« Habakkuk on the origins of American political and strategic thought | Main | No gas in Syria except in Michael Gordon's story. »

16 January 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


But why think a president that considers acceptable the collateral killing of children in Pakisatan, Afganistan or Yemen cares about dead American children as anything more than a political opportunity?


Fred -- Washington had no part in putting down Shays' Rebellion. You're thinking of the Whiskey Rebellion.


" Is it imagined that the madman could not have killed these people without the Bushmaster and 30 round magazines?"

Probably not so many, so fast without tactical firearms. How many rounds are left in a revolver after shooting open a steel door? I don't know. The point is, if he hadn't had tactical firearms with 30-round capacity, it might have slowed him down significantly. Even a few lives saved would be preferable.



As I have said here before it is very easy to change magazines very fast in any semi-auto handgun or rifle. Since that is true and you mention a revolver I deduce that you want to ban all semi-auto firearms. pl


FWIW, this is a great pistol safe. It is heavy duty, and uses push-buttons for the combination so it is secure but easy to access under duress, in the dark, etc. Plus, it does not require a battery like many of the push-button or biometric safes. Highly recommended.



Yes, thanks for the correction. General Lincoln (no relation to Abe) commanded the militia in this one.


One guy got stabbed to death outside the local sports put. If only they outlawed beer bottles he'd still be alive:


What is referred to is the practice of pediatricians in counseling parents of newborns and young children about the danger of keeping weapons in the home, advising against it usually. In Florida, a physician can lose his or her license to practice medicine for giving such advice.



Exactly. One guy. Not twenty-five with multiple wounds each, unsurvivable.


In the best of all possible worlds dead children in Yemen would count for as much as dead children here. But that wouldn’t be the case under any US Administration. I’m not Obama’s biggest fan, but I also believe that he feels some moral compulsion in this instance. The Newtown kids and adults died on his watch and like other politicians who are to whatever extent privately pro-gun control he has studiously ignored gun issues for as long as he could. In fact if the NRA hadn’t demonstrated political weakness in the 2012 election cycle, the situation might be different.


It should be added that VA physicians are also not permitted to counsel vets suffering from depression about guns in the home (perhaps suggesting guns be left temporarily with family or friend) even if the soldier is suicidal. The NRA has convinced congressmen to attach this as a rider on Defense Appropriations bills, over the objections of a number of generals.



Such an acceptable murder then? The other two were hospitalized. Had the assailant been suicidal like Mr. Lanza plenty more would be dead. But then killing a twenty year old hispanic and hospitalizing a couple of others doesn't make much presidential level news. But when only the police have guns we'll all be as safe as Rodney King, Abner Louima and the folks having their phones confiscated by the Philly cops, or the ones in Miami.





You are new here. Your moniker is a nuisance to type every time we wish to reply.

Many of the things you have posted on have been written on here by me and others. We have raised the issue of gun safes as a preventive. Why was a gun safe not effective as a barrier to crime at Newtown? We have asked the question. It has not been answered so far as I can see.

We have raised the issue of the ease of magazine changes with ten round (or seven) round magazines.

Read down the archive befre assuming that these subjects are not already under discussion. pl


I am really intrigued by your idea of liability for unsecured weapons. Great idea, and the subject of many post-Columbine rants.

This is one of the things that would flow out of liability insurance, as would universal background checks done by and at the expense of the insurer(and consumer of course).

In laying out what kind of incident the insurer will pay off on, there will be generated a whole body of regulation laying out what they won't pay off on, say an unsecured gun being used by someone other than the owner(named insured). An enforcement scheme similar to that for auto insurance would provide the potential model, although honestly, I'd want to see more jail related penalties and less revocation-of-license type enforcements. That would be a matter for the political process to decide.

If you have another mechanism in mind, I'd sincerely be interested.


and on a less serious note, i would want a tax subsidy for my snow tires and brake work, because i have to do that to keep my car from being a danger to others.


Many gun clubs require background checks, btw. Which brings up another issue. Arguably, a far larger de facto infringement of second amendment rights than "gun control laws" is represented by the fact that there is little if any public land in the nation on which it is lawful to discharge a firearm. Urban dwellers, meaning most of us, are driven to the range or gun club, perhaps go through a second background check, and pay-to-shoot. So, you can buy almost any gun you choose, you can pick your favorite ammo, but where you can actually shoot it has been severely restricted. Obviously, if you own a farm, that's different. But that's not most of us. To my knowledge there has been no outcry about this from the NRA. Correct me. Does this strike anyone else as odd?


It wasn't a mass murder, Fred. That's all I'm saying. False analogy.



"a far larger de facto infringement of second amendment rights than "gun control laws" How does the 2nd Amendment guarantee you a place to shoot? pl


True. It's not exactly in the fine print, is it? What good is the right to bear arms but no place to fire them? I don't think that omission was intended by the founders as a "catch." They intended to allow every man to arm himself. It's that in the 18th c. it was assumed that everyone had a place to shoot. That's why I called it a "de facto" infringement.


I'm so sorry to have such poor writing skills. One man is dead, but that's not worthy of a presidential news conference or a new PAC. It's not even worth much of a follow up from the local press as there hasn't been much. Why? Because the only violence we should stop is "mass murder"? Not stopping violence in schools, just 'gun' violence. The solution, why the same old one politicians have been trying for years - legislate restrictions on the ownership of firearms. it sure works to generate campaign contributions and keep any discussion of other issues facing the people of the republic off the front pages of the newspapers, tv or radio.



"What good is the right to bear arms but no place to fire them?" I caution you that snide remarks like that wil lget you banned here. You find it opressive to go to a range to shoot? pl


Forgive me. No snideness was intended. It was a serious question, if impertinent. Going to the range, however enjoyable, is an inconvenience one puts up with when one no longer owns land. But it is more than that. With all public land off-limits to the discharge of firearms, we have arguably been disarmed without our noticing it. IMO.

Another question I've wanted to ask you, also not facetious, but somewhat farther off topic. The Continental Army was established as the United States Army, i.e. as a permanent, standing army, by act of Congress in 1784. This was before the second amendment was adopted. How did the founders see the militias vis-a-vis the U.S. Army? Thank you in advance for your insights



The founders and framers did not intend that there should be a standing army. They thought the state militias and the citizenry as an armed body would be "it." pl

John Minnerath

Where do you get this idea all public land is off limits to shooting?
Recently there have been some restrictions applied to recreational shooting on some BLM and USFS administered land, mostly where increased usage by others, encroachment of private development, fire danger, etc.
Most of these lands still remain open to recreational shooters.
In the eastern US there is less naturally because there is less public land.

Edward Amame

Glad to see you are on-board with the idea of liability for unsecured weapons. However, my understanding is that mandatory liability would be viewed as absolutely a no-go by the NRA, and also that its constitutionality could possibly be in question. So I suspect the legislative proposals that the WH advanced were advanced because they think that they have a small chance in hell at passage. Universal background checks pass constitutional muster and poll VERY highly, even among NRA members, so that makes sense to advance. Similarly with banning/regulating high capacity magazines and assault rifles (although constitutionality of federal bans might be questionable?). An assault rifles ban really seems like a Hail Mary pass, but is necessary to keep the base happy.

Obviously this is a pro-gun blog so some are reacting to this from inside a bubble. I really have no dog in this fight. I live in a quiet secure NYC neighborhood and have no especially strong opinions either way. But I can tell you that after Sandy Hook, had Obama not reacted this way, he would have been hammered by everybody except the pro-gun lobby, which BTW looks demographically a lot like the GOP these days: aging and white.

Sorry, but this is good politics, and the reaction from the leadership in the NRA may appeal to hard core gun people, but it has a note of the shrill and unyielding to me.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

August 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
Blog powered by Typepad