Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, January 30, 2013
Crime Shooting in Phoenix Office Building
Posted by Paul Constant on Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:57 AM
The local ABC affiliate says "three people were shot and five were injured in a shooting Wednesday morning at a Phoenix office building." You can watch part of the newscast and find more information at ABC15.
UPDATE 11:40 AM: Looks like three people were shot and nobody was killed, but the gunman is still at large.
2
So ironic that Mark Kelly make note of this event unfolding during the last few moments of the Senate's gun hearing. I wish I had been looking at that tab just at that moment, so I could have seen how LaPierre reacted.
5
Apparently the well-regulated militia never takes a day off!
@3: Fleeing for safety with such energy that you fall down/hit something/jump out a window and hurt yourself, flying non-bullet shrapnel, etc.
@3: Fleeing for safety with such energy that you fall down/hit something/jump out a window and hurt yourself, flying non-bullet shrapnel, etc.
6
@3: Keep in mind that if the shooter was using an AR33 Assault Rifle, Couger Magnum, RC-P90, or the silver PP7, he could have shot through people, doors, and even strangely explosive crates lying everywhere.
7
just the price we pay for the theoretical ability to resist a theoretical tyranny. and suppress theoretical slave revolts. and shoot theoretical home invaders whose GPS tells them to turn into your driveway.
8
All the rampaging gunmen today were in their 60s. So the common thread here isn't youth. And probably not video games. It's starting to look like the only thing mass shootings have in common is guns.
10
Why can't we talk about the real causes for events like this?
What drives people to commit violent crime and how can we minimize it? Guns don't drive people to hurt other people. It's something else. Poverty? Job loss? Education? Culture? Mental illness?
What drives people to commit violent crime and how can we minimize it? Guns don't drive people to hurt other people. It's something else. Poverty? Job loss? Education? Culture? Mental illness?
11
@10
OK, talk. The data say that when somebody gets really worked up and has a gun sitting right there, they will often make use of it. No gun? Then they calm down. It's why domestic disturbances turn deadly when there's a gun in the house. It's why thoughts of suicide turn into tragedy when there's a gun at hand. That's what research told us 17 years ago, before the NRA's lackeys in congress cut of funding for research, because they didn't like the truth.
But if you have information from some other source proving it's some other cause, go ahead. Talk.
OK, talk. The data say that when somebody gets really worked up and has a gun sitting right there, they will often make use of it. No gun? Then they calm down. It's why domestic disturbances turn deadly when there's a gun in the house. It's why thoughts of suicide turn into tragedy when there's a gun at hand. That's what research told us 17 years ago, before the NRA's lackeys in congress cut of funding for research, because they didn't like the truth.
But if you have information from some other source proving it's some other cause, go ahead. Talk.
12
@7 how to repress the theoretical tyranny that would theoretically be the US military? Theoretically speaking.
That said..I DO want a huge para-military action to force a disarming of the general public. They can weapons used for hunting and small non-automatic hand pistols but ONLY after those owners have undergone a background check
That said..I DO want a huge para-military action to force a disarming of the general public. They can weapons used for hunting and small non-automatic hand pistols but ONLY after those owners have undergone a background check
13
@10
"Why can't we talk about the real causes for events like this?"
Because there are lots of people here who are not interested in addressing the real issues.
But they do want to ban guns (or restrict them so much that they are effectively banned).
So various incidents will be brought up and the specifics of those incidents will be ignored in favor of generalized restrictions on guns.
"Why can't we talk about the real causes for events like this?"
Because there are lots of people here who are not interested in addressing the real issues.
But they do want to ban guns (or restrict them so much that they are effectively banned).
So various incidents will be brought up and the specifics of those incidents will be ignored in favor of generalized restrictions on guns.
14
@11
I'm not too sure about the cause.
But I'm pretty certain the gun doesn't decide to go off by itself. I'm fairly positive the a human being makes a choice to initiate that violent act. What is driving people to make that choice?
I am quite positive that trying to solve the problem without understanding the root cause doesn't really solve anything.
It kind of reminds me of our collective thought-free reaction to 9-11: frisking grandma and making people take off their shoes at the airport.
I'm not too sure about the cause.
But I'm pretty certain the gun doesn't decide to go off by itself. I'm fairly positive the a human being makes a choice to initiate that violent act. What is driving people to make that choice?
I am quite positive that trying to solve the problem without understanding the root cause doesn't really solve anything.
It kind of reminds me of our collective thought-free reaction to 9-11: frisking grandma and making people take off their shoes at the airport.
15
How do those white male well-regulated militia cunningly find the covert tyrannizing gummint personnel at universities, school buses (see Atlanta), bars, schools, office workplaces? Or if they're just nuts, what cultural and language barriers are preventing these addled, nay, squirrelly, sad sacks from getting mental health treatment?
16
@14
The obvious problem with that is the gulf between the rates of shooting in other countries and the US. We have more guns than anybody, and we have more shootings than anybody. We have no evidence to suggest Americans get angry or freaked out more than other people. Israel noticed this problem when they had soldiers taking guns home every night: suicide. So they made them leave their guns on the base, and the suicidal race dropped. They didn't wait until they had access to a gun, and they didn't use some other means. The suicidal impulse passed and without a gun sitting there, they didn't act on it.
You're guessing about human nature and applying your hypothetical ideas about free will and choice as if we knew nothing else. Nice hypotheses, but in the face of facts, your hypotheses fails. The same faulty reasoning was used to say we couldn't do anything about drinking and driving 30 years ago. In reality, we took a multi-pronged approach, looking at motive, means, opportunity, and social context. For example, when a drunk has his car keys in his hands and his car right there, he will drive. If his keys are elsewhere but a taxi is right in front of him, he will take the taxi.
You can bleat about personal choice, but by making one choice easier than another, fewer people die. A lot of loons said drinking and driving was how you got your man card back in the day. Cracking down on DUIs was called a loss of freedom. No kidding.
The obvious problem with that is the gulf between the rates of shooting in other countries and the US. We have more guns than anybody, and we have more shootings than anybody. We have no evidence to suggest Americans get angry or freaked out more than other people. Israel noticed this problem when they had soldiers taking guns home every night: suicide. So they made them leave their guns on the base, and the suicidal race dropped. They didn't wait until they had access to a gun, and they didn't use some other means. The suicidal impulse passed and without a gun sitting there, they didn't act on it.
You're guessing about human nature and applying your hypothetical ideas about free will and choice as if we knew nothing else. Nice hypotheses, but in the face of facts, your hypotheses fails. The same faulty reasoning was used to say we couldn't do anything about drinking and driving 30 years ago. In reality, we took a multi-pronged approach, looking at motive, means, opportunity, and social context. For example, when a drunk has his car keys in his hands and his car right there, he will drive. If his keys are elsewhere but a taxi is right in front of him, he will take the taxi.
You can bleat about personal choice, but by making one choice easier than another, fewer people die. A lot of loons said drinking and driving was how you got your man card back in the day. Cracking down on DUIs was called a loss of freedom. No kidding.
18
@18
Glad you could find a new tragedy to furiously masturbate to while dreaming of your racist communist police state agenda?
Glad you could find a new tragedy to furiously masturbate to while dreaming of your racist communist police state agenda?
20
Guns make us safer. Poor people caused the financial crisis. Romney is going to win this thing in a landslide.
21
@14L the answer you're looking for is: Self-Centered Fear. and sadly, it's part of the human condition.
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/…
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/…
22
@16
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.
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.
24
@11, I'm curious - how do you explain the fact that, there is no direct correlation between lax gun laws and gun crime? For example, Vermont and Virginia both have relatively lax gun laws and yet have much lower firearm-related crime per capita than areas with much stricter gun laws?
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.
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.
25
@22
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.
More...
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.
26
@24
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.
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.
27
@26, Oh. I see. So what you're saying is that the people in Vermont and Virginia are some special class of people different from other states? By your theories, Vermont and Virginia, with some of the laxest gun laws in the country, should have astronomical amounts of firearm related crime. They don't.
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.
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.
28
@25, The key difference is many of the laws for drunk driving centered on penalties for repeat offenders. Additionally, a lot of the reduction in drunk driving was/is related to education and media/cultural biases changing. You want to raise the age to own a firearm to 21, no problem. You want to actually enforce lying on a background check form, no problem. You want to enforce penalties for straw purchasers, no problem. You want to make it harder to get a CCW and provide more firearms education, again no problem. I'd love to see laws making gun owners liable for crimes (or 'accidents') committed with their firearms. Hell, you want to put a $500 tax on 'Saturday Night Specials' (cheap handguns account for the majority of firearms related crime), I'd probably support that too.
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.
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.
29
@27
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.
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.
30
@28
"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.
More...
"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.
31
@29, They're also some of the worst states for health care. (Alaska is really a special case - lack of sunlight has a direct correlation to happiness). Also, all three of them also have among the lowest cases of STD's, does that mean that either A) they have the safest sex, or B) there is a direct relationship between lack of sex and suicide? Actually, in every study I've seen, the best way to combat suicide is by outreach, education and mental health access.
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.
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.
32
@30, Driving is a privilege, not a right and requires the use of publicly owned resources. You don't have to have a license plate on your car if you only drive it on your property, or if you only drive it on privately owned roads. Actually, with proper permits, you can drive an F1 car on public roads - without a license plate! If I want to drive around with an Indy car on an open trailer, I'm perfectly able to do so without having the Indy car licensed in any way. Similarly, in most states, there are a lot of restrictions on where you can USE a firearm.
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.
More...
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.
33
@32
"Actually, with proper permits, you can drive an F1 car on public roads"
Okie dokie. You are a waste of time. Buh bye.
"Actually, with proper permits, you can drive an F1 car on public roads"
Okie dokie. You are a waste of time. Buh bye.
34
@25
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...
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...
35
@32 - The market is what drove seat belts. Hah! That's hilarious. I'm old enough to remember when there were no laws enforcing seat belt use, not even when pulled over for something else, and no one wore them. No guys did, anyhow. And not just stupid teenage boys. None of our dads did. Hell, practically no moms did, either.
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.
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.
36
@33, You've never seen an Indy/F1/Nascar car in a parade? 'cause I have, and on public roads. You act like cars are regulated and firearms are not, when in fact, both are heavily regulated.
37
@25
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.
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.
38
@35, No one passed a law mandating seat belts until seat belts already existed. No one said, "Car manufacturers need to implement < some magic pixie dust that will reduce injuries >". By the time seatbelts were mandated by law they were already commonplace. Seatbelt use is far more related to education (Click It or Ticket campaign) than solely implementing law-based penalties. I promise you that if it hadn't been for massive education efforts, seatbelts would still be considered 'non-manly'.
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.
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.
39
your 2nd amendment rights are already infringed, and i don't hear you all squeaking about the legal impediments for getting access to automatic weapons or grenade launchers.
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?
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?
40
@38 - You realize click it or ticket refers the penalty, right? Oh, man. You are pretty bad at this. Parades!
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.
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.
41
@40 - You realize there was/is a huge advertising campaign to go along with the penalty, right? The penalty is relatively minor - the cultural bias was changed due to huge amounts of education/advertising.
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...
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...
42
@41 = So, a $200 tax allows me a use machine gun to defend my home? Or is this just a parade situation?
I'm with Pn'nglui: Buh bye.
I'm with Pn'nglui: Buh bye.
43
@42, a $200 tax stamp, plus background check, 6 month wait (BATF is backlogged) and $10-30k or so for a pre-1986 machine gun, yes.
Like I said, you really need to do some studying.
Like I said, you really need to do some studying.
44
Free lunch & Pn'nglui don't care about facts, just their hatred of those who own guns. This debate is all about hating those who are different from you and making them pay for their differences. In the end it does not matter because an AWB will not happen.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
SL Letter of the Day: Insane Demands by Dan Savage
-
SL Letters of the Day: Just Say No to DSGs by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
"Bus service shouldn't be optional—it should be a right." by Cienna Madrid
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
Fucking NBA Rejects Kings Move to Seattle by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (44) RSS