When should we have a gun-control debate?

posted at 9:21 am on July 25, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

After incidents like the massacre in Aurora, gun-control advocates adamantly demand a debate on new restrictions to prevent the use of firearms in mass murders, and accuse their opponents of callous disregard for the victims when they refuse to engage on the topic immediately.  Opponents accuse gun-control advocates of exploiting the victims and emotional turmoil to score points on a topic in which they routinely lose.  So when is a good time for a gun control debate? That’s the topic of my column at The Week today, but I’ll get to that in a minute.  First, the Washington Post reports that even Democrats don’t really want a debate on gun rights:

In the weeks after the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, Senate Democrats led the way on passing a modest gun-control bill, even though they were in the minority. The issue commanded the national spotlight for a few weeks until it was blocked by House Republicans.

Thirteen years later, and now holding a majority in the Senate, Democrats have run for political cover after a similar suburban Denver shooting. Congressional leaders have declined to endorse any legislative remedy, and the most politically endangered Democrats have either fully embraced gun rights or lamented that nothing can be done.

The hushed response to last week’s tragedy signals just how fearful Democrats have become of anything that upsets the National Rifle Association, with its vast political clout, and how even once-ardent supporters of gun control are now resigned.

We hear about the NRA’s clout, but this is mainly a dodge to avoid the real truth, which is that the NRA simply represents the widespread consensus on gun rights.  In 2008, the NRA’s PAC contributed just over $1 million in all political races, with about 75% of those donations to Republicans.  In 2010, the NRA’s PAC donated $1.278 million in total, with roughly the same demonstration.  The gun rights lobby in its entirety in 2008 spent $1.187 million, which barely outpaced the pro-abortion lobby’s $1.015 million, and didn’t even make it to half of “human rights” lobby, which spent $2.495 million.

When we compare the NRA’s 2008 contribution against PACs other than single-issue, they get positively dwarfed in clout.  The top 20 PACs for the 2008 cycle all spent more than the entire gun lobby; the 20th, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, spent $2.21 million.  Of the top 20, eleven are unions, with the IBEW coming in second place with $3.344 million, 98% of which went to Democrats.  That cycle produced a Democratic President and large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.  If “clout” was all that was in play, then surely that Congress could have passed gun-control legislation as well as Card Check for their union backers.

Next, Sam Stein seems surprised by a poll of NRA members conducted by Frank Lutz in May and cited by the Center for American Progress, which he uses to argue that even NRA supporters back greater gun control:

According to a study unveiled at the Center for American Progress on Tuesday, 82 percent of 945 self-identified gun owners said they support requiring criminal background checks for gun purchasers. The sample was divided evenly between gun owners who were current or lapsed members of the NRA and non-NRA gun owners. 74 percent of the NRA members said they support the background checks.

The study, which was conducted in May by GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz, revealed the following data points as well:

  • 74 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.
  • 68 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.
  • 63 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.
  • 75 percent of NRA members believe that concealed carry permits should be granted only to those applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors.

Taken in full, the numbers cut against the conventional wisdom, which holds that there is little political will for tackling gun control legislation in the wake of Friday’s shooting in Aurora, Colo. But that theory, the study’s authors insisted, was always based on a false reading of the public opinion data.

“Gun owners and NRA members overwhelmingly support common sense steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, even as the NRA leadership continues to oppose them,” said New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which commissioned the study. “It’s time for those in Washington -– and those running for President –- to stand with gun owning citizens who are concerned about public safety, rather than influence peddling lobbyists who are obsessed with ideology.”

One can only conclude that this means NRA members support gun control if one ignores the fact that many states deny permits to people who meet those qualifications.  That’s why Minnesota finally passed a “must issue” law for gun permits that require county sheriffs to approve applications unless one of the above situations apply, after an eight-year campaign by local gun-rights advocates.  Wisconsin recently did the same.  Only Vermont allows people to carry weapons without a permit [see update], and most other states allow county sheriffs or the state to arbitrarily deny carry permits.  To buy a firearm, the federal government already requires these kind of background checks.

And as far as this incident goes, which of those above qualifiers would have prevented the Aurora shooter from getting a weapon?

To get back to my original question, when is a good time to have a gun-control debate?  My answer in The Week is that gun-rights activists are ready to have that debate, as long as people get their facts straight, which clearly hasn’t been the case in the last several days, starting with Brian Ross at ABC. However, we’ve been having this debate for decades, and the facts show that gun control doesn’t work, and providing for individual rights doesn’t increase crime:

Small wonder, then, that conservatives have balked at conducting a debate on gun control in the midst of such irresponsible behavior by the media. Though, in actuality, the main reason so few are interested in the debate is because it has largely been fought and decided. Americans have repeatedly rejected an expansion of gun-control because it doesn’t work. Look no further than Aurora, where both the city and the theater where the shooting occurred have rules forbidding the carrying of any firearms (the city statute was deemed unenforceable, however, because of the state’s concealed-carry permit statute). On top of that, no one can fire a weapon within Aurora city limits except at gun ranges — not even, apparently, in self-defense. Of course none of that stopped the perpetrator in this case from committing the murders.

What about other areas where gun control legislation has been implemented? Illinois has the most restrictive carry laws in the country, and Chicago has one of the toughest gun-control regulations among cities. Yet, the murder rate for Illinois is above the national average, according to the FBI (5.5 per 100,000 in 2010, compared to 4.8 murders for the rest of the country), as is the state’s violent crime rate (435.2 incidents per 100,000 compared to 403.6 nationally). Chicago recently lost a gun-control case at the Supreme Court (McDonald v. Chicago), but the city lost the gun-control argument years ago — considering that its murder rate is 18th among large American cities at 15.2 per 100,000, more than three times the national average. Washington D.C., which in 2008 lost its own Supreme Court gun control case, ranked seventh in 2010 with a 21.9 rate. For the record, Aurora’s murder rate was 7.1 per 100,000 in 2010, while other Colorado cities were significantly lower: 5.0 for Colorado Springs and 3.6 for Denver.

In comparison, Minnesota a few years ago passed a must-issue law that requires counties to issue carry permits unless specific reasons exist to deny the application. Critics of the law insisted that it would lead to a wave of shootings. Instead, in Minneapolis, crime rates have fallen to 1980s levels, with a murder rate of 9.7, 30th for large American cities despite Minneapolis being 16th in size. Its twin city St. Paul has a murder rate of 5.7. Other factors certainly contributed to those decreases in violent crime, but clearly, allowing responsible and law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms did not increase crime rates.

We’ve had this debate, and gun control has lost it.  That’s why no one in Washington is willing to have it again.

Update: Actually, four states allow people to carry without a permit: Vermont, Arizona, Alaska, and Wyoming.  Thanks to the readers who provided me links to update my out-of-date knowledge on that issue.

Update: I should have been more clear — I was talking about concealed carry permits when discussing those states.  Some states allow open carry without permits or licenses, but that number is getting smaller, not larger; California won’t even allow open carry of unloaded firearms now.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

CorporatePiggy on July 25, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Sounds like you live in the People’s Republik of Kalifornia.

chemman on July 25, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Alabama is an open carry state also; you need a permit for a concealed weapon, but not an open one

Lord Nazh on July 25, 2012 at 11:10 AM

nm: saw the last update :)

Lord Nazh on July 25, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Bishop on July 25, 2012 at 11:08 AM

MY spiders have guns…and are excellent shots.

annoyinglittletwerp on July 25, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Sounds like you live in the People’s Republik of Kalifornia.

chemman on July 25, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Hardly – but that doesn’t mean there isn’t work to be done.

CorporatePiggy on July 25, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Time to ban gun-toting spiders.

Bishop on July 25, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Time to ban gun-toting spiders.

Bishop on July 25, 2012 at 11:15 AM

You can’t, they have too powerful a following and their own Web-site…..

*ducks*

Chip on July 25, 2012 at 11:18 AM

I saw Bill O’Reilly last night and he was talking about registering “Heavy Weapons”. He claims that terrorists will buy these weapons and the FBI needs to know who these people are. What a dumb a$$. If I were a terrorist, would I buy these weapons from a dealer or someone with an FFL, NO. I would buy them off the black market so they could not be traced. I should start watching more Cavuto from now on.

banzaibob on July 25, 2012 at 11:19 AM

I saw Bill O’Reilly last night and he was talking about registering “Heavy Weapons”. He claims that terrorists will buy these weapons and the FBI needs to know who these people are. What a dumb a$$. If I were a terrorist, would I buy these weapons from a dealer or someone with an FFL, NO. I would buy them off the black market so they could not be traced. I should start watching more Cavuto from now on.

banzaibob on July 25, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Check with the ATF – I hear they have some specials on RPG’s this week.

Chip on July 25, 2012 at 11:21 AM

banzaibob on July 25, 2012 at 11:19 AM

What the Fluke is a heavy weapon? Something that requires a vehicle to transport and support?

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 11:21 AM

What the Fluke is a heavy weapon? Something that requires a vehicle to transport and support?

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Yes, hence the popularity of the new Concealed Howitzer License in backward red states.

CorporatePiggy on July 25, 2012 at 11:23 AM

There is nothing to debate.
The right shall not be infringed.
Arms. And everything associated with using them, shall not be infringed.
The populace may not need a howitzer or nuke, but there is nothing wrong with an armed populace.
If the populace had not been armed back in 1776, we’d be British still.

Badger40 on July 25, 2012 at 11:25 AM

The NRA is people too?

Who knew?

I thought only leftward groups like unions were people!

/s

Gunlock Bill on July 25, 2012 at 11:32 AM

The debate should only be about repealing the second amendment
and not nibbling at it…..otherwise shut up.

lilium479 on July 25, 2012 at 11:35 AM

I love the debate between 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. That is the gun debate that I am willing to have.

search4truth on July 25, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Are we talking concealed carry?

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 11:36 AM

In VA there has been open carry and the Legislature finally reconciled the idiocy of places where you could open carry (parks by and large, plus a few other places) but not concealed carry. Plus the Legislature got rid of the one handgun per month rule for purchases… which the Governor as a member of the Legislature had backed, and then gladly signed onto its repeal.

Getting VA to a Gold Star State needs to be the next objective. And convincing the State to join with other States to get it so that citizen made arms, sold to other citizens of the State do not fall under federal paperwork. A number of States are working towards that and a few have laws on the books which will slowly go through the court system.

The ‘gun control debate’ is broadening, not limited a few items any more… and if the States start to bust the federal system apart, then you will get a whole new era of firearms. And some citizens aren’t waiting for that but doing it on their own to push their States to expand the firearms business environment.

ajacksonian on July 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Reports are his AR-15 jammed…due to a malfunction with the the 100 round drum.
He managed to kill 12 people, if preliminary reports are true, with the shotgun and a .40 caliber handgun (with a 40 capacity clip).
Question for the gun/ammo knowledgeable here:
How many do you think he would have managed to kill had the AR-15 not jammed?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

We hear about the NRA’s clout, but this is mainly a dodge to avoid the real truth, which is that the NRA simply represents the widespread consensus on gun rights.

I believe you mean widespread consensus on 2nd Amendment rights

Lawrence on July 25, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Ever wonder which segment of the population is the most protected by gun control laws? Most so-called gun murders occur due to criminals shooting each other; second most come from domestic disputes. People committing mass-murder is extremely rare. Extremely tragic, but also extremely rare. Question is, will more gun control somehow keep these same people from murdering each other? Statistics show that the communities with the toughest gun control laws have the highest per capita murder rates. Statistics also show that communities that encourage self-defense and firearm ownership usually have the highest rate of criminals being shot by citizens in self-defense. So, who do gun control laws protect? They don’t protect criminals from killing each other, and they don’t prevent domestic violence, the only people that gun laws protect are criminals acting against average law-abiding citizens.

Lawrence on July 25, 2012 at 11:41 AM

How many do you think he would have managed to kill had the AR-15 not jammed?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

17.63 people.

Seriously that could be the dumbest question I’ve seen at HotGas, ever.

Bishop on July 25, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Reports are his AR-15 jammed…due to a malfunction with the the 100 round drum.
He managed to kill 12 people, if preliminary reports are true, with the shotgun and a .40 caliber handgun (with a 40 capacity clip).
Question for the gun/ammo knowledgeable here:
How many do you think he would have managed to kill had the AR-15 not jammed?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

How many would not have died if someone in that theater was able and armed to fire back?

It only takes a second or two to reload a magazine if you have practice so what’s the difference between what happened and you’re naive scenario where the killer has to reload several times vs having a 100 round drum – either way no one has the firepower to stop him in the room.

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 11:44 AM

When should we have a gun-control debate?

When the left openly admits that they are attempting to overthrow the United States Constitution. And then, the only debate on gun-control should be, on how well we control our aim.

SWalker on July 25, 2012 at 11:46 AM

How many do you think he would have managed to kill had the AR-15 not jammed?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

What if he had used explosives?

What if, What if, What if.

The truth is that people have a responsibility for their own personal protection. The police are very unlikely to be there when you need them and often they won’t engage a gunman until more specialized units or backup show up. The 2nd amendment simply acknowledges this truth: you are ultimately responsible for protecting yourself.

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 11:47 AM

There were roughly 35,000 gun-related deaths (about 11,000 being homicide) in the US in 2010. There were roughly 45,000 alcohol-related deaths (10,000 the result of DUI) the same year (and that doesn’t take into account gun-related deaths that take place while those involved were also under the influence of alcohol–which is probably not a trivial number, particularly when you consider over 20,000 of those annual gun deaths are suicides). So why is nobody on the left hankering for an alcohol-control debate? Hell, its possession and consumption isn’t even Constitionally protected!

Blacklake on July 25, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Guns are scary and scary things should be banned, like spiders. Ban spiders and guns.

Bishop on July 25, 2012 at 11:08 AM

and clowns – clowns are REALLY scary – they pack, like 20 of them in a little tiny car – isn’t that as dangerous as like carrying a magazine with a lot of bullets in it?

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 11:49 AM

How many do you think he would have managed to kill had the AR-15 not jammed?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

No more than with a half dozen Molotov cocktails, then blocking the exit door.
You’re clutching at high cap mags as part of all this? Good heavens, a little M1 Carbine has a 15 round mag and those can be exchanged quicker than you can sneeze. If you want to blame something, blame Earl Warren’s SC which essentially makes it impossible to protect society from crazies.

a capella on July 25, 2012 at 11:50 AM

I think that the war on drugs has proved that banning guns will remove them from society.

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Time to ban gun-toting spiders.

Bishop on July 25, 2012 at 11:15 AM

You can’t, they have too powerful a following and their own Web-site…..

*ducks*

Chip on July 25, 2012 at 11:18 AM

And a very well funded and connected lobbying organization…

SWalker on July 25, 2012 at 11:51 AM

How many do you think he would have managed to kill had the AR-15 not jammed?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Some of the worst shootings have occurred in countries with the strictest gun control laws: England, Germany, Sweden.

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 11:52 AM

So why is nobody on the left hankering for an alcohol-control debate? Hell, its possession and consumption isn’t even Constitionally protected!

Blacklake on July 25, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Well can see what happened when someone tried banning that stuff.

Badger40 on July 25, 2012 at 11:52 AM

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

How many would not have died if someone in that theater was able and armed to fire back?

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 11:44 AM

The odds are that no one would have died if it hadn’t been designated as a Self-Defense-Denial-Zone, because he would have gone somewhere else.

He had planned that attack for months – does anyone think that he would have gone there if there were a chance someone would have been able to defend himself?

Chip on July 25, 2012 at 11:52 AM

I think that the war on drugs has proved that banning guns will remove them from society.

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Oh, absolutely! Like Prohibition stopped booze consumption. Works every time.

a capella on July 25, 2012 at 11:53 AM

If they want to debate reasonable restrictions on second amendment rights, how about a debate on reasonable restrictions on the first, i.e. freedom of the press? It’s clear from the coverage of this event that the press is either unable or unwilling to avoid excesses of baseless speculation, mangling of facts, leaping to conclusions, providing fame for violent nuts who crave attention, and abusing their victims when they’re emotionally vulnerable.

Something must be done to prevent these tragedies before they occur.

I’m sure, given the current unpopularity of the press, we could come up with polls that show a large majority of Americans willing to see restrictions on press coverage of these type of events, such as banning publishing the name or pictures of the murder, banning all speculation on his/her motives or political associations, allow only printing of verified facts, prevent descriptions of the weapons used other than make/model (I’m still seeing articles inaccurately calling Holmes’ AR-15 an “assault rifle”), and prohibit any quotes or video from interviews of victims or publishing their name.

These are just a few common-sense requirements that I’m sure all reasonable journalists can live with. After all, you can’t shout “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, and you can’t call an innocent man a mass-murder on national TV. Gun owners already live with considerable restrictions on their Constitutional rights, it’s time to have a debate about the press carrying their share of civic responsibility.

As for the debate on gun control laws, to quote Mr. President: “We won.”

Socratease on July 25, 2012 at 11:53 AM

What the Fluke is a heavy weapon? Something that requires a vehicle to transport and support?

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Made of heavy metal? Hair bands in black leather use them…..

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 11:53 AM

He had planned that attack for months – does anyone think that he would have gone there if there were a chance someone would have been able to defend himself?

Chip on July 25, 2012 at 11:52 AM

I’m not aware of many of these mass shootings that occur in areas where citizens may be packing. Gun free zones are the Big Rock Candy Mountain for a crazy.

a capella on July 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Hell, its possession and consumption isn’t even Constitionally protected!

Blacklake on July 25, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Ummm, yea, about that, actually it is… Since alcohol consumption was once banned by constitutional amendment, (18th amendment) when they6 repealed Prohibition, they did it with a Constitutional Amendment (21st amendment) which technically makes the consumption of alcohol a Constitutionally protected action.

SWalker on July 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Brian Ross asks a simple question: “Why didn’t the shooter attack the annual Fraternal Order of Police convention?”

Bishop on July 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

No more than with a half dozen Molotov cocktails, then blocking the exit door.
You’re clutching at high cap mags as part of all this? Good heavens, a little M1 Carbine has a 15 round mag and those can be exchanged quicker than you can sneeze. If you want to blame something, blame Earl Warren’s SC which essentially makes it impossible to protect society from crazies.

a capella on July 25, 2012 at 11:50 AM

The high cap mags issue is just like the “assault-weapons ban” – who decides just what exactly is “High capacity”?

100 rounds? 30 rounds? 5 rounds? 2 rounds?

[Apparently 2 is roughly the magic number between having a gun and having an “Arsenal”, BTW]

Chip on July 25, 2012 at 12:00 PM

SWalker on July 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Alcohol consumption is not constitutionally protected. The 21st Amendment put the issue entirely in the hands of the states. Any state can ban alcohol possession or consumption.

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Reports are his AR-15 jammed…due to a malfunction with the the 100 round drum.
He managed to kill 12 people, if preliminary reports are true, with the shotgun and a .40 caliber handgun (with a 40 capacity clip).
Question for the gun/ammo knowledgeable here:
How many do you think he would have managed to kill had the AR-15 not jammed?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

12 dead – but 71 shot. So the AR-15 didn’t jam right away, and he didn’t shoot that many with just the shotgun and handgun.
That doesn’t change the fact that 1 or 2 people with CCW could have stopped him fairly quick.
He may have been an “intelligent” psycho – but he’s obviously not skilled with weapons. My son has a 100 round drum for his AKM – and it is not very reliable – the high capacity drums just aren’t. A skilled shooter who knows weapons could have done much more damage with multiple clips.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 12:01 PM

I’m not aware of many of these mass shootings that occur in areas where citizens may be packing. Gun free zones are the Big Rock Candy Mountain for a crazy.

a capella on July 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM

2007

I think the real gun control debate needs to be about stopping businesses or schools from disarming law abiding citizens. Any property open to the public should not be allowed to disarm citizens. You want no weapons on your property? You don’t open your property to the public.

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 12:03 PM

He had planned that attack for months – does anyone think that he would have gone there if there were a chance someone would have been able to defend himself?

Chip on July 25, 2012 at 11:52 AM

I’m not aware of many of these mass shootings that occur in areas where citizens may be packing. Gun free zones are the Big Rock Candy Mountain for a crazy.

a capella on July 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Heh.

Don’t you just love the Left’s contention that ‘More guns equals more violence’ or some other such nonsense.

I wonder if they could explain why we never hear of massacre at a gun show?

Chip on July 25, 2012 at 12:04 PM

How many do you think he would have managed to kill had the AR-15 not jammed?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

What if he had used explosives?

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 11:47 AM

He didn’t have explosives.
Or a half dozen Molotov cocktails.
He didn’t have a flame thrower.
He didn’t have an M1 with a 15 round clip.
He didn’t have deadly laser beams.
He didn’t have a pack of wild dogs or a two ton pickup with a snowplow or a acid filled water canon or whatever other things you imagine to suggest could be another way to kill people.
He had – not at all surprisingly, a semi-automatic assault rifle…an AR-15 with 100 round clip…that jammed.
I can understand folks not wanting to offer an honest and objective answer to that question, but if anyone is so inclined…please weigh in.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:04 PM

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Reliability is key, isn’t it? Skilled shooters don’t use unreliable equipment. I have never seen an image of any of our troops using a drum style magazine on a rifle.

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 12:06 PM

The Problem For Democrats Is The Gun Lobby Is The Majority Of Americans
…..Charles Krauthammer

In Washington State there was a “Common Sense” Gun Control initiative (I-676 as we liked to call it) that was voted on. (Washington is a Deep Blue State!)

The Initiative was on the General Ballot, not a special election, yet there were over 100,000 ballots cast with nothing other than a NO on I 676 cast.
The final count on Initiative 676, the so-called “Handgun Safety Act” in Washington state, was:

FOR 496,633 29.4%
AGAINST 1,193,720 70.6%

The NO vote carried EVERY county in the state, even King County (56.7% NO), the most heavily populated, urbanized county in the state. Only one county east of the Cascades voted below 80% against the initiative (Whitman, at 78%). Even largely urban Spokane County voted 83.2% against. Only four counties west of the Cascades voted below 70% (San Juan, 54.9%, King 56.7%, Clark 65.8% and Clallam 67.5%).

You won’t hear the I-676 vote mentioned in the national media for one reason: it refutes the politically correct myth that “the people want more gun control.” As in Massachusetts in 1976 and California in 1982, Washington’s electorate rejected this gun control measure overwhelmingly.

Interestingly, before the election I-676 was described as a moderate, simple gun safety measure. After the election, and the surprising (to them) turnaround vote, the few media pundits who mentioned it at all excused its defeat by calling it a “harsh gun control law.”

Despite whining about “the NRA buying the election” and “lying to the people,” in fact the only lies were by I-676 proponents. Their own speakers guide instructed activists to “avoid getting bogged down in details,” “stress concept over content,” and “avoid the truth where it doesn’t support your argument.”

The NRA, who provided 2/3 of the $3.3 million collected to defeat I-676, spent about $28 per member in Washington, as opposed to $127 per member by Washington Ceasefire, the state’s Handgun Control affiliate.

Billed as a “grassroots movement,” I-676 proponents had a contributor list of about 1,000 individuals. 90+% of their money came from within a 20 mile radius of Seattle. WeCARE (Washington Citizens Against Regulatory Excess), the PAC formed to oppose the initiative, had a contributor list of more than 11,000.
Who had the grassroots movement?

Law enforcement opposition to I-676 played a critical role in the election. While I-676 proponents claimed to have l/e support (1 sheriff and 6-7 police chiefs), 33 county sheriffs came out in opposition to the initiative, and more than 7,500 of the state’s 9,000 police officers opposed it as well.

The pro-I-676 side bragged about their endorsement by the Washington State Medical Association, but declined to mention that WeCARE was not even permitted to make its case to the WSMA (I guess they feel 1st Amendment rights are as subject to restriction as 2nd Amendment). If you examine the number of physicians and other medical professionals listed with the state’s Public Disclosure Commission as contributing for/against I-676, you will see that WeCARE reported more than twice as many doctors and health professionals than Washington Citizens for Handgun Safety (Washington Ceasefire’s cover name for the election).

jaydee_007 on July 25, 2012 at 12:07 PM

2007

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 12:03 PM

The difference is it was a church – which he likely thought would be a gun free zone. Besides, that guy had already attacked 2 churches in Denver the night before, and as a result, this church (1 mile from my house) brought in more guards that day – with CCW. They were ready – but did not have guards out in the parking lot where he started. A private security guard with CCW took him down when he entered the church after shooting several people in the parking lot. She prevented him from getting into the main sanctuary area where he could have killed dozens or hundreds.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 12:09 PM

I can understand folks not wanting to offer an honest and objective answer to that question, but if anyone is so inclined…please weigh in.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:04 PM

A bunch more. There ya go.

I think the more pertinent question is the one what if regarding armed citizens being in the theater, if it had not bee a ‘gun free’ Zone.
That question is actually more valuable to the debate.

Badger40 on July 25, 2012 at 12:10 PM

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 12:09 PM

I was just pointing out how armed citizens prevent massacres.

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 12:11 PM

He didn’t have explosives.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Yes he did – but he chose to use them in his apartment instead of at the theater.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 12:11 PM

How many do you think he would have managed to kill had the AR-15 not jammed?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

What if he had used explosives?

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 11:47 AM

He didn’t have explosives.
Or a half dozen Molotov cocktails.
He didn’t have a flame thrower.
He didn’t have an M1 with a 15 round clip.
He didn’t have deadly laser beams.
He didn’t have a pack of wild dogs or a two ton pickup with a snowplow or a acid filled water canon or whatever other things you imagine to suggest could be another way to kill people.
He had – not at all surprisingly, a semi-automatic assault rifle…an AR-15 with 100 round clip…that jammed.
I can understand folks not wanting to offer an honest and objective answer to that question, but if anyone is so inclined…please weigh in.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:04 PM

The falicy or you supposed logic is twofold;

1) you assume if a gun was not available he would NOT have found a different method to kill people in the theater

and

2) That his goal was to Shoot people with a gun, rather than to simply Kill People by any means available to him.

That siad, your ridicule is non-sequitur and total bloviating nonsense.

jaydee_007 on July 25, 2012 at 12:12 PM

I was just pointing out how armed citizens prevent massacres.

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 12:11 PM

OK – I thought you were answering that a mass shooting had actually occurred in a non-gun free zone. My mistake.
But yes – that clarification is absolutely true.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 12:13 PM

jaydee_007 on July 25, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Very good info! Thanks.
It is nice to know my former state of abode is not as full of nutbags as I originally thought.
But I still would never move back to W. WA.
They’ve ruined it.

Badger40 on July 25, 2012 at 12:14 PM

A bunch more. There ya go.
I think the more pertinent question is the one what if regarding armed citizens being in the theater, if it had not bee a ‘gun free’ Zone.
That question is actually more valuable to the debate.
Badger40 on July 25, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Actually this isn’t true. Had he used four 30 round mags he would have got off 120 shots with no problems. The fact he used a flawed 100 round drum actually prevented more deaths. But idiots like the one you replied too who know jack s**t about guns would know this or care.

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 12:14 PM

I’m not aware of many of these mass shootings that occur in areas where citizens may be packing. Gun free zones are the Big Rock Candy Mountain for a crazy.

a capella on July 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM

2007

I think the real gun control debate needs to be about stopping businesses or schools from disarming law abiding citizens. Any property open to the public should not be allowed to disarm citizens. You want no weapons on your property? You don’t open your property to the public.

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 12:03 PM

+10000000

There really should be an enforceable liability issue for places that bow to the PC mavens and post their places as Self-Defense-Denial-Zones.

And not to go too far afield topic –wise: There is nothing more annoying that a business or other entity that not only bans guns from their buildings, but also ban them from their property.

That effectively means that you are rendered defenseless from the place where to you have to leave your gun (home or whatever) and every other place you go until you return if it includes a place that bans your 2nd amendment rights from it’s property.

That’s a gun control issue that really needs to be addressed.

Chip on July 25, 2012 at 12:14 PM

I can understand folks not wanting to offer an honest and objective answer to that question, but if anyone is so inclined…please weigh in.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Condecension noted…and ignored.

kingsjester on July 25, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Wouldn’t*

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 12:16 PM

I can understand folks not wanting to offer an honest and objective answer to that question, but if anyone is so inclined…please weigh in.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Probably because you are asking for speculation based on many variables regarding the shooter, many of which are unknown. I’ll offer this, though,…If he went into that expecting to inflict maximum casualties only because he had a 100 round drum mag, I suspect he had about the same level of expertise with firearms as,…..say, Bill O’Reilly.

a capella on July 25, 2012 at 12:18 PM

The falicy or you supposed logic is twofold;

1) you assume if a gun was not available he would NOT have found a different method to kill people in the theater

and

2) That his goal was to Shoot people with a gun, rather than to simply Kill People by any means available to him.

jaydee_007 on July 25, 2012 at 12:12 PM

1) It’s a convenient retort – he would have ‘found some other way’.
But I’m pretty comfortable saying, no – he porbably wouldn’t. He still would have used guns. This is what nutcase like this guy do when they do this sort of thing. And of course there are reaons for that that exist fully ouside of the gun control question/debate. For example, I don’t think there are that many ‘moltav cocktail massacre’ videos on the market.

2) Yes – I do assume that it was his goal to shoot and kill people with a gun.

I’m not the one making leaps of logic here.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:18 PM

I can understand folks not wanting to offer an honest and objective answer to that question, but if anyone is so inclined…please weigh in.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Ha ha. You ignore the crux of my argument – and the multiple other responses to your post – and claim no one has honestly engaged you? What a douche.

Here I’ll make it simple for you:

How many would not have died if someone in that theater was able and armed to fire back?

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Some of the worst shootings have occurred in countries with the strictest gun control laws: England, Germany, Sweden.

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 11:52 AM

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 12:20 PM

1) It’s a convenient retort – he would have ‘found some other way’.
But I’m pretty comfortable saying, no – he porbably wouldn’t. He still would have used guns. This is what nutcase like this guy do when they do this sort of thing. And of course there are reaons for that that exist fully ouside of the gun control question/debate. For example, I don’t think there are that many ‘moltav cocktail massacre’ videos on the market.
2) Yes – I do assume that it was his goal to shoot and kill people with a gun.
I’m not the one making leaps of logic here.
verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:18 PM

You’re a fool. The goal was to murder. He had bombs rigged in his house. Had he not been able to find a gun he would have used a bomb. Timothy McVaigh didn’t use a gun and he murdered 168 people wounding 450 others.

Save your anti-gun nonsense for the leftist trolls on Huffpo. Get the hell out of here with this nonsense.

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Chip on July 25, 2012 at 12:14 PM

YES!!!
I work on a military base – which does not allow any privately owned weapons. Granted we have a very high level of armed security all over the base, but this policy means I cannot protect myself for my 50 mile round trip commute because I’m not even allowed to have a gun in my car on the base, even if I leave it there while I work.
My son says Dish Network HQ in Denver has the same policy – no weapons allowed on company property – but they do have armed security in the building. Again – you can’t have anything in your car for the commute.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Chicago, another gun free area, seems to be doing really well on violent crime this summer…..

search4truth on July 25, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Probably because you are asking for speculation based on many variables regarding the shooter, many of which are unknown. I’ll offer this, though,…If he went into that expecting to inflict maximum casualties only because he had a 100 round drum mag, I suspect he had about the same level of expertise with firearms as,…..say, Bill O’Reilly.

a capella on July 25, 2012 at 12:18 PM

No…not ‘many variables regarding the shooter, many of which are unknown’.
I’m asking for speculation based on some very clear facts.
That he had this weapon and this high capacity clip, that is was undoubtedly his intention to use it, and that he wanted and was hoping to kill a lot more than 12 people.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:22 PM

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Stop disarming private citizens. Problem solved. And you are jumping to conclusions. This turd wanted to cause death and destruction and he picked a soft target. What if the target wasn’t so soft? Why not drive a car bomb into the theater instead?

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 12:25 PM

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Better yet would this monster been able to buy these guns and ammo and bomb materials had he not been given $26,000 a year in federal tax dollars for “spending money” as apart of a grant? Why the hell is OUR Government giving any 24 year old $26,000 a year?

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 12:26 PM

That he had this weapon and this high capacity clip, that is was undoubtedly his intention to use it, and that he wanted and was hoping to kill a lot more than 12 people.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:22 PM

You’ve also ignored the fact that its quick and easy to reload a gun.

You’re also expecting us to believe that if he had used, say a Glock with a standard-sized magazine, you wouldn’t be here claiming that semi-auto pistols with normal sized magazines should be outlawed.

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 12:27 PM

SWalker on July 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Alcohol consumption is not constitutionally protected. The 21st Amendment put the issue entirely in the hands of the states. Any state can ban alcohol possession or consumption.

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 12:00 PM

If any state tried to enact prohibition on it’s own, I can pretty much guarantee you that the 21 amendment would be used to bitchslap the attempt right straight into an alternative dimension.

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

It might seem to you that the 21 amendment kicks prohibition back to the state level, it in fact does not. Section 2 of the 21st amendment trigger’s the Dormant Commerce Clause thus making any state level enacted prohibition unconstitutional.

SWalker on July 25, 2012 at 12:27 PM

No…not ‘many variables regarding the shooter, many of which are unknown’.
I’m asking for speculation based on some very clear facts.
That he had this weapon and this high capacity clip, that is was undoubtedly his intention to use it, and that he wanted and was hoping to kill a lot more than 12 people.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:22 PM

So what was his goal in rigging his apartment with a bunch of bombs?
He wanted to kill people – and he wanted to do it directly.

Why are you unwilling to answer the many comments regarding how 1 person in that theater with CCW could have stopped him?
Why do you refuse to respond to the comments that if CCW was allowed there, he likely would not have gone there?
Killers ALWAYS go where they know they can inflict damage with little to no threat to themselves. Why do you libtards insist on ignoring that simple FACT?

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 12:28 PM

SWalker on July 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Alcohol consumption is not constitutionally protected. The 21st Amendment put the issue entirely in the hands of the states. Any state can ban alcohol possession or consumption.

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 12:00 PM

If any state tried to enact prohibition on it’s own, I can pretty much guarantee you that the 21 amendment would be used to bi!tchslap the attempt right straight into an alternative dimension.

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

It might seem to you that the 21 amendment kicks prohibition back to the state level, it in fact does not. Section 2 of the 21st amendment trigger’s the Dormant Commerce Clause thus making any state level enacted prohibition unconstitutional.

SWalker on July 25, 2012 at 12:28 PM

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Everyone in the US is only allowed to own a two shot Deringer. And gosh darn it, nobody better break that law because there will be heck to pay if you do!

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 12:29 PM

A bunch more. There ya go.

I think the more pertinent question is the one what if regarding armed citizens being in the theater, if it had not bee a ‘gun free’ Zone.
That question is actually more valuable to the debate.

Badger40 on July 25, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Thanks for an honest answer.
I agree…a bunch more.
Of course we can’t say how many, but ‘a bunch more’ is fair and accurate guess.

As for the argument that someone carrying would have been able to stop him – certainly a possibility (and I wish that had happened).
But such derangement accompanied by such firepower and protective gear does more than just suggest he had the upper hand…by far.
There were folks carrying near the Gabby Giffords shooting.
But the shooter there was subdued by unarmed folks when he was trying to load another 31 round clip.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:30 PM

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 12:27 PM

He ignored my post above. Swapping out four 30 round mags as they emptied would have caused more death. Using a highly flawed 100 round drum actually prevent deaths as those have a tendency to jam. The guy wasn’t able to get off 100 rounds using the rifle. He did most of his damage with the shotgun and handgun.

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Chip on July 25, 2012 at 12:14 PM

YES!!!
I work on a military base – which does not allow any privately owned weapons. Granted we have a very high level of armed security all over the base, but this policy means I cannot protect myself for my 50 mile round trip commute because I’m not even allowed to have a gun in my car on the base, even if I leave it there while I work.
My son says Dish Network HQ in Denver has the same policy – no weapons allowed on company property – but they do have armed security in the building. Again – you can’t have anything in your car for the commute.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Yeah, not only are they denying your basic human right of self-defense on their premises, they are effectively denying it for you everywhere else.

That has to change in light of the events in Colorado.

Chip on July 25, 2012 at 12:31 PM

SWalker on July 25, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Section 2 leaves the issue entirely up to each state.

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Thanks for an honest answer.
I agree…a bunch more.
Of course we can’t say how many, but ‘a bunch more’ is fair and accurate guess.
verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Are you stupid or just dishonest?

He ignored my post above. Swapping out four 30 round mags as they emptied would have caused more death. Using a highly flawed 100 round drum actually prevent deaths as those have a tendency to jam. The guy wasn’t able to get off 100 rounds using the rifle. He did most of his damage with the shotgun and handgun.
jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 12:31 PM

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 12:33 PM

But such derangement accompanied by such firepower and protective gear does more than just suggest he had the upper hand…by far.
There were folks carrying near the Gabby Giffords shooting.
But the shooter there was subdued by unarmed folks when he was trying to load another 31 round clip.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Still throwing out the “protective gear” distraction? That’s dishonest since it has already been established that he did NOT in fact have bullet proof armor.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Everyone in the US is only allowed to own a two shot Deringer. And gosh darn it, nobody better break that law because there will be heck to pay if you do!

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 12:29 PM

We should also pass a law demanding a reasonable chance to parley before opening hostilities and everyone use Queensbury Rules if a conflict ensues.

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 12:33 PM

There were folks carrying near the Gabby Giffords shooting.
verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Source? From my understanding political events are “gun free zones”.

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 12:35 PM

How many would Ahole have killed if he had erected an MG42 on a tripod and commenced blowing through belt after belt of ammo into the crowd?

The question was dumb because there are 1,001 variables that cannot simply be plugged into a template to arrive at a casualty number.

Bishop on July 25, 2012 at 12:35 PM

So what was his goal in rigging his apartment with a bunch of bombs?
He wanted to kill people – and he wanted to do it directly.

Why are you unwilling to answer the many comments regarding how 1 person in that theater with CCW could have stopped him?
Why do you refuse to respond to the comments that if CCW was allowed there, he likely would not have gone there?
Killers ALWAYS go where they know they can inflict damage with little to no threat to themselves. Why do you libtards insist on ignoring that simple FACT?

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Law enforcement seems to feel the intention of the apartment booby traps was to create a diversion. Perhaps to get away or to allow for further shooting of folks elsewhere. He told the police about the explosives there. If he wanted to kill them, maybe he wouldn’t have. But who knows. Now I really am speculating.
As for the CCW argument, I replied to that somewhat in a response to Badger40 above.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Thanks for an honest answer.
I agree…a bunch more.
Of course we can’t say how many, but ‘a bunch more’ is fair and accurate guess.

As for the argument that someone carrying would have been able to stop him – certainly a possibility (and I wish that had happened).
But such derangement accompanied by such firepower and protective gear does more than just suggest he had the upper hand…by far.
There were folks carrying near the Gabby Giffords shooting.
But the shooter there was subdued by unarmed folks when he was trying to load another 31 round clip.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:30 PM

So what’s your standard? A law that – if for some reason followed by criminals bent on murder – would somehow guarantee murders couldn’t kill anyone? Guns are used on a regular basis by law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals.

It is very likely that if someone in that theater had been armed he would have killed fewer people. It’s also true that whatever roadblocks you threw up in terms of illegal arms would have not been a factor. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out (and you’ve ignored) countries with much stiffer gun control laws than us have seen some of the worst shootings (England, Germany, Sweden).

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 12:38 PM

There were folks carrying near the Gabby Giffords shooting.
verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Source? From my understanding political events are “gun free zones”.

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Here you go – this guy was carrying..and he almost shot the wrong guy.
Gotta be a stressful and confusing scene. Not a shock that the CCW hypothetical doesn’t unfold as many imagine it would.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41018893/ns/slate_com/t/armed-giffords-hero-nearly-shot-wrong-man/#.UBAecfXmPYg

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Still throwing out the “protective gear” distraction? That’s dishonest since it has already been established that he did NOT in fact have bullet proof armor.
dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Indeed. A ballistic vest is NOT an armored vest or even a Kevlar vest. But let’s assume he was heavy armored, a direct hit to the arm, face, leg or stomach with a .45 ACP would have at least knocked his guy on his rear. But Verb doesn’t want facts to get in the way of his anti-gun narrative.

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 12:39 PM

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Yea, MSNBC…

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 12:40 PM

There were folks carrying near the Gabby Giffords shooting.
But the shooter there was subdued by unarmed folks when he was trying to load another 31 round clip.

Daytime event, out in the open, no tear gas clouds or darkness or confusion that the attack was somehow a movie stunt to impress the audience. Different people, different venues, different different different.

We will never know how all the “what ifs” would have played out, but the old rule still stands as the best rule: Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Bishop on July 25, 2012 at 12:41 PM

As for the CCW argument, I replied to that somewhat in a response to Badger40 above.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:36 PM

No – you really didn’t. You keep trying to sidestep that very relevant argument.
You keep digging for arguments to ban guns and large capacity magazines without ackhowledging all relevant facts – as is typical for liberals who have no concept of cause and effect or long term or unintended consequences.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 12:41 PM

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:30 PM

The truth is that gun control laws very marginally affect criminals but have a large impact on law abiding citizens. Restricting arms disproportionately negatively affects law abiding citizens and hands an advantage to criminals.

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 12:42 PM

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Dishonest hackery does you no good. Zamudio shot no one and arrived at the scene after Loughner was disarmed.

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 12:42 PM

When? Probably before you go to the range.

After that it’s: ” All ready on the right? All ready on the Left? Shooters, look down range. You may commence firing when your “Dog” target appears.”

Cleombrotus on July 25, 2012 at 12:43 PM

When? Probably before you go to the range.
After that it’s: ” All ready on the right? All ready on the Left?

All ready on the firing line?

Shooters, look down range. You may commence firing when your “Dog” target appears.”
Cleombrotus on July 25, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Almost forgot that line.

It’s been a few years.

Cleombrotus on July 25, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Mr. Walker obviously did have knowledge of explosives: his apartment had them. Not just commercially made ones, either, as he had his own binary explosives rigged up as well.

Someone with a medical track and prior biomed track in university has plenty of knowledge to apply to more than just mere explosives. Things like Vx, Sarin and Ricin are all within his ready capability to fabricate as well as plain old mustard gas. We are all very, very lucky that he didn’t put his knowledge to this beyond that lovely apartment of his. A nutcase with that kind of knowledge, given just a few months, could create some truly awful materials that would fly under everyone’s radar as you can’t prohibit or even track the sales of the precursors or raw materials to make worse.

Do remember that this is what the Unabomber did: make it all by hand including turn his own screws to make his bombs. I shudder to think what someone with proper chemical, biomed and medical training with a specialization in the neurosciences could make.

This isn’t a worse case scenario that we saw but a best case scenario for someone with this background. And we should all be most thankful that he DIDN’T PUT HIS SKILLS TO USE. Very thankful.

ajacksonian on July 25, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Here you go – this guy was carrying..and he almost shot the wrong guy.
Gotta be a stressful and confusing scene. Not a shock that the CCW hypothetical doesn’t unfold as many imagine it would.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41018893/ns/slate_com/t/armed-giffords-hero-nearly-shot-wrong-man/#.UBAecfXmPYg

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Who has said that CCW scenarios would play out perfectly? A fight is chaotic and things can easily go wrong but that isn’t a reason to deny people a chance at defending themselves.

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 12:45 PM

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Oh..so you mean if only there was someone carrying standing right next to such a maniac at the moment he pulls out his weapon.
Right.
What kind of hackery do you call that?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:45 PM

SWalker on July 25, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Section 2 leaves the issue entirely up to each state.

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Apparently you are unaware of GRANHOLM v. HEALD.

SWalker on July 25, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Who has said that CCW scenarios would play out perfectly? A fight is chaotic and things can easily go wrong but that isn’t a reason to deny people a chance at defending themselves.

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 12:45 PM

It is a childishly ridiculous example anyways. Zamudio only did what any police officer would do after arriving at a scene like that with no foreknowledge of the perpetrators. He didn’t randomly open fire with his sidearm (probably equipped with a scary eleventy billion round drum magazine). He verbally confronted the first armed individual he saw.

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Who has said that CCW scenarios would play out perfectly? A fight is chaotic and things can easily go wrong but that isn’t a reason to deny people a chance at defending themselves.

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 12:45 PM

I agree, and made the same point myself.
It’s not about denying folks the right to defend, or to carry.
It about how hard it would be to defend against such a military-grade level of assault weaponry.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:50 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41018893/ns/slate_com/t/armed-giffords-hero-nearly-shot-wrong-man/#.UBAecfXmPYg

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:39 PM

The title says it all. He NEARLY shot the wrong person – but he didn’t shoot anyone. Meaning he was properly trained and smart about the use of his weapon.
So MSPMS tries to make a big anti-gun deal out of something that DIDN’T happen – and you use that as justification for your anti-gun BS. Really? let’s talk about dishonest some more.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Oh..so you mean if only there was someone carrying standing right next to such a maniac at the moment he pulls out his weapon.
Right.
What kind of hackery do you call that?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:45 PM

That’s not what NotCoach said. Your were – apparently – claiming that someone who was carrying at the scene of the Giffords shooting didn’t do anything to stop it and almost shot the wrong person. NotCoach was pointing out that this person didn’t even have a chance to stop the shooting because he wasn’t there when it took place.

So, yes, we are making the astounding claim that someone has to be there with a gun at the time of the violence to stop it and that – in fact – CCW permits don’t come with time travel powers.

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Oh..so you mean if only there was someone carrying standing right next to such a maniac at the moment he pulls out his weapon.
Right.
What kind of hackery do you call that?
verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:45 PM

What in the hell does this even mean?

So who kills more? A mass murders unopposed? Or a mass murder who is shot by others carrying legally?

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Apparently you are unaware of GRANHOLM v. HEALD.

SWalker on July 25, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Nothing to do with whether a state can ban alcohol or not. That ruling was against Michigan’s unequal treatment of wine sellers. In state sellers were allowed to do things out of state sellers couldn’t.

Have you never heard of dry counties? They still exist you know.

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4