Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

But that ain't America. We'd rather have our "freedom" at the cost of several dozen young lives. From an editorial in the NYT by a guy who's kid was killed in a school shooting:

>>In the wake of Galen’s murder, I wrote a book about the shooting. In it I suggested that we view gun crime as a public health issue, much the same as smoking or pesticides. I spent a number of years attending rallies, signing petitions, writing letters and making speeches, but eventually I gave up. Gun control, such a live issue in the “early” days of school shootings, inexplicably became a third-rail issue for politicians.

I came to realize that, in essence, this is the way we in America want things to be. We want our freedom, and we want our firearms, and if we have to endure the occasional school shooting, so be it.

I will note that to get into the real important places: Congress, Federal Courthouses and planes, you DO have to go through a metal detector.

He's right. Horrific as they may be, these killings are statistically insignificant and arguably do not warrant a removal of a constitutional right. But you aren't ever going to hear anyone argue something so icy. We instead wait until the raw emotion abates, then do nothing for exactly the reason this Oped describes.

And when we do do something, as with the Patriot Act response to 9/11, it's brutal overkill and worse than the thing it sought to avoid.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He's right. Horrific as they may be, these killings are statistically insignificant and arguably do not warrant a removal of a constitutional right. But you aren't ever going to hear anyone argue something so icy. We instead wait until the raw emotion abates, then do nothing for exactly the reason this Oped describes.

And when we do do something, as with the Patriot Act response to 9/11, it's brutal overkill and worse than the thing it sought to avoid.

What constitutional right is being removed through gun control? Just as free speech is subject to balancing acts and regulation, so guns are, and the gun regulation proposed to date does squat to any constitutional right. Red herring, and one not worthy of an actual lawyer.

I have been suggesting repeatedly that people read Saul Cornell's "A Well Regulated Militia" and understand some of the actual history of the 2nd amendment. I recommend the book to you.

What was Hank's number? 31 of these since Columbine? Statistically insignificant? Really?

ETA, For, you, Sebby, From the Onion

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The chain of causation there requires a dozen links you haven't offered. And I could cite the enhanced attention given to the mentally ill, most of whom were ignored in the past, to turn your assumption/theory on its ear.

You could cite the increased attention given to the mentally ill, but you'd be wrong. Since the late 1960s, this country has been on a de-institutionalizing path with respect to the mentally ill. There may be more resources and treatments available, but it's a lot harder to get people to accept treatment if they don't want it.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

But that ain't America. We'd rather have our "freedom" at the cost of several dozen young lives. From an editorial in the NYT by a guy who's kid was killed in a school shooting:

>>In the wake of Galen’s murder, I wrote a book about the shooting. In it I suggested that we view gun crime as a public health issue, much the same as smoking or pesticides. I spent a number of years attending rallies, signing petitions, writing letters and making speeches, but eventually I gave up. Gun control, such a live issue in the “early” days of school shootings, inexplicably became a third-rail issue for politicians.

I came to realize that, in essence, this is the way we in America want things to be. We want our freedom, and we want our firearms, and if we have to endure the occasional school shooting, so be it.

I will note that to get into the real important places: Congress, Federal Courthouses and planes, you DO have to go through a metal detector.

It's too bad he gave up.

It seems to me that one problem, that there are too any guns, is like public health. We should tax them like we do cigarettes and alcohol. At least 100% on guns and ammo, to reduce the quantity demanded.

Another problem is that it's too easy to get guns. We should have a registration and title system similar to cars. If its registered to you, you can be liable. If its not registered to you, it can be confiscated.

Another problem is the types of weapons available. Self defense and hunting don't require massive clips and high firing rates. Those should be banned.

Another problem is mental health. Perhaps a screening should be required to purchase a gun. Certainly resources should be much more readily available for treatment.

Mandatory liability insurance may also help with the supply and types if guns, if it makes ownership more expensive. It could also create market incentives for safe handling practices.

None of that solves the problem, but taken together I think it is both doable and helps.

But what we need most is the gun lobby to engage instead of obstruct. Tell us what safety protocols you can support instead of saying no to every proposal.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He's right. Horrific as they may be, these killings are statistically insignificant and arguably do not warrant a removal of a constitutional right. But you aren't ever going to hear anyone argue something so icy. We instead wait until the raw emotion abates, then do nothing for exactly the reason this Oped describes.

And when we do do something, as with the Patriot Act response to 9/11, it's brutal overkill and worse than the thing it sought to avoid.

That's the gun lobby talking. This is unavoidable, so do nothing because anything we can do is overkill.

Bullshit. Find some non-overkill measures and do them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

What constitutional right is being removed through gun control? Just as free speech is subject to balancing acts and regulation, so guns are, and the gun regulation proposed to date does squat to any constitutional right. Red herring, and one not worthy of an actual lawyer.

I have been suggesting repeatedly that people read Saul Cornell's "A Well Regulated Militia" and understand some of the actual history of the 2nd amendment. I recommend the book to you.

What was Hank's number? 31 of these since Columbine? Statistically insignificant? Really?

ETA, For, you, Sebby, From the Onion

There is no constitutional right being taken away. The argument is excessive regulation may lead to the de facto removal of the right. Excessive being the most important word there.

Did you read Klein's piece? These killings have been going on at a pretty steady pace for decades. And 31 since 2000 is, compared to the number of senseless deaths caused by all sorts of things we could start campaigns to guard more vigilantly against (drunk driving; speeding; medical error, etc.), statistically small.

Re the Onion piece, the NRA should be mocked relentlessly here. They're turning into Big Tobacco on this issue, and if they don't engage, as Adder suggested, they're fucked.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

That's the gun lobby talking. This is unavoidable, so do nothing because anything we can do is overkill.

Bullshit. Find some non-overkill measures and do them.

No. I am actually suggesting the same thing you are. I also understand, however, that this country only moves in broad pendulum swings. When something is finally done, it will be lead by emotional arguments and be an overreaction. It's wise to gird against that now by reminding people not to react like idiots and go too far in the direction of control.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He's right. Horrific as they may be, these killings are statistically insignificant and arguably do not warrant a removal of a constitutional right. But you aren't ever going to hear anyone argue something so icy. We instead wait until the raw emotion abates, then do nothing for exactly the reason this Oped describes.

And when we do do something, as with the Patriot Act response to 9/11, it's brutal overkill and worse than the thing it sought to avoid.

This isn't a basic right. It's a blurry right to own a weapon granted by a fucking amendment. Not all weapons qualify as it is right now. It can be taken away or severely limited without some ridiculous argument of the government destroying something fundamental to a person's existence. The fact that so many lunatics see it that way doesn't mean they are correct.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

"I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am Jason Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am Jason Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother."

It'd be a good start to tell these soccer moms to get lives, and allow their children to live their own a bit. Almost every decently well off suburban family I know has a kid who's at a minimum been evaluated for some syndrome/complex/ADHD-type-thing. The minute the kid doesn't fit exactly into some cookie cutter mold some shmuck academic or administrator (who's never raised kids) deems non-conformist, or outside the way kids are supposed to learn, he or she is defective. We've a nice Brave New World going on because of these ridiculous women and the industry of snake oil salesmen who see a market of fools, and sell them on the fact their kids could all get into Yale and graduate as valedictorian if they just took these pills, or enrolled in this therapy.

I'm not suggesting moms shouldn't be on the lookout for mental illness when a kid is openly violent. I'm just suggesting they should also be aware of their own mental illness: The delusion they can remove all risk from their children's lives and make them perfect. This idiocy is a lot of what's wrong with people today. Raise a kid to think everything can be managed and you'll raise a neurotic fool. Exhibit A: The endless parade of poor bastards we've all known in law firms who can't stand on their own two feet after being fired. The minute things go off script, these over-coddled people are meat on the street.

We're raising weak, overly-directed kids who have no coping skills. Yeah, this is a bit off topic. Yeah, it's a rant. But any time I hear a "soccer mom" spout off, I can't help but think what a cancer on society these people have become.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Yeah, this is a bit off topic.

Just a bit. Her point is that she is trying to cope with a seriously ill kid who is liable to do harm to herself, himself, and other people. I'm sure she'd be tickled by your thoughts.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Adder

It's too bad he gave up.

It seems to me that one problem, that there are too any guns, is like public health. We should tax them like we do cigarettes and alcohol. At least 100% on guns and ammo, to reduce the quantity demanded.

Another problem is that it's too easy to get guns. We should have a registration and title system similar to cars. If its registered to you, you can be liable. If its not registered to you, it can be confiscated.

Another problem is the types of weapons available. Self defense and hunting don't require massive clips and high firing rates. Those should be banned.

Another problem is mental health. Perhaps a screening should be required to purchase a gun. Certainly resources should be much more readily available for treatment.

Mandatory liability insurance may also help with the supply and types if guns, if it makes ownership more expensive. It could also create market incentives for safe handling practices.

None of that solves the problem, but taken together I think it is both doable and helps.

But what we need most is the gun lobby to engage instead of obstruct. Tell us what safety protocols you can support instead of saying no to every proposal.

All very, very sound points.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Just a bit. Her point is that she is trying to cope with a seriously ill kid who is liable to do harm to herself, himself, and other people. I'm sure she'd be tickled by your thoughts.

She ought to change her name. "Soccer mom" doesn't fit anyone so self aware.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She ought to change her name. "Soccer mom" doesn't fit anyone so self aware.

Since she's calling herself "Anarchist soccer mom," I think it comes off a little differently. Just sayin'.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Since she's calling herself "Anarchist soccer mom," I think it comes off a little differently. Just sayin'.

Egg, meet my face.

My furious rambling tirade on soccer moms accrues from the next day's wages of a heroic intake of 18 year old Yamazaki whisky (5 stars, BTW).

I detest suburban soccer moms, truly and deeply, as anyone who's listened to their inane chatter and neuroses and insecure competitiveness, would agree. But you're right. This woman is a good egg, and I was wrong to flip out in response to her article.

(The Yamakazi 12 is also great.)