said that if the economy turns around more quickly than predicted it will be Obama's fault- because he's a "criminal." His reasoning? That Obama lied and tried to scare everyone so he could pass his radical soclialisst agenda.

You heard it here first- IF we are near the bottom and things get better faster than predicted the right/GOP will say Obama lied to the American people about how bad things were.

Just when I though they couldn't go further into the wilderness...

Beck is right...don't you remember all of those liberals that went on shooting rampages during the Bush years?

Remember, if you were a liberal, you loved terrorists, you were a traitor, you wanted Americans to die. Opposed the Iraq War? Who listened to you?

What a douchebag.

...just how far gone does a cable network have to be to give a nut like Beck a platform to broadcast lunacy?

Exactly as far gone as FOX News. Farther gone than CNN Headline.

Someone please keep track of these mass shootings and of how many of the shooters were on SSRIs. And other suicides as well.

frazer wrote: "Yeah, guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Guns don't kill people -- bullets kill people.

When guns are outlawed, only cops will have guns.

Actually, among the right-wing blowhards, it isn't unusual for O'Reilly to stand out as the voice of reason. During the campaign, for example, he was the only one of the bunch who have made a stab at treating Obama fairly. He's also much better on the environment than the pack.

"Yeah, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But the availability of guns makes it a lot easier for them to do it."

Just like clubs made it easier to kill sabertooth tigers than your bare hands did, and swords made it easier to kill the opposing army's guys than clubs did, and the bow and arrow was further improvement still. Humans have always found ways to make projecting force easier. We always will. You can't uninvent technology, so I hardly see the point of this observation--the reality is technology isn't going away, but maybe we can build a better world through less lethal methods of force projection. I'm all for it. But until we perfect the stun gun and the phaser and Scotty can beam us up...firearms will remain the primary means of hand to hand lethal force projection. Reality bites sometimes.

Guns do make it easier to kill. They also make it easier to defend yourself. The German and the Alabaman bad guys were stopped when confronted by armed people. The other uncomfy reality is that even when you say you're against using guns for self defense...if you're counting on the cops to do the bad guy stopping for you, you're STILL using a gun for force projection. You're just outsourcing it to an agent of the state and thus having it done in all our names.

"But I keep hoping some clearly reasonable positions on this question--child safety locks, for example--will finally trump the absolutist position of the NRA."

I'm not sure what absolutist position you're referring; I don't think anybody's saying child safety locks are necessarily a bad idea--we're just saying they're not going to be effective in the long run. Firearms accidents are, despite what the media has tried to convince us of, exceedingly rare. More people die from falls, drowning, fire, power tool accidents, etc...medical malpractice kills 100K people a year compared to the ~1000 that die from gun accidents.

medical malpractice kills 100K people a year compared to the ~1000 that die from gun accidents.

Well that's a false analogy. People do genuinely get sick, after all, and therefore have to get medical attention. Nobody has to own a gun -- it's a luxury, not a necessity.

"Well that's a false analogy."

Not really--I'm addressing accidental death, and pointing out that there are other more common causes of accidental death. Nobody needs a step ladder, a pool, a bathtub, or a fireplace either.

And it's not a luxury, it's a right. As somebody who's defended himself from violent criminals with a firearm and works as a community activist in one of the most violent cities in America and has been told by his local police dept to not set foot outside his house unless suitably armed...yeah, I can assure that in some cases it is a necessity.

Loose reckless talk by the right probably gives a total washout potential killer a mask behind which he can try to hide his real motives from others and most particularly from himself. That talk provides an excuse for his failures and justification for his cowardly actions. He's a patriot you know, cut from the mold of Chuck Norris, not just a pathetic sore loser.

As someone who lives 25 miles from Kinston, I have been following this story more than I would otherwise. To suggest this tragedy has anything to do with political ideology is the height of stupidity. The guy failed at his dreams and lost job after job, which left him depressed and unhinged. Even those closest to him didn't see it coming. I know in alot of these cases you look back and say how did everyone not realize that person was likely to snap. That doesn't appear to be the case here, he kept his mania hidden reasonably well.

"Beck isn't a nut. He's worse. He's an ideological opportunist who looks for every chance to make a painfully strained analogy. There's lots of 'em out there; on Fox, it's what they're paid to do."
Posted by: Dan on March 13, 2009 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK
______

Sorry, Dan, I disagree with you. I think Beck IS a nut. I think the only thing that keeps him from totally f*cking snapping is he has a well-paying job in which he can channel all his rage. As a result, he's just a narcissist who feels persecuted. If all he has went away - lost his job, lost his money, had to be a regular Joe - the only thing that would keep him from heading to the nearest church tower is the fact that he's also a tremendous f*cking pussy. Think Milton from Office Space with better verbal skills. Or Patrick Bateman with a TV show. Eventually he snaps, but it takes a long long time. And so it will with Beck, but only if everything else in his world goes wrong first, AND THEN one more screwy thing occurs.

When he empathizes with a gunman like this, he's not looking for an analogy. There are other right-wing pundits who are playing for the masses; Beck isn't one of them. Beck is the guy who wishes he could take out an abortion clinic or a progressive church, but he thinks HE'S got too much to live for. So he'll goad others to do the dirty work he doesn't have the stones to do, then smirk all the way to the bank. He validated atrocities AND he got paid for it. Win-win.

SA @ 11:14 take the Beckism a bit further, and note that when toasters are outlawed, only outlaws will have toasters! Guns don't kill people,people are killed manytimes by people with guns! Beckisms are confusing, just like their owner! -Kevo

When isn't the NRA absolute about child safety locks? In '97, four initiatives were before the voters of Washingon State. One was for a expansion of Basic Health to include alternative medicine. Another was a moderate protecton of Gay Rights. Can't recall the third, but, it didn't create waves. However, the fourth was a child safety lock initiative. In the early polling, all looked as though they would pass easily. Then, Alan Gottlieb of Bellevue, WA organized his Second Amendment group whose members had helped defeat Rep Tom Foley in '94 and others who had voted for the Brady Bill. Once, Gottlieb got the NRA members riled up, they voted en masse in the off year election and voted down all four initiatives. Following that election, Gottlieb's guys and gals were back out looking for those Black Clad UN helos. Now, Sebastian, may I return to cleaning my Walther P-38?

Sebastian-PGP,

According to the UN, firearm homicides for Germany in 2000 were .47 per 100,000 people, and 2.97 per 100,000 people in the US. Since our rate is 6.32 times greater than theirs, I really don't think you want to open the door to further comparison of their gun laws and attitudes versus ours.

So while you're technically correct, strict gun laws in Germany didn't prevent the recent tragedy, I really don't think anyone was claiming stricter laws would prevent all firearm homicides. Just some of them.

So all you monsters who don't think it would make a difference can go to hell. Even one life saved is worth it. Call me crazy, but I think it should be harder to obtain a license to operate a tool designed to kill someone than a tool designed for transportation.

As a person raised owning and using guns, I understand the idea of a right to bear arms and a right to defend yourself and your home. However, the NRA is absolutist in that they defend against ANY and ALL regulation of the most deadly products sold in America. Long ago I observed that the NRA's position boils down to "Put a gun in every crib."

Except he wasn't in the NRA or representing its position.

Nice try. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Gottlieb

Child safety locks are a dumb issue. It's already illegal to leave a firearm in a place and condition where a child can access it and harm themselves or others. Not to mention terminally stupid. Why do we need another such law?

Rachel did an interesting segment last night about one of our domestic terrorists, one thing she did not mention, that I had read before about this one. Apparently he had lots of Right Wing propaganda,from Limbaugh to O'Reilly, Beck etc. So it seems that the white supremacy nazis are fans of the right wing.Still recruiting, is our friend Chick Norris.

Not really--I'm addressing accidental death, and pointing out that there are other more common causes of accidental death. Nobody needs a step ladder, a pool, a bathtub, or a fireplace either.

I'd wager that there are few if no Americans who manage to go through their lives without climbing on ladders, swimming in water, bathing or using an open flame, while there are many tens of millions of Americans who will go to their graves never having fired or even held a gun.

"According to the UN, firearm homicides for Germany in 2000 were .47 per 100,000 people, and 2.97 per 100,000 people in the US. Since our rate is 6.32 times greater than theirs, I really don't think you want to open the door to further comparison of their gun laws and attitudes versus ours."

Why not? When you take away drug related homicides (about 80% of gun murders in the US), our murder rates are no more egregious than theirs. We're a violent country because we're a multiethnic melting pot with a HUGE socially and economically disadvantaged minority subculture wherein the underground drug economy is the only opportunity. In other words...it's the War on Drugs and the cultural issues surrounding it, not lack of gun laws that make us violent.

Don't think so? Look at Vermont--anyone legally allowed to own can carry with no restriction, and yet they have a murder rate that makes Germany look like Compton.

"So while you're technically correct, strict gun laws in Germany didn't prevent the recent tragedy, I really don't think anyone was claiming stricter laws would prevent all firearm homicides. Just some of them."

If it didn't prevent this one, how would it prevent any other? If someone is a maniac and hell bent on death and destruction, they'll find a way. McVeigh killed 20 times as many people and didn't fire a single shot.

And what you're missing is that for every case like this, I can point to thousands of cases like mine, where a firearm has been used to prevent a violent criminal from taking a life. Taking the means of self defense from people like me isn't going to stop people like our German shooter from maiming others.

As for going to hell, I have the same sentiment for people who want to deprive me of my right to self defense.

"Call me crazy, but I think it should be harder to obtain a license to operate a tool designed to kill someone than a tool designed for transportation."

It already is. You don't get a criminal background check and fill out BATF Form 4473 when you buy a car.

What you maroons seem to forget is almost every law you could want is already on the books...we just don't enforce them. Enforce the laws already on the books and you wouldn't have to go after the firearms owned by the law abiding.

Why do we need another such law? -Sebastian-PGP

The law is meant to mandate a safety device. Yes, people can choose to ignore it, but if even one person doesn't and a child's life is spared, isn't that worth it?

And that's a rhetorical question. I know where the gun lobby stands on the value of a child's life. It's placed far below freedom from inconvenient regulation.

You couldn't possibly be bothered to register your guns annually and take a periodic competency exam. Of course, that's what I have to do with my automobile, and it hasn't inconvenienced me one bit.

So nice of Beck to project his own frustrations onto the Alabama shooter. Beck is a nut who's found a nice & comfy home on Fox News so all the other lunatics can listen to him.

And it's not a luxury, it's a right.

Well, not quite. While you have the right to buy a gun if you so choose, it is still a choice, one that you have to actively exercise and therefore a luxury -- if you never exercise that choice that's fine, too. Food, shelter, clothing -- those are necessities. Guns, fast cars, loose women -- those are luxuries.

Child safety locks are a dumb issue. It's already illegal to leave a firearm in a place and condition where a child can access it and harm themselves or others. Not to mention terminally stupid. Why do we need another such law?

Because if someone disobeys the law (I know! Imagine!) and/or is terminally stupid (admittedly possible, I think you'll agree) then the child will still be prevented from firing the gun if he finds it.

"And that's a rhetorical question. I know where the gun lobby stands on the value of a child's life. It's placed far below freedom from inconvenient regulation."

And I know where people like you stand on my right to defend my life and my family's lives. It's placed far below your quixotic tilting at windmills crusades to pass more stupid, pointless laws that will be ignored by criminals and won't save a single child's life.

Registration is pointless. Criminals won't register their guns, why should I? Everywhere it's been tried, it's been used for consfiscatory schemes. And you don't have to register a car unless you plan on driving on public roads. Whereas I did have to submit to competency tests and background checks and registration for my CCW permits.

As for choice meaning "luxury", that's a ridiculous semantic rabbit hole--the day I saved my own life by being armed, it certainly didn't feel like a "luxury" to have my sidearm.

If it didn't prevent this one, how would it prevent any other?

So the argument is if a law doesn't prevent any one crime, how does it prevent any others? So if even one person violates the law, then it means that the law is completely ineffective and should be scrapped?

I don't think I need to comment further to point out the absurdity of that position.

"Because if someone disobeys the law (I know! Imagine!) and/or is terminally stupid (admittedly possible, I think you'll agree) then the child will still be prevented from firing the gun if he finds it."

That doesn't make any sense. If they're going to disobey the law, they're not going to use the lock either. Careless people will be careless regardless of what the law says.

Every handgun sold in my state has a mandated child safety lock. Mine became a paper weight. Why? Because I don't leave a loaded firearm where kids can get near it. The law isn't what keeps that from happening.

Trying to legislate common sense is pointless. But if it really makes you feel better...write your congresscritter. In the meantime, I'll take your lock and spend the money you made me waste on it on ammo for target practice anyway...

Most of the "safety" laws you guys are advocating are often trojan horses designed to make firearms and ammo prohibitively expensive.

As for choice meaning "luxury", that's a ridiculous semantic rabbit hole--the day I saved my own life by being armed, it certainly didn't feel like a "luxury" to have my sidearm.

And the day the smooth handling of my BMW saved my life by allowing me to avoid an accident ahead of me, it certainly didn't feel like my high-performance German car was a "luxury."

"I don't think I need to comment further to point out the absurdity of that position."

Don't be facile, I explained the position and you still missed it--I pointed out that even if the law prevents a maniac from finding a gun (and it generally won't, look at all the strict German laws he violated)...so what? He'll just find some more effective and readily available means to kill.

The premise of your "objection" fails even a cursory sniff test.

O'Reilly hasn't come to his senses; he's protecting his territory against the encroachment of the newcomer.

"And the day the smooth handling of my BMW saved my life by allowing me to avoid an accident ahead of me, it certainly didn't feel like my high-performance German car was a "luxury.""

The point stands--if something is a right, it's not a luxury. Is my right to free speech a luxury?

If so, you have a warped definition of luxury.

In any event, it certainly seemed a necessity to me that day. Is the police officer or the security guard's gun a luxury?

Amazing how daft people can be when their hoplophobia takes over.

Why not? When you take away drug related homicides (about 80% of gun murders in the US), our murder rates are no more egregious than theirs. -Sebastian-PGP

Sure, when you start to qualify things and eliminate data that doesn't support your position, you can make statistics say anything you want. Did you also eliminate drug related homicides from Germany's statistics, or are you just pulling this defense from your nether regions?

And while you're qualifying things, why don't you add back in all of those drug related firearm homicides that were committed with once legal stolen guns, since those comprise the majority of illegal firearms in the US.

As for going to hell, I have the same sentiment for people who want to deprive me of my right to self defense. -Sebastian-PGP

I love 'heroes' like you who labor under the delusion that, if you happened to be home during a break-in (which statistically you won't be), that you'd somehow be more prepared, calm, and able to act than the career criminal.

Of course, like I mentioned above, most people aren't home during home invasions, and, besides cash, what's the first thing a burglar looks for? You guessed it, firearms. They are one of the few things which increase in value on the black market.

Aside from that, when did indicate that I was going to take away your right to defend yourself? I'm calling for stricter laws with annual registrations and periodic competency examinations. I'm not for repealing the 2nd Amendment.

It already is. You don't get a criminal background check and fill out BATF Form 4473 when you buy a car. -Sebastian-PGP

A one time criminal background check doesn't cut it. If it's not periodic, it won't do. That criminal background check doesn't mean you know the law like a driving test does. That criminal background check doesn't mean that the police are aware of all stolen guns because they have to be registered annually.

And I know where people like you stand on my right to defend my life and my family's lives. -Sebastian-PGP

I don't think you do because I've never said you didn't have that right. I've even explicitly said in this comment I'm not in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment. I think we may be getting at the core of the problem with routine testing: you're worried you might not be competent enough to pass since you're having trouble with simple reading.

Registration is pointless. Criminals won't register their guns, why should I? -Sebastian-PGP

That's the single stupidest thing you've written in this comment thread, and frankly, there's a lot of competition. The majority of hand guns used for violent crime in the US were once legal stolen guns. The police are often not informed when the gun is stolen. Periodic registration would help curtail that.

And really, if you have to write a statement that essentially boils down to 'law breakers won't follow the law, so why should I,' then really this argument is over.

Here's a hint.

You lost.

That's a nice act the two of them have going. Beck comes on and gives voice to the nutball fringe's deepest instincts, and then O'Reilly gets to be the straight man and look like the voice of rationalism. Abbott and Costello, Martin and Lewis, Cheech and Chong, and now O'Reilly and Beck.

Glenn Beck sounds like he's projecting his own violent fantasies. In the process he's giving permission to violent extremists to act on his fantasies. It's an incitement to violence.

Regarding the gun control argument. I own guns and so do a lot of people in Alaska. I am not opposed to tighter restrictions on gun ownership and licensing. However, this is a political loser for liberals.

Sebastion-PGP is right in that there are social issues at the heart of gun violence in America. Let's make a better society where people have a greater stake in their own futures and are less inclined to use guns on each other.

So, Sebastian, Alan Gottlieb and SAF just happen to co-host buffets at Gun Shows, just happen to join forces to fight city gun bans, link to each other. The only difference is Alan has figured out a way to keep money for himself. Kinda interesting for a fellow who only turned on Big Government when there cut backs in the nuclear energy field and he wasn't hired out of college.

Yeah, the SS and SA were separate entities, eh?

"Sure, when you start to qualify things and eliminate data that doesn't support your position, you can make statistics say anything you want."
Which is exactly what people like you do when they ignore places like Vermont, Switzerland, etc. that don't support you "guns cause crime" bullshit.

"Did you also eliminate drug related homicides from Germany's statistics, or are you just pulling this defense from your nether regions?"

Why bother? I can simply point to places with lax gun laws that have crime rates no worse than Germany's to decimate the argument that their guns laws explain their lack of murderousness.

The reason that nobody bothers to cull drug murders from German stats is simple: if you really think Germany has a drug culture comparable to ours, you're dumber than you sound.

Speaking of dumb:

"And while you're qualifying things, why don't you add back in all of those drug related firearm homicides that were committed with once legal stolen guns, since those comprise the majority of illegal firearms in the US."

BZZZZT! Thanks for playing. According to the BATF (hardly an NRA ally), stolen guns are less than 10% of crime guns. Most illegal guns are sold via back channel FFL dealers who make unscrupulous off the books transactions out the back door, about 60% or so. Another third are straw purchases.

See what happens when you argue from emotion? You yourself are the one pulling things from nether regions.

"I love 'heroes' like you who labor under the delusion that, if you happened to be home during a break-in (which statistically you won't be), that you'd somehow be more prepared, calm, and able to act than the career criminal."

And I love assholes like you who assume I won't be able to defend myself, despite the fact that 100s of thousands of times a year, people do just that, by even the most conservative estimates.

Seeing as I have, in point of fact, twice in my life wielded a handgun in defense of myself, once in my home and once in public...I can assure you you're barking up the wrong tree here.

People who know nothing about guns labor under this sort of "you can't use them effectively delusion".

Which is it? Are they tools that make it easy to kill? Or complex devices I'll never figure out how to use? You can't have it both ways--if they're more effective for evil, they're more effective for good.

I love how your using stats to justify the "you won't need a gun in a home invasion" line--seeing as people who are home when they happen often do defend themselves with firearms, I imagine people it does happen to won't find your stats argument all that compelling.

As for your nonsense about periodic being a requirement, you're again misinformed. My CCW permits require periodic renewal and background checks. However, to simply own a car, you're not required to periodically demonstrate non-criminality or competence, only to drive it in public. I'd argue that we treat guns in a similar fashion.

The reality is that the people you're hoping to catch with this sort of periodic inspection scheme aren't going to submit to it, so it's pointless. Criminals aren't going to register their guns, and they're not going to submit to competency checks. The people you need worry about are the ones least likely to be affected by such a regime.

As for my competency with a firearm, a bad guy who kicks in my door at 2am will probably prefer me disarmed, dontcha think?

Yeah, I lost alllllllright, Mr. Doesn't Even Know The Basic Facts.

Sheesh.

I do agree with AK Liberal that gun control is a bad move by liberals. I have no problem with the right of citizens to own hand guns, rifles and shotguns. I bought my Walther P-38, legally, not far from that Baden-Wurtemburg town of Winnendon, Germany. However, SAF and the NRA are over the line when they refuse to accept mandated child safety locks, defend the right to own armor piercing ammo and assault weapons. SAF and the NRA are two peas in a pod and totally wrong about those issues.

The point stands--if something is a right, it's not a luxury.

Not quite. I have the right to buy a diamond-encrusted Rolex, or to go on vacation to Antigua, or to order a $400 cut of wagyu at a restaurant, but that doesn't mean all those items aren't also luxuries.

I love Sebastian's stand that if anyone violates a law, that law is useless. I guess we'd better repeal all of our laws against murder -- after all, people still get murdered every day, so clearly trying to legislate against it is pointless.

I'm sure the father of the kid who blew his own head off with an Uzi at a gun show really appreciated the fact that his rights were protected from the police-state horror of having a child lock on it before his kid picked it up.

Basic fact about guns: We have significantly easier access to firearms than any other civilized country, and we also have an enormously higher violent death rate than any other civilized country. Access to guns doesn't turn the vast majority of people into killers but it does drastically increase the number of violent murders by people who do have the impulse.

Doubtful...are you really Jon Stewart? If not, you're both my new heros!!

Deport Rupert Murdoch back to Australia and change media ownership regulations. That would be a good first step in taking back the airwaves from the corporate sharks.

When the authors of the Constitution wrote the Second Amendment, the "right to bear arms" meant the right to carry single-shot flintlock pistols and muzzle-loading rifles.

However, it is clear that the Founders had the vision and prescience to foresee the glorious day when an individual could easily "bear" -- literally carry on his or her person -- a whole arsenal of high-powered weapons, any one of which would have the firepower of an entire army of their time.

Thus the plain language of the Second Amendment means that the government may not "infringe" on the right of individuals to "bear" fully-automatic machine guns, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, shoulder-launched Stinger missiles, backpack nuclear munitions, or any other weapon that can be carried.

The NRA are not extremists. They are wimps because they acquiesce to clearly unconstitutional infringement of the basic right of each and every American to own and carry weapons of mass destruction.

Only when all Americans can carry concealed, miniature nuclear explosives will we be able to deter crime and keep our families and neighborhoods safe.

"However, SAF and the NRA are over the line when they refuse to accept mandated child safety locks"

If it makes you feel better...sure, have the same pointless law as we have here in MD. Then every gun owner can have a $9 paperweight.

"defend the right to own armor piercing ammo"

You watch too much TV. Every commonly used hunting round will pierce soft body armor. There's no such thing as "armor piercing ammo" for handguns and rifles for the most part--there are simply round that have ballistic properties that exceed soft armor, and if you ban them, you just banned hunting, the one thing you guys usually say you're not against.

"and assault weapons."

Assault weapons (select fire weapons) are already controlled by the NFA of 1934, and are generally unavailable to the public.

The ban you're thinking of in the Clinton era actually banned weapons that had cosmetic features similar to automatic military weapons, but weren't in fact assault weapons. They're just cosmetic copies. So reinstating such a "ban" is stupid, anti-2A, and will invariably ban the most commonly used sporting rifles in the US...which is why they're intensely unpopular and a surefire way to hand Congress back to the Republicans.

" SAF and the NRA are two peas in a pod and totally wrong about those issues."

If they're wrong, I don't wanna be right. Cause that would mean I was incredibly misinformed and supporting laws that don't stop crime from happening, but do impinge on my rights.

"I love Sebastian's stand that if anyone violates a law, that law is useless."

If only that were actually my stand, Capt. Strawman. Laws against murder, robbery, etc exist to mete out punishment for such crimes. Nobody argues that murder should be illegal in order to stop it from happening--it's because it's a moral crime that shouldn't be tolerated.

It's not analogous to gun control, which is essentially the racist idea that poor black people in the urban centers will stop killing each other at alarming rates if you disarm the rural and suburban and non criminal urban folk.

Laws prohibiting and regulating guns are like other laws designed to regulate substances society objects to, and like laws banning drugs, booze, hookers, gambling, etc, destined to simply create a profitable black market. Since they're not effective in doing what they're designed to do, why take away freedom from people who don't harm anyone?

I love it when people say "basic fact" and then post something that's anything but a fact in the first place. To wit:

"Basic fact about guns: We have significantly easier access to firearms than any other civilized country, and we also have an enormously higher violent death rate than any other civilized country."

Not even close to true. First of all, why should only "civilized" countries be counted? Do lives elsewhere not count as much? Secondly, Mexico, the former USSR states, South Africa are all modern, industrialized nations with violence rates way higher than ours, and they all regulate guns more tightly than we do.

Violence is about drug squabbles, turf, and culture, not guns.

The sooner more liberals catch onto that as I have, the sooner we can quit losing elections over something so stupid.

Sebastian-PGP wrote: "It's not analogous to gun control, which is essentially the racist idea that poor black people in the urban centers will stop killing each other at alarming rates if you disarm the rural and suburban and non criminal urban folk."

That's pure bullshit.

What's racist is arrogant white rural and suburban assholes telling black people in the cities that they are not allowed to implement common-sense regulations to keep cheap high-powered easily concealable handguns from flooding their streets.

And if you actually believe the paranoid fantasy that gun control is about "disarming" rural people of their hunting rifles, then you are probably sufficiently mentally impaired that you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun because you are a danger to yourself and others.

Sebastian-PGP wrote: "The sooner more liberals catch onto that as I have, the sooner we can quit losing elections over something so stupid."

Yeah, if only Obama had kowtowed to the NRA's sleazy dishonest propaganda, he might be president today instead of John McCain. We might even have a Democratic majority in Congress.

Violence is about drug squabbles, turf, and culture, not guns.

The sooner more liberals catch onto that as I have, the sooner we can quit losing elections over something so stupid.

I'm already there with you, as are many of my liberal friends. Many of whom don't own guns and don't plan to.

Although, I do support the notion that gun ownership should require at least as much oversight as car ownership.

Also, I think there should be a lot of local control on how gun restrictions are exercised. What works for rural Vermont does not necessarily work for Brooklyn.

But advocating reduction or limitation of gun ownership is not a requirement for being a liberal or a progressive in my book. There's room for debate on this.

On a marginally related note, when ever the conservatives go on about tort reform I like to pull out the old "lawyers don't sue people, people sue people" response.

But this wasn't about the method for killing. This was about the fact that someone thought violence was the answer to their problems and begs the question about how they arrived at their identification of the "enemy."

Michael Moore posed the question about why we had some much more gun violence per capita than Canada, which had similar gun ownership rates IIRC. His answer was a culture of fear and paranoia. I tend to agree, but that gets us into even more troubling waters...

Can Rush Limbaugh be accused of pulling the trigger in Alabama, or at the Unitarian Church in Knoxville, Tennessee?

Is easily accessible media + virulent message + desperate ignorant listener the ultimate force projection?

Works well enough for Osama Bin Laden.

SA hasn't gotten any smarter since the last go round on this issue, and he still can't remember as far back as 1994...which makes sense since his ranting sound like those of a 13 year old.

Bill Clinton himself freely admitted that his crime bill handed the GOP congress in 1994. But yeah, that's bullshit...sure. Whatever. Which is why both parties sought to assure gun owners they were going to respect our rights, and nobody was kowtowing to the Brady Bunch. Democrats ran from gun control throughout the election, and Reid and Pelosi have said they don't want to see it on the table. But I'm sure SA you know something they don't...so why are you wasting your time here? Why not get to work in DC showing Reid and Pelosi where they're screwing up here?

Jackass.

"What's racist is arrogant white rural and suburban assholes telling black people in the cities that they are not allowed to implement common-sense regulations to keep cheap high-powered easily concealable handguns from flooding their streets."

No, what's racist is failing to ask why it is that white rural and suburban folks do just fine with lax gun laws while urban people can't. The reality is that guns aren't the problem, the culture in those areas is, but people like you are uncomfortable talking about that so it's easier to blame guns instead. Stating that we need different gun laws in the urban centers is EXACTLY the same as saying black people can't be trusted with guns...which really annoys most of the law abiding black folk I know who simply want to defend themselves. Some of the most influential advocates for CCW rights I've met here in Baltimore are black professionals who are tired of being told they can't defend themselves in their own communities.

I'd love to see an example of a cheap high powered handgun you're talking about. I'll wager it's not unlike the one I use to defend myself. Funny how those laws you seem to think are so "reasonable" haven't done much to make Baltimore or DC or Queens safe places to be.

As for rifles, the most commonly used sporting rifle in the US is the AR15--the very one your gun control scheme is targeted at. So the only mental impairment I see here is your refusal to educate yourself on the issue at hand before you pollute the Internet with your bloviations.

"Although, I do support the notion that gun ownership should require at least as much oversight as car ownership."

As I pointed it, it already has way more oversight. If we're going to regulate guns like cars...why is that my MD and VA carry permits aren't recognized in NYC? My MD drivers license is.

I'm all for it--the problem I think is gun control advocates actually don't want the car formula at all.

As for what works in VT not working in the hood in Crooklyn...you might well be putting the cart before the horse. Maybe if law abiding folks didn't have to cower in fear of criminals who ignore the law and arm themselves anyway...those places might well be safer. Around the turn of the century, anyone could carry a gun in London...and they averaged less than five murders a year in what was at the time the biggest city in the world. The mere presence of lax laws on guns doesn't create criminality, and in fact it might well discourage it since it requires responsibility. Gun violence wasn't a problem in Germany and the UK BEFORE they had gun control, so you can't attribute their low violence rates AFTER gun control to regulation--it's CULTURE, not guns.

We libs need to get over our queasiness about that and start having an honest discussion with the groups in this country who are creating most of the violence (read: drug culture).

I have long thought that the peculiarly American worship of guns is a mental illness. I appreciate Sebastian-PGP's contribution of substantial evidence that I am correct in that belief.

Yeah, what we really need to make our urban neighborhoods safer is an arms race. Sure thing.

Fox is only keeping Beck around until they can cut a deal with someone that is a better fit...Michael Savage.

I have long thought that peculiarly idiotic delusion that wanting to defend yourself is mental illness is in fact the mental illness. SA certainly isn't doing much to change the fact that I'm pretty much on the mark.

What he fails to realize is that the arms race is there regardless of whatever feel-good nonsense legislation folks of his ilk pass. Unfortunately, all his agenda does is ensure that criminals are the ones who are armed.

The reality is that he has no problems using guns (arms race it is!) to defend himself. He just outsources the arms race to others via tax payer funded agents of the state. Hypocrisy of the worst order.

Joe Criminal certainly likes gun control! He prefers helpless victims.

This isn't the first shooting. I read a few days ago of a woman, in Ohio I think, who was faced with a Sheriff at the door to evict her from her foreclosed home. She shot herself numerous times. There are also a lot of people already living in tents and you can easily expect some to break under the strain. I hope there are a lot of food kitchens and outreach programs working full tilt.

Meanwhile, the Obama agenda is aimed at fixing the economy and more -- he wants to create a structure which gives more people the power over their lives (economically, through education and with better health care) to regain their footing and to eventually have enough wealth to avoid being pushed to the wall when the national economy goes through a recession.

He'll be doing more for those rural Republican voters than most Republicans have ever done.

A lot of the Obama plan really deserves full support from those Republican legislators who have been ranting about their electorate being pushed to the edge.

If only that were actually my stand, Capt. Strawman. Laws against murder, robbery, etc exist to mete out punishment for such crimes. Nobody argues that murder should be illegal in order to stop it from happening--

Uh, yes, they do. They argue that all the time. Punishment is only one purpose of law -- the other is deterrence. We have laws against such acts not only to punish those who commit them, but to deter others from trying it in the first place through the threat of future punishment.

If deterrence didn't work, I'd be having cocaine-fueled binges with hookers every night of the week. But because I don't need the legal hassle, I refrain.

Bill Clinton himself freely admitted that his crime bill handed the GOP congress in 1994.

It's not 1994 anymore. Times have changed. Catch up.

Mark--FWIW, I'm certainly not unsympathetic to the idea that times of crisis like these are going to have an unsettling effect and lead to events like this. Unemployment in Germany is nearing the "oh shit" mark, fascism is on the rise in rhetorical circles, and people are seeing pensions, careers, and life savings washed out here in the Good Ole USA.

If we really wanna build a just, peaceful planet, we'll never get there making sure only agents of the state are armed and outsourcing our violence to tax payer subsidized agents as SA would have us do. We'll only get there providing economic and social opportunity for all.

SecularAnimist, the only one that has demonstrated their mental illness (over and over again) is you.

Sebastian-PGP has made repeated logical, sensible, and to the point arguments against the hysterical ravings and straw man arguments that you and your ilk have spewed.

Can any reason penetrate that thick skull of yours?

Personally I do not own and have no desire to own any firearms. But I do not feel the slightest threat from Sebastian-PGP or anyone like him.

And he is completely correct in stating that it is culture, NOT AVAILABILITY that is the cause of the US's gun related deaths. Speaking as someone who has published on this subject in peer-reviewed sociological journals on this subject, BTW.

Your sophomoric rantings on the subject remind me of some of the graduate students I encounter who gulp vulgar Marxist agitprop as some sort of catechism to be spewed out in route form whenever a particular subject comes up.

"Uh, yes, they do. They argue that all the time. Punishment is only one purpose of law -- the other is deterrence. We have laws against such acts not only to punish those who commit them, but to deter others from trying it in the first place through the threat of future punishment."

There's certainly a pragmatic argument to be made that executing people deters them from murdering, since executed crooks can't kill anything. Personally I don't buy it, since the states that use the DP the most seem to still be pretty violent places from time to time.

The point I was making is that you'd have a rationale for making murder illegal even if there was NO deterrent effect, which the original poster on the subject ignored. In other words...laws outlawing guns and laws outlawing murder aren't particularly analogous in their underlying rationales.

Since there's no other rationale for gun control besides deterrence, and we've seen that it simply doesn't work, there's no other reason to have such laws on the books anymore, especially since the problem is CULTURE not guns, and the gun control laws you're supporting are only making the cultural problems worse by empowering the very criminals they're supposed to deter.

And you're right, it's not 1994. People have seen what a failure gun control has been, and it's even less popular today than it was then.

Try to keep up.

And he is completely correct in stating that it is culture, NOT AVAILABILITY that is the cause of the US's gun related deaths.

Well, yes and no. Obviously they work together. If a violent culture doesn't have access to guns, then ipso facto it won't use them. For example, I'm sure there's a fair amount of Americans who'd use, say, a tank if they could -- but those are hard to obtain, so you don't seem them used a lot.

On the other hand, a society with a fair amount of guns but a peacable culture (e.g. Canada, Switzerland) won't have a lot of gun violence -- but that's because it doesn't have many other kinds of violence, for that matter.

A word on capital punishment and deterrence--if criminals who are willing to risk the DP are going to murder people and act violently...well...if they're not deterred by life in jail or a needle full of poison in the arm...what makes you think they'll give a shit what gun laws you pass?

The very thing you guys can't seem to get your minds around is the very core of why your stance is bad public policy--criminals by definition don't give a flying spoogefuck what the law says.

"Well, yes and no. Obviously they work together. If a violent culture doesn't have access to guns, then ipso facto it won't use them."

Let's take a look at such cultures. Show us a violent culture that doesn't have guns. If you look at the list of 24 or 25 countries that are more violent than the US around the world (at least you're repeating the bullshit argument that we're the most violent country, industrialized or no), almost all of them have gun ownership rates lower than ours. 80,000 people in Rwanda were macheted and bludgeoned to death faster than you can imagine...so I think the idea that a violent culture won't be violent when disarmed is nonsense, rather obviously.

But I'd love to see a discussion of one of the violent cultures where access to guns is limited. My guess is you're going to have a hard time finding a place where violent people can't get guns if they want and can afford them. Interestingly enough, since the UK used its registration scheme to round up all the handguns...gun crime has gone UP and not down.

"For example, I'm sure there's a fair amount of Americans who'd use, say, a tank if they could -- but those are hard to obtain, so you don't seem them used a lot."

It's also why AWBs make no sense--rifles of ALL kinds are used in only about 1% of gun crime. Fully auto weapons are tightly, tightly regulated, and hard to come by. And damn expensive because of it.

Glad to see you'll at least admit that you can have high gun ownership rates without being violent. But how can you escape that the issues is merely culture, once you'll admit that?

And he is completely correct in stating that it is culture, NOT AVAILABILITY that is the cause of the US's gun related deaths.

Sorry, but there is no such thing as a single root cause for complex, systemic problems. I agree with Stefan on this - there are a complex of proximal and distant causes.

What I'm sympathetic to is the dismissal of univariate solutions - as advocated by some dogmatic gun control advocates.

As a liberal I believe that if we criminalize abortions, that will not prevent them, and may very well create much worse problems. I believe that anyone seriously interested in a "culture of life" must think very carefully about their position on this issue.

Similarly, I'm not sure stricter regulations for gun buyers and owners necessarily does any good. It might in some instances, and I think that is VERY dependent on local conditions, culture included but not all encompassing.

As for what works in VT not working in the hood in Crooklyn...

You're making me a lot less sympathetic to your position with this glib pronouncement. Brooklyn has a relatively low per capita crime rate compared to many other, much less densely populated areas. Forgive me for inferring some hackneyed "cultural" (i.e. racial) stereotypes in this sentence as well.

Culture is VERY important, but culture is influenced by other variables including climate and population density. What's more these same variables also affect gun violence in obvious ways -- the denser a community is, the more encounters there are between people, the more encounters there are between people, the more opportunity there are to commit a crime. Method, motive and opportunity, right? We've covered method (gun) and motive (cultural ideas about acceptability of violence). Surely opportunity matters as well.

You could have a rural county in Vermont populated by widely separated farmhouses full of deranged cannibals, and interpret that as a superior culture with respect to violence.

The drug and gang culture are huge components, but any solutions to localized gun violence need to take localized conditions into account.

Again, I consider myself to be "pro gun," but the idea that culture is the only variable of interest is incorrect IMHO.

Just to clarify my point about density being a real factor...

Let's say that 1 in 10 people in a town are willing to commit a crime. We'll call the criminals.

Let's also say that 1 in 10 encounters these criminals have result in a crime. You could offer different probabilities based on whether they are encountering a criminal or non criminal.

The only missing variable is how many encounters occur are likely to occur over a given measurement period, and this is certainly directly related to population density.

So two equally law abiding populations could have very different per capita crime rates based on density alone.

I would be very surprised if there wasn't a strong correlation between density and per capita crime.

I'm not saying that it's the only variable, but I am saying that culture alone can't be the entire picture. Also, in addition to increased opportunity, higher density populations may experience increased environmental stressors related to that density that might push them closer to violence. Having lived in a much less densely populated area before I moved to Brooklyn, I can say that I feel like my fuse is much shorter than it used to be even though my view of my fellow city dwellers is generally positive and friendly.

Who knows? Maybe my tolerance has increased and I just don't realize it.

"Sorry, but there is no such thing as a single root cause for complex, systemic problems. I agree with Stefan on this - there are a complex of proximal and distant causes."

Please don't misread me, I certainly agree guns are a factor that must be considered when talking about violence in the US--but much as there's a difference between a feedback and a forcing when looking at climate, there's a difference between a factor and a CAUSE here.

"You're making me a lot less sympathetic to your position with this glib pronouncement. Brooklyn has a relatively low per capita crime rate compared to many other, much less densely populated areas. Forgive me for inferring some hackneyed "cultural" (i.e. racial) stereotypes in this sentence as well."

Do bear in mind that NYC in general is the exception that proves the rule; it's the most expensive real estate on the planet and more heavily patrolled than just about anywhere else in the US. Contrast it to other urban centers with strict gun laws (Baltimore, DC, some other areas of NYC, etc) and you'll pretty quickly see that the suggestion that gun control is making cities safe falls on its face pretty quickly.

As for racial and cultural stereotypes, puhhhhlease. Let's not kid ourselves--there are cultural factors peculiar to certain urban environments that foster criminality; you could write book after book on the subject so I prefer to not bog us down here, but can we agree that that's not really all that controversial a statement? The sooner we libs quit getting squeamish about this subject and quit trying to play PC Police whenever it comes up the better--it lends creedence to the Rethuglican line that we're trying quash discussion on the issue.

"Again, I consider myself to be "pro gun," but the idea that culture is the only variable of interest is incorrect IMHO."

Well...maybe. Culture is kind of a garbage can term that can encompass a lot of things, including a community's reaction to violence and values concerning it. If not culture, then what else? What we can say definitely is that blanket gun policies that disarm everyone in an effort to disarm criminals simply aren't effective public policy, and they do deny the freedom of choice to individuals.

If lack of gun regs and common availability of guns caused crime, Switzerland and Vermont would be violent and DC, Mexico, and CIS would be safe. In point of fact the opposite is true. You can say with authority that guns don't cause crime, full stop. No parsing needed. Now, are they a factor in the type of crime and how that crime plays out? Certainly--but that's the complex issue that needs be parsed, and gun control advocates rarely want to consider the inefficacy of the measures they espouse, nor the frequency with which guns are used to stop crime.

And while I agree there's an element to the population density thing, I think you're reading too much into it. The population density in Crystal City, VA, a mere 150 yard walk across a bridge from Georgetown, and the rest of the NoVA corridor outside DC is just as high as it is in the District, if not higher. But the murder and robbery rates in DC are far, far higher, even in the posh areas, than they are in NoVA. People in the NoVA suburbs are crammed in like sardines, literally (having lived there, I can assure you the traffic is a nightmare and it's no accident) and yet that's one of the safest places to live in the entire world, despite VA's notoriously lax gun laws.

Why is that the case? For starters, criminals know if you're gonna knock off somebody, better to do it where private citizens are disarmed. And more importantly, VA doesn't have a culture that fosters and tolerates criminality the way DC does.

Very quickly you get into territory here that's uncomfortable for liberals, but I think we need to collectively get the fuck over it and start having a real discussion about it.

It's really a drag when people get into personal arguments when there is no chance either will convince the other or even admit the other has some valid points.

That said, "We're better than Zimbabwe!" is not a very good argument about ANYTHING.

And I don't think liberals are the only proponents of really restrictive gun laws. I don't think most police are "liberal" and they are VERY MUCH in favor of some restrictions on guns. Probably because they are more likely to be get into shootouts that people defending their homes.

Believe it or not, there are lots of liberals who like to hunt or target shoot. But trying to keep automatic weapons out of the hands of crazy people is not a threat to the Second Amendment.

Sorry. It just isn't.