http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/01/30/shooting-in-phoenix-office-building Comments On: Shooting in Phoenix Office Building by Paul Constant en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Sun, 19 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Sun, 19 May 2013 16:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by _db_]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:26:28 -0800 The Stranger
Like I said, you really need to do some studying.
Posted by randoma]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 08:35:53 -0800 The Stranger
I'm with Pn'nglui: Buh bye.

Posted by Free Lunch]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 04:16:09 -0800 The Stranger
Sorry, which part of "Assault Weapons Ban" doesn't involve a ban? There is no constitutional limit on machine guns. There is a $200 tax on machine guns, and they are regulated under the NFA. Which is not, in any way, "constitutional".

So, are you saying that your right to vote is actually a privilege? Because in quite a few states convicted felons don't have that right.

You might want to do some studying...
Posted by randoma]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 01:53:22 -0800 The Stranger
And you realize abrogate means abolish, right?

Who's talking about abolishing or banning them? That's always the strawman you guys throw at people who just want limits, like the constitutional limit on machine guns.

Felons don't have the right to own guns. Therfore, it's a privilege. States have exceptions, but a federal prisoner needs a presidential pardon. That sounds pretty goddammit privileged to me.
Posted by Free Lunch]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:36:37 -0800 The Stranger
so the issue is simply where the line is drawn. if not, then what is it in the 2nd that would stop the line from being drawn at muzzle loaders?
Posted by Max Solomon]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:30:25 -0800 The Stranger
I didn't bring up the car-gun parallel, Ph'nglui did. Personally I think it is a stupid parallel. However, I don't see it as a losing one.

The courts say that gun ownership can be regulated, but not abrogated. That makes it a right, not a privilege.
Posted by randoma]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:35:15 -0800 The Stranger Can you point to where driving a car or drinking alcohol is in the Bill of Rights?

Oh wait, you can't can you you miserable little racist.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:32:56 -0800 The Stranger Posted by randoma]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:19:10 -0800 The Stranger
People would make fun of you for using them, not only because using them was considered non-manly, but because for the driver it conveyed a lack of competence. And we knew the consequences. We watched all those gruesome drivers' ed films.

Seat belt use is quite different now, and it's absolutely NOT because people came to their senses about their personal safety. Enforcement is what did it. Even cab drivers wear them, a much more recent development that happened only after not wearing a seat belt became a primary offense.

I advise that you find a better comparison to guns than cars. It's a losing parallel for gun-rights advocacy in every way.

Though this is parallel: owning a gun is a privilege, not a right. Our courts say so, anyhow. Otherwise there would be zero restrictions to gun ownership.
Posted by Free Lunch]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:14:45 -0800 The Stranger
Ha ha! Nope, I'm not shitting you.

Sure we changed our emphasis on drinking and driving, and we updated penalties and what not - but we didn't restrict access to any of the objects in question:

High Capacity Bottles of Booze? Yes please! Just as readily available today as it was 20 or 50 years ago. and OMG I can buy 1.75 liters of Makers Mark at my grocery store now! \o/

Urban Assault Vehicles? Yup - the floating bridges are full of them. 8 cylinder penis extending Ford Explorers just throbbing for a chance to be driven into a crowded farmers market by your senile old man. God bless 'merica!

The emphasis changed, the sentences got harsher, but we didn't take any of the fun bits away from consenting adults. The idiots who can't play nice get put in jail longer - but ultimately we just enforced pre-existing laws.

*on a side note: can you imagine how many lives we might have saved if we had harsher sentences for DUIs back in 1976? That was the year George W. Bush got pulled over for being an idiot...


Posted by Neurotic Cat]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:05:19 -0800 The Stranger
"Actually, with proper permits, you can drive an F1 car on public roads"

Okie dokie. You are a waste of time. Buh bye.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:34:17 -0800 The Stranger
Seat Belts, ABS, Airbags were all things that A) consumers wanted before they were ever mandated and B) became available due to technological advances. Firearms, in general, are much safer now then they were 20 years ago too. Safeties are better, triggers are better, reliability is better.

Raising the drinking age was relatively easy - it effected a very very narrow swath of voters. How many 18-19 year-olds know how to lobby their congress man? I've be willing to wager that >99% of the drivers 'targeted' by DUI checkpoints are not sober. If they were, no one would waste the resources on them.

Are you offering to trade a ranch rifle to everyone that has an "assault weapon"? And, seeing as how they are virtually identical, what exactly do you accomplish? And yes, we've gone around on why the military chose the M16/M4 and they were very much related to economics, reliability, availability and a change in tactics. The current mandated sidearm for the US military is a 9mm Beretta. It is not as "efficient at killing the enemey" as the Colt 1911 which it replaced. Is it more reliable, safer, and lighter (with ammunition)? Yes, no question. However, no one would say that the .45 ACP has less "stopping power" than a 9mm. Why the government buys a particular weapon is a hell of a lot more complicated than "efficiency" of killing. If it was just about killing efficiency, there are a lot better sidearms than either the 1911 or the Beretta.
Posted by randoma]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:37:28 -0800 The Stranger
Regardless, you are supporting exactly my point, which is that crime correlates with things like per capita income. In fact, there is a much closer correlation to crime and per capita income than there is between crime and access to firearms.

Also, I did talk about accidental shootings. In my opinion, people would take much greater care in keeping their firearms locked up and out of the hands of minors if there were financial and criminal repercussions rather than everyone saying, "Oh! What a tragedy. Your child killed themselves with the loaded firearm you left on the bedside. But really no one was at fault and you've suffered enough.." That is bullshit. But that is, in fact, what happens the majority of time with negligent discharges.
Posted by randoma]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:03:55 -0800 The Stranger
"The key difference is many of the laws for drunk driving centered on penalties for repeat offenders." No, increased penalties was only one aspect. Raising the drinking age was a profound national shift. It wasn't penalty-centric. It was about both penalties, and prevention. And a cultural change -- we took the macho drunk driving mystique and threw it in the dustbin of history. Where the "man card" culture of guns needs to go.

Raising the drinking age "targeted" law abiding citizens. Drunk driving checkpoints "target" law abiding citizens too. Just the fact that you have to get a drivers license "targets" law abiding citizens. Making everyone display license plates on their cars "targets" law abiding citizens. It makes it trivial to identify and track you everywhere you drive. Can you imagine making those carrying guns wear visible license tag on their backs? Well, we can imagine imprinting bullets with a unique identifier. It needs to happen.

I don't know why you brought the assault weapons ban up in this context, but like the many parts of the anti-drunk driving agenda, or the legal, social, and technological approaches to reducing traffic deaths, it's only one piece of the puzzle. I've been assured by our gun loving friends that a ranch rifle is technically equivalent to an AR-15, so I don't even know what they're complaining about. There are many car technologies you can't have on the road, and many you're required to buy on a car, want them or not. Seat belts, ABS, air bags, etc. You can't have a rocket car, or even a funny car dragster or an Indy Car. Or an M1 tank. Even if you're law abiding. No single one of these things is a panacea, but they each contribute.

One thing I know is that the military chooses assault weapons technologies because they are very efficient at killing the enemey. They're not cosmetic decorations. And I also know that the macho tough-guy-in-a-box aspect of the AR-15 is part of the problem. It's the gun culture that says you take out your credit card and buy this thing and it makes you powerful, masculine, and free. For whatever reasons, having an assault weapon goes hand in hand with the shooting rampages we've seen. It's not a coincidence.

The gun lobby and gun industry didn't have to leave us in this extreme of banning these specific weapons. If they had behave responsibly to begin with, and not blocked other common sense laws, we wouldn't be so desperate now.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:49:12 -0800 The Stranger
Why did you specially select only those two states for scrutiny? There's 50 to choose from. And we already know crime correlates with things like per capita income -- and lo and behold you've found the 5th and 6th richest states in the country for your special example.

And how come you (and the gun lobby) only talking about gun crime and not suicide and accidental shootings? Weird how the states with the most gun per capita, Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, are also the very states with the worst suicide rates.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:32:11 -0800 The Stranger
Where I have a problem is where you propose an AWB when the vast majority (>99%) of "assault weapons" are not used to commit crimes. I have a problem when you propose laws targeting almost exclusively law-abiding citizens. When it does NOT have a shown benefit.
Posted by randoma]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:47:18 -0800 The Stranger
On the other hand, you are saying that gun control on a state-by-state basis is completely worthless.

It really does get old, I agree.
Posted by randoma]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:38:29 -0800 The Stranger
Because we don't have the fucking Berlin Wall separating every state? People in Chicago or New York City drive for 30 minutes and they're at the drive thru window of Jethro Billy Bob's Redneck Gun Emporium Extravaganza.

Jesus, this shit gets old.


Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:26:32 -0800 The Stranger
Are you shitting me? We passed hundreds of new laws. We did take away both alcohol and cars, both from those deemed a high risk, and those who had offended in the past.

We restricted access to alcohol across the country. Most prominently, Congress withheld highway funds to states whose drinking age was under 21. Accordingly, the drinking age went up across the country. We passed numerous graduated licensing laws -- today, few states have unrestricted drivers licenses for those under 18. We also restricted access to cars by requiring ignition locks on the cars of repeat offenders. Or simply revoking the licenses of drunk drivers, for years at a time, and even permanently. We expanded alcohol server training, so that bartenders and waitpeople could better judge when to cut off patrons who were intoxicated. Those are just the major highlights. Many createive and diverse solutions were tried. Some of them sucked and were scrapped.

Even today, creative approaches are being tried. Recently Seattle extended no-ticket amnesty hours for those who had parked on the street at a bar and taken a cab or bus home. Their car could remain parked for free until 10 am, so they had time to come get it in the morning.

We did vastly more than just enforce existing laws. Back in the days when drunk driving was at its peak, it was easier to get both alcohol and a car. Now there are numerous hurdles that didn't used to exist, which screen out those most at risk.

With guns, we've done worse than nothing. They've made it easier to escape background checks, placed absurd restriction on ATF enforcement, and weakened penalties. The gun lobby even had their pets filibuster the nominee to head the agency, all in an effort to prevent existing law form being enforced. Gun nuts are lying through their teeth when they say they want to see existing laws enforced.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:06:36 -0800 The Stranger
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/…
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sen-leah…

I'll point out that both Vermont and Virginia have excellent State sponsored public health programs. Both of them also have high levels of mental health reporting. Both also have excellent suicide prevention programs.
Posted by randoma]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:46:26 -0800 The Stranger

Posted by Neurotic Cat]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:29:38 -0800 The Stranger
Drinking and driving is an interesting parallel.

We didn't address why people choose to drink to excess and then drive... we just enforced existing laws?

We didn't take away the alcohol or the cars... we just enforced existing laws?

So us grown-ups can continue to use our alcohol and cars and the idiots get tossed into jail and/or treatment programs? Sounds good to me.


Posted by Neurotic Cat]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:21:36 -0800 The Stranger
remove the guns, remove (most of) the ability to react impulsively and fatally to it's symptoms.

for instance: http://trib.com/special-section/suicide/…
Posted by Max Solomon]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:15:11 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Gurldoggie]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:01:45 -0800 The Stranger