The astonishing thing to me is that in the eagerness to pin the blame on the NRA several other culprits are being given a free pass, including the US Supreme Court. We would not be in this fix if a bare majority of the justices not insisted on giving a warped and perverse interpretation to the Second Amendment.

It was the relentless coverage of child abductions, which have always happened at roughly the same rate, that turned a nation of children skipping and biking to school into a nation with long lines of SUVs idling outside schools twice a day.

Would a tenfold or hundredfold increase in gunfire deaths beyond what we now experience change aggregate public opinion regarding background checks, weapons training, availability of treatment for mental illness, dollars spent to influence public policy, or anything else directly or tenuously related to the problem?

I don't know, but it's hard to imagine what other thing might be capable of moving the needle.

It’s worth noting that California’s existing gun regulations are already among the most draconian in the country.

@1: Agreed. But still, I guess we could model this with a Poisson distribution.

@4: Yes, and among the least draconian in the Western world with open borders with places that are even less draconian.

It's also among the states with the ten lowest gun death rates, @4. And those laws are vigorously enforced against brown people in almost any circumstances; rarely against white idiots whose Saturday-night special falls down their pants or out of their purse and discharges in a crowded public place.

Well take it with a grain of salt but apparently the shooter was asking people if they were TSA and if they said no he moved on.

The man had an agenda here it seems like.

It's Scalia who is responsible for re-drafting the Second Amendment. Even he admits some restrictions are appropriate @4, you troll.

That the NRA can turn the media to discussing how to predict who will do this, rather than have any dialogue on proper restrictions, is unbelievable. The US would rather lock up more people than China, and institutionalize people rather than lock up their guns. The NRA gets over 90% of its funding from manufactures, and advocates for policies resulting in higher profits. Automatic weapons are a profit center.

@6
"It's also among the states with the ten lowest gun death rates, @4."

No.
There are only 12 states (including D.C.) with higher rates of gun murder than California.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violen…

@3 - Skipping children being abducted didn't impinge on the profits of large corporations, nor did they arouse the atavistic urges of Second Amendment nuts; in fact, the abductions led to greater manufacturing profits for the makers of SUVs and the refiners of petroleum products, so it was a win for everybody but the kids. On the other hand, clamping down on the number of guns, the types of available weaponry, and the qualifications to buy/possess stomps on the feet of big corporations and the Second Amendment literalists who think the necessity for "a well regulated militia" somehow translates into 'every man must own at least one assault rifle'. (Can you kill a zombie with an assault rifle? I don't know the answer to that.) The countries with the lowest number of deaths attributable to privately owned guns don't have something like a Second Amendment in their constitutions to be misinterpreted.

What the fuck are you talking about? Gun deaths are at an all-time low (yes, really). And an AR is not an "automatic weapon," dipshit.

@6
“It's also among the states with the ten lowest gun death rates, @4”

WRONG. It’s actually among the states with the 11 HIGHEST gun murder rates.

With 3.4 gun murders per 100,000 inhabitants California has a higher gun murder rate than 38 other states, only 11 states and the District of Columbia have higher gun murder rates. This despite California being the state scored highest (80 out of 100) by the Brady Campaign for Gun Laws. (Two states with perfect 0 scores by the Brady Campaign for Gun Laws outperform California. Vermont scores a pathetic 6 with the Brady Campaign for Gun Laws yet has the lowest rate of gun murders (0.3). Also worth noting, the District of Columbia, with the lowest gun ownership rate (3.6%) leads all the states in gun murder rates with 16.5 per 100,000 inhabitants (the next highest is Louisiana with just 7.7 gun murders per 100,000 inhabitants (and a 44.1% gun ownership rate). The state with the highest gun ownership (Wyoming) scores better than Vermont with the Brady Campaign for Gun Laws (8) yet has fewer gun murders (0.9) than 41 other states and the District of Columbia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violen…

What #7 says.. That was not random at all.. sharp focus it seems...

@1: What he means is "arbitrary".
@9, 12: There is a difference between "gun murder rate" and "gun death rate". Just so you spuds know.

High on gun murders and low on gun deaths? Does that mean that laws can keep kids from accidentally killing themselves, but don't prevent criminals from obtaining guns? Surprising juxtaposition, whatever it means.

@12,

I'm curious what, if any, correlation population density has to gun murder/death rates. One thing both Vermont & Wyoming share is a low total population, as well.

Peace

Well. I come back from a leisurely dinner to find that bounders have been impugning my assertions.

Interesting that both @9 and @12 attempted the same misleading pivot.

Good thing venomlash and blip were on duty. Thanks.

Gun free zone in an "assault weapons" free state.

Also
"Just a few weeks ago, airport police and the Los Angeles Police Department had jointly trained for a similar shooting scenario, according to Gannon, who said officers told him the drill was critical in preparing them for the real thing."
http://www.komonews.com/news/national/Po…

@11 Aren't we bored yet of quibbling over the use of "automatic" for an auto-loader?

Civilian guns, both "automatics" like the Glock, and sporterized auto-loaders like the ARs and AKs are commonly understood to be auto-loaders when people say "automatic."

Auto-loading shotguns have been marketed as "automatic" since they were first produced.

Full auto-fire submachine guns and submachine pistols are not the least bit common either in criminal acts or non-law-enforcement civilian possession in this country, so you'll forgive us if we don't give a fuck about your techno-linguistic hair splitting.

@20
Yea because you are firearms enthusiast and totally know what you are talking about.

@7, yes, he may have had an agenda. Lots of people have agendas. He had an agenda and a gun.

@21 Absolutely and totally.

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com…

Old Sears Roebucks catalogs do not lie. Tens of millions of Americans learned about "stuff" that way.

@21 And if you don't respect Sears Roebucks' credentials as marketer/arbiter of how Americans think about stuff, how about Colt's?

http://www.coltautos.com/images/ad_Colt1…

@4 it seems draconian to use the word "draconian" to describe the regulations of a state that allow its residents to own assault rifles.

You're right. It's beyond "draconian." Maybe "fascist" would be more accurate.

@18
"Interesting that both @9 and @12 attempted the same misleading pivot."

Nothing misleading at all.
If you don't agree with the information then you are free to challenge it.
Here's the relevant quote from the link in #15

"Causes of death attributable to firearm mortality include ICD-10 Codes W32-W34, Accidental discharge of firearm; Codes X72-X74, Intentional self-harm by firearm; X93-X95, Assault by firearm; Y22-Y24, Firearm discharge, undetermined intent; and Y35, Legal intervention involving firearm discharge"

Which brings up the continuing issue of whether to count suicide rates in with the rates for killing someone else.
California has very restrictive gun laws.
California has a very high rate of people shooting other people with guns.
California's rate of people shooting other people is higher than a lot of states with less restrictive gun laws.

@28. I'm willing to look at other perspectives. we certainly kill a lot of people with guns in this country. there has to be a reason (or reasons) for it. I can buy into the idea that is is partly cultural / genetic. Canada has more guns per capita than we do and not nearly the same ratio of gun deaths so it can't just be because we have lots of guns.

@24
Here, read the Wikipedia entry for that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automa…

"The usage of the term automatic may vary according to context. Gun specialists point out that the word automatic is sometimes misunderstood to mean fully automatic fire when used to refer to a self-loading, semi-automatic firearm not capable of fully automatic fire. In this case, automatic refers to the loading mechanism, not the firing capability.

The term "automatic pistol" almost exclusively refers to a semi-automatic (i.e. not fully automatic) pistol. With handguns, the term "automatic" is commonly used to distinguish semi-automatic pistols from revolvers. The term "auto-loader" may also be used to describe a semi-automatic handgun. However, to avoid confusion, the term "automatic rifle" is generally, conventionally and best restricted to a rifle capable of fully automatic fire. Both uses of the term "automatic" can be found; the exact meaning must be determined from context."

So instead of depending upon semantics and context, how about just using the more precise nomenclature?

Unless there is a reason you would care to state explaining why you do not want to use the more precise nomenclature?

@27: Of course it was misleading. You, like @12, attempted to claim that a ranking I relied on (the same one @15 used) was incorrect and attempted to substitute a differently-based ranking. I don't have to "challenge" your assertion; it was based on a dishonest premise. And the Kaiser Family Foundation, being a major non-partisan healthcare think tank, is AT LEAST as reliable as Wikipedia.

I regret suicide-by-gun, and I regret murder-by-gun. I am actually inclined to the viewpoint that laws have relatively little to do with murder-by-gun ("when guns are outlawed," etc.), though I don't believe that "good guys with guns," other than law enforcement, confer a net benefit. But murder is relatively easy (though not impossible) to avoid through behavioral choices I make every day. And I support all kinds of measures to reduce suicide, including the availability of a wide spectrum of affordably priced mental-health care.

It is my considered opinion, therefore, that what makes the difference between California being a relatively high-ranked murder-by-gun state and California being a relatively low-ranked gun-death-by-all-causes state is its gun laws. I don't give a rat's ass what you think on the subject; California is a state I would move to based on a rational assessment of personal risk and overall quality-of-life. I'm not a slavering take-their-guns-away kind of guy, as should be evident by my general absence from tiresome gun discussion threads. But guns bore the shit out of me, I don't understand their appeal, and I choose to avoid them insofar as it is possible.

Now kindly fuck off. You're a liar and a weasel, you do endless disservice to your cause, and I've read more than enough of your repetitive tripe on this site, on this subject, to last a lifetime.

@30 I already explained it. Let's try again...

Since at least 1905, gun manufacturers and retailers have advertised and sold "automatics," which entered the language as the word for auto-loading firearms. Once in the language, it's hard to get rid of. Obviously, in technical discussions, you can use more technical language, but in everyday lingo, people are going to use everyday words in their everyday meaning.

AND, the everyday meaning of the Colt 45 Automatic is that 1905 gun that auto-loads itself quickly, without much effort and without having a rotating magazine shaped like a tubby little barrel, as well as the successor weapons like the Walther P38 or Glock. OR, that labor-saving shotgun that you don't have to crack open, pump or jack the bolt or lever to load. Or that sport rifle that loads its own bullets every time you pull the trigger.

If you want to quote Wikipedia, why don't you start at the page that disambiguates the page that you referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_p…

Now, go write a nasty letter to the English language or something.

@31
Putting it in bold lettering does not make it true.

"It is my considered opinion, therefore, that what makes the difference between California being a relatively high-ranked murder-by-gun state and California being a relatively low-ranked gun-death-by-all-causes state is its gun laws."

So having more restrictive gun laws means that "murder-by-gun" is going to be more common than in states with less restrictive gun laws?
So in order to reduce California's murder rate California should repeal some of its gun laws?

"I am actually inclined to the viewpoint that laws have relatively little to do with murder-by-gun"

So, in your "considered opinion", more restrictive gun laws do not mean less gun crime and can mean more gun crime but that is good? Because more restrictive gun laws mean lower suicide rates?
Japan has very restrictive gun laws and a higher rate of suicide than America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou…

"But murder is relatively easy (though not impossible) to avoid through behavioral choices I make every day."

And suicide is also "relatively easy" to completely avoid. No need for "(though not impossible)" qualifiers. It doesn't even need the "relatively" part of that qualifier. Here, I'll fix that for you.

But suicide is easy to avoid through behavioral choices I make every day.

I'll stand pat on my earlier comments. Your disjointed word salad makes you appear not just unbalanced but unhinged.

@34
"I'll stand pat on my earlier comments."

I want you to.
Because you've just taken the position that someone being murdered is less of an issue for you than someone committing suicide.
Why is that?

"But murder is relatively easy (though not impossible) to avoid through behavioral choices I make every day."

But suicide is not?
So a girl being murdered in a gang shooting is more acceptable to you than a guy choosing to shoot himself.

Conservatives often quote Ben Franklin when the threat of a new tax is even contemplated: "When people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic."

Perhaps we're not there yet, but we have discovered that we can vote ourselves military-style arsenals, and do so to the extent that local law enforcements have to build SWAT teams to deal with things a "stern talking-to" used to solve.

Democracy can be a beautiful thing; and it can also be very ugly. It isn't a grandiose comment to remember that the most horrifically murderous European politician in the last century was himself democratically elected (hiding none of his vile and venom before those elections).

@32
"I already explained it. Let's try again..."

Yes. Please explain why you do not want to use the more precise nomenclature.

"Obviously, in technical discussions, you can use more technical language, but in everyday lingo, people are going to use everyday words in their everyday meaning."

So why are you still refusing to use the more precise nomenclature?
This is not about what "people are going to use".
This is about you.
You are refusing to use the more precise nomenclature.
Why are you refusing to use the more precise nomenclature?

@33: You're dense.
rob! is not attributing California's qualities (low gun death rate, high gun murder rate) to its gun laws. Rather, he's attributing THE LARGE GAP BETWEEN those rates to the gun laws. Basically, he's giving the gun laws credit for the low rates of gun suicide and accidental gun death.

@38
"Basically, he's giving the gun laws credit for the low rates of gun suicide and accidental gun death."

Incorrect.
He's attempting to use below average rates to justify the laws in one instance while claiming that the same laws do not have that an effect when the rates are above average.

Which is why I pointed out that Japan has very restrictive gun laws but a high rate of suicide.
But why look at Japan?
How about looking at Texas? Texas has very liberal gun laws.
Here are the suicide rates by state for 2005.

# 38 Texas & Nebraska tied - 10.6

# 40 Georgia - 10.2

# 41 Delaware - 9.8

# 42 California - 8.9

Now, would you care to explain how Texas can be only 2 places worse than California if California's gun laws are what is keeping suicide so low?

Every time I hear gun-rights extremists (I'm distinguishing you folks from responsible, pro-background-check, 'we don't need AR-15s' gun owners) all it seems to boil down to is this:

"They's after the precioous! They can't haves it! GOLLUM! NOT-AN-ASSAULT-WEAPON! GOLLUM!"

Followed by the inevitable:

"Obama's is tricksie!"

@37 Why should we?

We're discussing press coverage of a news event and the language used in that coverage. This is not a technical discussion about barrel grooves and fire rates of military weapons.

Which, by the way, brings up an important point. No one fucking has any full-auto weapons in any of the domestic news stories of the last I-don't-know-how-long! If 99.44% of all media-reported "automatic" firearm incidents involve semi-auto weapons, wouldn't it make more sense simply to distinguish those few fully-auto incidents with the appropriate language? ("Tommy gun," "machine gun," "fully-auto submachine pistol," etc.) What percentage of the general public even understands what "fully auto" means? Is "submachine" anything to do with submarines?

Newspapers are in the business of quickly communicating events with ordinary language. They're not writing technical journal articles for the cognoscenti. You can get all pissed off if you want when Soldier of Fortune Magazine isn't precise enough in their description of your AR-110, but when an alt-weekly highlights an ordinary press story, just fuck off with your gun-hardon nitpickery, please.

@41
"Why should we?"

Because it is a more precise nomenclature.
Now explain why YOU keep refusing to use the more precise nomenclature.

@42
You know what pisses me off about nomenclature? In the last episode of season 1 of the Walking Dead, a scientist refers to an Action Potential as a "synapse". But you know what? That doesn't change that it's voltage change traveling down part of a neuron. It is what it is.

In this case, nomenclature is worth fuck-all. What we call a weapon does not affect its deadliness. Is a bullet from an AR-15 to the heart any less deadly when we call it an assault weapon, or automatic weapon, or just a rifle? No, it's still a 5.56mm bullet traveling at over half a mile per second into the soft flesh of a heart. And it can send those rounds one after the other.

Face it, the reason you want to get into nomenclature is so you can avoid the real arguments about firearms. You're trying to act like you have an argument, but you're really an intellectual coward.

@42 I don't need to explain anything more than I explained. Besides, you're a fucking broken record, the mental and emotional equivalent of a 2-year-old. "But, WHY??"

But, just for grins, and the amusement of others who get irritated by your type of question...

The English language is the language you people (conservative xenophobes and Chauvinist-Americans) want to be the language of the land. So, try and live that, will you? And according to the English language, a gun described as simply "an automatic" can be (and has been since at least 1905 when Colt's introduced their .45 Automatic Pistol) what is now also called a semi-automatic firearm.

Mind you, "semi-automatic" is a linguistic construct that isn't particularly accurate, either. The more correct technical term is "auto-loader". Nor is "fully automatic" definitive, since it could describe a weapon that auto-fires a limited number of projectiles in a burst mode before automatically disengaging its trigger or one that fires in continuous fashion until its magazine is empty, its belt-driven ammo box runs out, or its barrel melts and it explodes killing its wielder.

More importantly, nobody I know or you know or anyone else we know knows, is walking around with any kind of full-auto-fire weapon in a non-law-enforcement capacity. So, there is absolutely no confusion, except in the minds of gun-fetishists who live in an imaginary world, of what we mean when we say "automatic." If we mean fully-automatic, a.k.a. submachine gun or submachine pistol, we'll say that. Otherwise, "automatic" means an auto-loader.

And don't fucking ask "But, WHY?" again, or I'll take away your binkie.

@44
"I don't need to explain anything more than I explained."

So YOU are refusing to use the more precise nomenclature for some reason(s) that YOU refuse to divulge.
So YOU have not explained anything.
Yes, I know you can regurgitate Wikipedia. Usually that is an indication that the person does not understand the subject.
The question is why do YOU refuse to use the more precise nomenclature.
Yes, I know that YOU refuse to explain why.

But there is a reason.
You just don't feel comfortable with explaining it.

@45 You're having fun with this, aren't you? Now go play outside for awhile and quit trying to annoy the adults.

@46
You do realize that you've posted over 600 words on the subject of refusing to explain why you are not going to explain why you refuse to use the more precise nomenclature.
Yes, I know that you can regurgitate Wikipedia. Many people can do that.
But you cannot explain why you refuse to explain why you will not use the more precise nomenclature.

fairly, would you like a bullshit and bile vinaigrette with your word salad?

@47: No one gives a shit what you call your sad little penis substitute. Call a sex worker and pay them to use precise nomenclature.

@43 "In the last episode of season 1 of the Walking Dead, a scientist refers to an Action Potential as a "synapse"."

A synapse is not an action potential. It's the place where two neurons connect. Pretty common high school knowledge, and badly researched movie.

@50 Right, but what he was showing them was an action potential. My point was that it was an action potential whether they called it one or not.

And yes, it drove me nuts when I heard them say that.