The Tweeter in chief is claiming that the vast majority of terrorists since 9/11 come from outside the US. That is simply false. Most of the Islamic terrorists in the US were born here and all of those who were born elsewhere were radicalized after they were already here. Apparently they discovered that the streets of the new country are no more paved with gold than those of the old country were. All of these seem to be people who had mental health issues unrelated to Islam and chose rationalize their attacks with Islam.
A few examples:
Nidal Hasan, the 2009 Fort Hood shooter, was born in Virginia. It's pretty clear that he was having mental health issues that had little to do with his ethnicity, but that he used it to rationalize what he was doing. He killed 13 with a gun.
Rizwan Farook, the 2015 San Bernardino shooter, was born in Chicago and grew up in Riverside, CA, not far from San Bernardino. His wife, Tashfeen Malik, was born in Pakistan but had lived most of her life in Saudi Arabia. Neither country is on Trump's proposed ban. He seems to have had anger issues for most of his life and chose to marry a similarly inclined person that he'd met on the internet. They killed 14.
Omar Mateen, the 2016 Orlando Night Club shooter, was born in Hyde Park, New York. He seems to have had self-hatred over his own sexuality, exacerbated by misguided fundamentalist teachings and bullying over his heritage and his sexuality. He targeted gay people in the night club and killed 49 of them
Naveed Haq brought two guns into a Jewish Federation office in Seattle in 2006 and began shooting the workers there, all women. One was killed. Haq is of Pakistani descent but he'd gone to school in Kennewick, WA. He was 30 at the time of the shootings. He seems to have been bipolar and had been arrested for public exposure, and had anger towards both women and Jews.
John Muhammad, originally John Williams, committed the 2002 Beltway sniper attacks. He was born in Baton Rouge and had converted to Islam at age 27. He had fantasized about creating a terrorist training camp in Canada, but he had always had violence issues and was probably a psychopath.
Abdulhamid Mujahid Muhammad, the 2009 Little Rock shooter, was born in Tennessee as Carlos Bledsoe to a Baptist family and converted to Islam. He killed one, injured one. He seemed more angry at the military than at non-muslims.
Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the 2013 Boston Marathon bombers, were born in Kyrgyzstan of Chechen and Kyrgyz ancestry, and brought to the US by their parents with their two sisters as small children. Tamerlan enjoyed fighting and seems to have been radicalized as a teen, and pressured his younger brother to participate in the bombing.
Zale H Thompson attacked 4 New York police officers with a hatchet in 2014, killing one and injuring another before the cops killed him and injured an innocent bystander. Thompson, a native New Yorker, had been active in various black power groups before converting to Islam.
Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi attacked a 2015 cartoon exhibit in Garland, Texas which had been organized by an Islamophobic group to display cartoons of the prophet Mohammad. While images of the prophet are not banned by Islam, many fundamentalist groups regard them as blasphemous. Simpson and Soofi didn't get many shots off before they were killed by police guarding the exhibit. Simpson was born near Chicago and had converted to islam in high school, Soofi was born and raised in Dallas.
Muhammad Abdulazeez shot up two army recruiting centers in Chattanooga in 2015. He'd been born in Kuwait and was brought to Tennessee as a 6 year old, 19 years before the shootings. He'd been having drug problems and his parents had recently divorced.
Abdul Artan crashed his car into a crowd of people at Ohio State University in 2016, and then lept out and began attacking them with a knife. He injured 11, mostly with the car. He was killed by police who injured one or maybe two innocent bystanders. Artan had been born in Somalia and had come to America with his family at age 8. He is the only "Islamic Terrorist" in the US that I've been able to find that actually did come from one of the countries in Trump's ban.
The September 11th attacks of 2001 were carried out by 19 Arabs, 15 of them from Saudi Arabia, 2 from UAE, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon. None of these countries are on Trump's list. All 19 of the hijackers had entered the US legally and most were still legal at the time of the attack, although a few had overstayed their visa. They killed 2996 people including themselves, and injured about 6000.
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
06 March 2017
02 June 2016
The Third Commandment
Pennsylvania Representative Brian Sims observes that: "On the list of things that actually stop shootings in this country, I'm
going to put Prayer somewhere down around pencil shavings and Ovaltine." He later apologized to Ovaltine. I think he's still giving prayer too much credit.
A lot of people think that Prayer does no harm, and it might do good. God, after all, might be listening. Of course if he believed that gun violence was something worth doing something about and had the power to do something, why would he need the prayer? Is He such a jerk that he'll let thousands of innocents die each year and won't do anything about it unless we pray even more?
But of course it does do harm. The idea that God responds to your prayers is an example of a gambling fallacy known as the hot-hand fallacy. If your prayer works once or twice, a lot of people think that "luck is on their side", when really, it was something else...possibly random chance. But it really discredits the hard work you might have put in to develop your skill at shooting the basketball, and it especially discredits the hard work your opponent did. Perhaps most dangerous is that it might suck you into believing that the one-armed bandit is on your side. Nearly all gambling is designed so that whether you win or lose is completely unrelated to how it went last time, and outfits like the Nevada Gaming Commission work hard to make sure this is really the case. (Billiards and horse racing are exceptions, and to some extent counting cards in blackjack, but such exceptions are rare).
Moses understood this. He gave us the third commandment, about not taking the Lord's name in vain. This has nothing to do with offensive language. If you think God might actually damn someone because you asked, if you think the reason you scored the touchdown or won the roulette roll is that you been praying for it, then you've implicitly decided that God is playing favorites and that you've been picked. You are taking the Lord's name--and your whole relationship with Him--in vain. The next step is thinking that prayer gives you special privileges: that because you pray a lot, it's ok to shoot other people, for example, or it's ok to not put in your fair share of the payment at dinner.
Prayer gives a lot of people solace. If you spend some time, at the end of the day for example, thinking about your goals and what you've done towards or against them that day, it's potentially productive. It doesn't matter if the abstraction you're talking to in your mind is God or a dead ancestor or something else, what matters is that you're thinking about this stuff, and trying to make yourself better. Belief in yourself is helpful. Believing that God might step in against shootings or to help you win the game or that promotion is taking the Lord's name in vain.
A lot of people think that Prayer does no harm, and it might do good. God, after all, might be listening. Of course if he believed that gun violence was something worth doing something about and had the power to do something, why would he need the prayer? Is He such a jerk that he'll let thousands of innocents die each year and won't do anything about it unless we pray even more?
But of course it does do harm. The idea that God responds to your prayers is an example of a gambling fallacy known as the hot-hand fallacy. If your prayer works once or twice, a lot of people think that "luck is on their side", when really, it was something else...possibly random chance. But it really discredits the hard work you might have put in to develop your skill at shooting the basketball, and it especially discredits the hard work your opponent did. Perhaps most dangerous is that it might suck you into believing that the one-armed bandit is on your side. Nearly all gambling is designed so that whether you win or lose is completely unrelated to how it went last time, and outfits like the Nevada Gaming Commission work hard to make sure this is really the case. (Billiards and horse racing are exceptions, and to some extent counting cards in blackjack, but such exceptions are rare).
Moses understood this. He gave us the third commandment, about not taking the Lord's name in vain. This has nothing to do with offensive language. If you think God might actually damn someone because you asked, if you think the reason you scored the touchdown or won the roulette roll is that you been praying for it, then you've implicitly decided that God is playing favorites and that you've been picked. You are taking the Lord's name--and your whole relationship with Him--in vain. The next step is thinking that prayer gives you special privileges: that because you pray a lot, it's ok to shoot other people, for example, or it's ok to not put in your fair share of the payment at dinner.
Prayer gives a lot of people solace. If you spend some time, at the end of the day for example, thinking about your goals and what you've done towards or against them that day, it's potentially productive. It doesn't matter if the abstraction you're talking to in your mind is God or a dead ancestor or something else, what matters is that you're thinking about this stuff, and trying to make yourself better. Belief in yourself is helpful. Believing that God might step in against shootings or to help you win the game or that promotion is taking the Lord's name in vain.
14 March 2016
Aluminum Overcast
Someone--at least as far back as Bismark's general Helmuth von Moltke--said "No plan survives contact with the enemy." It's consistent with the ideas of Sun Tzu although nothing quite like it appears in "The Art of War".
The US prevailed in WWII not by the superiority of its technology, although there was some of that, but by superior numbers. The US industrial base was able to produce more planes, tanks and ships than our enemies. That included producing a lot of them for our allies. The German Panzer tank was significantly superior to the US Sherman, but a plan was quickly devised where three or more Shermans could defeat a single Panzer, essentially by trapping it and forcing it into a crossfire. There were a lot more Shermans than Panzers so this tactic proved effective. Liberty ships were produced in such great numbers for such low cost that they were considered to have paid for their construction cost if they successfully made a single shipment.
Before the war, there was some design work and a little advance production by the US, but the real work didn't start until after Pearl Harbor. There were lots of big surprises. For example, before the war it had been thought that bombers needed to be able to defend themselves, consequently B-17s and B-24s carried a lot of guns. 5 or 6 of the 10 member crew of a B-17 were primarily there to man the guns. But it turned out it didn't work all that well and there were appalling losses of bomber crews, and work was quickly begun on a fighter with sufficient range to travel with them to the target. Once the P-51 came on line, the bomber losses dropped dramatically.
During the Cold War, lots of ideas about the enemy promoted lots of ideas about how we should defend ourselves, and this led to an ever escalating rise in complexity and cost. The various skirmishes that did occur: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia, showed how completely inappropriate the Cold War ideas about weapons were for the conflicts we actually did have. B-1s, B-2s, F-117s, Nuclear Aircraft Carriers, etc., were all used in the Iraq conflicts, against enemies who were almost completely defenseless against those, and would have been almost equally defenseless against B52s and F4s, designed in the early 1950s. (not completely: surface to air missiles took down a number of planes, including an F-117 during Bosnia.). The most effective planes of the present generation, by far, are the drones, such as the Predator, which has performance not much more impressive than a WWI Sopwith Camel, but carries modern weapons and observation gear and can be flown remotely.
Recently, one of the more effective 1980s generation airplanes, the A-10 "WartHog", was retired in favor of the as yet undebugged F-35. Each F-35 costs more than ten times as much and cannot do any of the missions the Warthog proved so effective at very well. The F-35 program costs roughly the same amount each year as the SNAP "food stamp" program that feeds 5 million people every day.
We need national defense, no doubt, but we need to do it wisely. The over-reliance on extremely complex military systems does not keep us safe; it does the opposite. We are committing large portions of our treasure and talent to producing weapons that are not particularly useful. At the same time, we're offshoring our once formidable industrial base. Should we need to project force the way we did in World War II, we no longer have the industrial base that won WWII. It doesn't appear that we have any enemies who could take us on, but should we be surprised, with our absurd military, we will almost certainly lose.
The US prevailed in WWII not by the superiority of its technology, although there was some of that, but by superior numbers. The US industrial base was able to produce more planes, tanks and ships than our enemies. That included producing a lot of them for our allies. The German Panzer tank was significantly superior to the US Sherman, but a plan was quickly devised where three or more Shermans could defeat a single Panzer, essentially by trapping it and forcing it into a crossfire. There were a lot more Shermans than Panzers so this tactic proved effective. Liberty ships were produced in such great numbers for such low cost that they were considered to have paid for their construction cost if they successfully made a single shipment.
Before the war, there was some design work and a little advance production by the US, but the real work didn't start until after Pearl Harbor. There were lots of big surprises. For example, before the war it had been thought that bombers needed to be able to defend themselves, consequently B-17s and B-24s carried a lot of guns. 5 or 6 of the 10 member crew of a B-17 were primarily there to man the guns. But it turned out it didn't work all that well and there were appalling losses of bomber crews, and work was quickly begun on a fighter with sufficient range to travel with them to the target. Once the P-51 came on line, the bomber losses dropped dramatically.
During the Cold War, lots of ideas about the enemy promoted lots of ideas about how we should defend ourselves, and this led to an ever escalating rise in complexity and cost. The various skirmishes that did occur: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia, showed how completely inappropriate the Cold War ideas about weapons were for the conflicts we actually did have. B-1s, B-2s, F-117s, Nuclear Aircraft Carriers, etc., were all used in the Iraq conflicts, against enemies who were almost completely defenseless against those, and would have been almost equally defenseless against B52s and F4s, designed in the early 1950s. (not completely: surface to air missiles took down a number of planes, including an F-117 during Bosnia.). The most effective planes of the present generation, by far, are the drones, such as the Predator, which has performance not much more impressive than a WWI Sopwith Camel, but carries modern weapons and observation gear and can be flown remotely.
Recently, one of the more effective 1980s generation airplanes, the A-10 "WartHog", was retired in favor of the as yet undebugged F-35. Each F-35 costs more than ten times as much and cannot do any of the missions the Warthog proved so effective at very well. The F-35 program costs roughly the same amount each year as the SNAP "food stamp" program that feeds 5 million people every day.
We need national defense, no doubt, but we need to do it wisely. The over-reliance on extremely complex military systems does not keep us safe; it does the opposite. We are committing large portions of our treasure and talent to producing weapons that are not particularly useful. At the same time, we're offshoring our once formidable industrial base. Should we need to project force the way we did in World War II, we no longer have the industrial base that won WWII. It doesn't appear that we have any enemies who could take us on, but should we be surprised, with our absurd military, we will almost certainly lose.
05 December 2015
Australian Crime Wave
Gun rights advocates are fond of pointing out that despite or perhaps because of the gun ban in Australia, crime rates have gone up there.
In fact, neither of these things is true. After several mass killings, culminating with the Port Arthur Massacre of 1996, the National Firearms Agreement brought the many contradictory regional gun laws into alignment, and required that all gun owners be licensed and store their guns safely. There is no ban, although it's distinctly harder for a criminal or crazy person to get a gun. There was a major buyback, which removed about 1/3rd of the guns in legal circulation, but there remain millions of legal gun owners in Australia.
Crime did go up briefly, but it's now substantially lower than before the Agreement. In fact, the spike began before the Port Arthur Massacre and had returned to previous levels by 2004. I've transcribed Robberies (both armed and not, which are the vast majorities of violent crimes) but other violent crimes show a nearly identical spike during this period, except for sexual assault, which has showed a rise that's fairly consistent with population. I've been trying to figure out if anybody knows what the cause was, but I haven't found it yet.
Gun deaths seem to have roughly halved according to this, but it's pretty fuzzy and I haven't found a precise numerical source yet. (the same graph shows a saving of about 12,000 lives a year due to the brady bill)
Population Robberies Per 100000
1993 17494 12765 73
1994 17667 13967 79
1995 17854 14564 82
1996 18071 16372 91
1997 18310 21305 116
1998 18517 23801 129
1999 18711 22606 121
2000 18925 23336 123
2001 19153 26591 139
2002 19413 20989 108
2003 19651 19709 100
2004 19895 16513 83
2005 20127 17176 85
2006 20394 17375 85
2007 20697 17996 87
2008 21015 16508 79
2009 21262 15238 72
2010 22183 14631 66
2011 22340 13653 61
2012 22723 13155 58
Population of Australia
Victims of Violent Crime
In fact, neither of these things is true. After several mass killings, culminating with the Port Arthur Massacre of 1996, the National Firearms Agreement brought the many contradictory regional gun laws into alignment, and required that all gun owners be licensed and store their guns safely. There is no ban, although it's distinctly harder for a criminal or crazy person to get a gun. There was a major buyback, which removed about 1/3rd of the guns in legal circulation, but there remain millions of legal gun owners in Australia.
Crime did go up briefly, but it's now substantially lower than before the Agreement. In fact, the spike began before the Port Arthur Massacre and had returned to previous levels by 2004. I've transcribed Robberies (both armed and not, which are the vast majorities of violent crimes) but other violent crimes show a nearly identical spike during this period, except for sexual assault, which has showed a rise that's fairly consistent with population. I've been trying to figure out if anybody knows what the cause was, but I haven't found it yet.
Gun deaths seem to have roughly halved according to this, but it's pretty fuzzy and I haven't found a precise numerical source yet. (the same graph shows a saving of about 12,000 lives a year due to the brady bill)
Population Robberies Per 100000
1993 17494 12765 73
1994 17667 13967 79
1995 17854 14564 82
1996 18071 16372 91
1997 18310 21305 116
1998 18517 23801 129
1999 18711 22606 121
2000 18925 23336 123
2001 19153 26591 139
2002 19413 20989 108
2003 19651 19709 100
2004 19895 16513 83
2005 20127 17176 85
2006 20394 17375 85
2007 20697 17996 87
2008 21015 16508 79
2009 21262 15238 72
2010 22183 14631 66
2011 22340 13653 61
2012 22723 13155 58
Population of Australia
Victims of Violent Crime
25 June 2015
The Lost Cause
Many southerners see the Confederate defeat of 150 years ago as a defeat for a form of civilization that they admire--chivalry, graciousness, hospitality, independence and self sufficiency. These are laudable traits, but that's not what the Civil War was about. The wealthy southern landowners portrayed their cause as being that, as part of the pro-war propaganda. It was indeed about a way of life--the wealthy landowners could not see a way of maintaining themselves in the style to which they had become accustomed without slavery and the repression of the black race. When the ugly truth about what the war was really about was brought to the fore, they of course did their best to revise history, change the subject, and find new ways of getting extremely cheap labor, many of which continue to involve repressing poor blacks, and other poor people.
50 years ago at the height of the civil rights movement and the centenary of the Civil War, many of these repressions were blocked by federal action. The confederate battle flag, of which there had been only a handful during the war itself and had been called "the southern cross", had become a symbol for the Ku Klux Klan, and was re-purposed to represent resistance to the civil rights movement. And of course the good things about the southern way of life. Most southerners believed the happy lie, but southern blacks and educated others knew exactly what it really meant, and cringed when they saw it. Most of the ex-confederate capitols flew some version of it for a time, and a few incorporated it into their state flag.
There are some good southern values and history worthy of preservation. But the flag does not represent them. Revisionism and denial of the horrors of history is not a cause worthy of defense. That is what the confederate battle flag represents, and since Appomattox, always has. Those that died serving the confederacy were victims of an evil regime, just as slaves were. All deserve to be mourned, even if they were deluded during their lifetime.
There are lots of causes that seem lost but are worth fighting for. Until last week, getting the flag off of government properties seemed hopeless, but today it seems inevitable. (I worry though, that pro-gun advocates are using it as a stalking horse to stop the conversation we should be having about gun control) Theodore Roosevelt tried to get universal public health insurance for Americans, more than a century ago. It took more than a century. We don't quite have it yet, but we're a lot closer than we were 7 years ago. There are lost causes worth continuing to fight for. There are others that need to go to the ash heap of history.
I hope that someone does come up with a symbol that represents the good parts of southern values and heritage, without the burden of slavery and oppression. It's even possible it might be one of the other confederate battle flags, one that was not used by the Ku Klux Klan to incite repression of blacks.
As for the flag itself, I think we need to treat it as free speech and not be banned, but deprecated as offensive. I think we have a good prototype in religious speech: representatives of government must not display it, including public school teachers, elected officials and other public employees, and it should be kept off of state or federal property, except for museums. But several stores and flagmakers have announced that they will no longer make or sell it. I think this is a violation of free speech. I want it to go away because nobody wants to express what it says, not because the expression itself has been banned.
50 years ago at the height of the civil rights movement and the centenary of the Civil War, many of these repressions were blocked by federal action. The confederate battle flag, of which there had been only a handful during the war itself and had been called "the southern cross", had become a symbol for the Ku Klux Klan, and was re-purposed to represent resistance to the civil rights movement. And of course the good things about the southern way of life. Most southerners believed the happy lie, but southern blacks and educated others knew exactly what it really meant, and cringed when they saw it. Most of the ex-confederate capitols flew some version of it for a time, and a few incorporated it into their state flag.
There are some good southern values and history worthy of preservation. But the flag does not represent them. Revisionism and denial of the horrors of history is not a cause worthy of defense. That is what the confederate battle flag represents, and since Appomattox, always has. Those that died serving the confederacy were victims of an evil regime, just as slaves were. All deserve to be mourned, even if they were deluded during their lifetime.
There are lots of causes that seem lost but are worth fighting for. Until last week, getting the flag off of government properties seemed hopeless, but today it seems inevitable. (I worry though, that pro-gun advocates are using it as a stalking horse to stop the conversation we should be having about gun control) Theodore Roosevelt tried to get universal public health insurance for Americans, more than a century ago. It took more than a century. We don't quite have it yet, but we're a lot closer than we were 7 years ago. There are lost causes worth continuing to fight for. There are others that need to go to the ash heap of history.
I hope that someone does come up with a symbol that represents the good parts of southern values and heritage, without the burden of slavery and oppression. It's even possible it might be one of the other confederate battle flags, one that was not used by the Ku Klux Klan to incite repression of blacks.
As for the flag itself, I think we need to treat it as free speech and not be banned, but deprecated as offensive. I think we have a good prototype in religious speech: representatives of government must not display it, including public school teachers, elected officials and other public employees, and it should be kept off of state or federal property, except for museums. But several stores and flagmakers have announced that they will no longer make or sell it. I think this is a violation of free speech. I want it to go away because nobody wants to express what it says, not because the expression itself has been banned.
12 October 2014
Gun Control
There was a shooting very late Friday night across the street from my building. I was on the balcony of my condo, 23 floors up on the opposite side of the building, and I heard it, but didn't see it. There were about a dozen police about a block north, as there often are at closing time for the night clubs and bars in the area. Surprisingly, while a few hundred people ran away from where the sounds seemed to be coming from, perhaps 50 ran towards the sounds. Some of them were cops. At first, the sounds seemed like a string of firecrackers--at least 4 shots going off within half a second, with several more following, but when I saw the look on the cops (from 250 feet away) I knew it was something else. One guy was killed on the scene, gun still in hand, two others were injured and were taken to the hospital, and the cops are still looking for another shooter. They're not saying whether the two injured people were bystanders or participants, but the two principals, the dead guy and the one that got away, had been friends.
The comments to the newspaper article are telling. Virtually all of them point out how upcoming initiative 594, which would require background checks for all gun transfers, would not have stopped this. Perhaps, but over time, things will be different. Right now, we have a gun culture. Too many people think, incorrectly, that having a gun makes them safer. The statistics say something quite different. As illustrated by Friday night's gunfight, the presence of a guns makes the situation much more dangerous for everybody, both those with the guns and others. This was most likely an argument that escalated. Had there been no guns, there might be bloody noses or even broken bones, but it's unlikely anybody would be dead. It doesn't sound like it in this case, but it could also be that it was gang related. Were possession of an unlicensed firearm a crime, the police could have stepped in before there was a problem. The only people who are made safer by having a gun are those who have a job that exposes them to armed and dangerous people all the time: basically police and active duty military. All have extensive training. A 19 year old pub crawler does not.
The backers of I-591 not withstanding, nobody is suggesting confiscating firearms (or anything else) without due process. Seriously, nobody, apart from those who are raising it as a strawman to be opposed. If you think such a thing is at any risk of happening in the United States, your sanity is in question.
This is not what is in the law, but here's how I think it should work: To buy or receive a gun as a gift, you should require a gun license. This is functionally similar to a drivers license--you would need to pass a test, which includes a background check for mental health and criminal issues, and a demonstration of safety and handling competence. The license itself should simply be a number--16 digits, like a credit card, should suffice--which represent an account in a universal database. In that account are stored your safety and background check history and photographs, and the registration number of any guns you have. When transferring a gun, the seller looks up the number on the smart phone and submits a new photograph of the buyer. The seller can look through the old photos to verify that this really is the person, but apart from yes/no on whether the purchase can be allowed, has access to no other information, not even the name and address of the buyer. Submitting a photo of a person other than the recipient of the gun would be a crime. There would be no general access to the database without a specific, court-issued warrant--e.g. look up the ownership history of a gun that was used in a crime, or look up the guns owned by an individual suspect of a crime. Broader searches, such as looking up all owners of a specific model of gun, should probably not be allowed, although there are fuzzy areas, such as if the registration number has been damaged.
There are some things that should be banned from general use: fully automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, explosive projectiles, projectiles above some caliber, etc. All of these things should be allowed on a safe range, or to be handled by specially trained and supervised individuals, but their use off-range or unsupervised should be a crime. A swat team member may, for example, use a fully automatic weapon, but should be supervised at all times. An individual (including one early in their training) may use such a weapon on a safe firing range, but taking it off range would be a crime. It should be relatively straightforward to establish a safe range. If you have a big field with berms in appropriate places, or a big basement with thick walls, an appropriate inspector can certify that the range is suitable and you can plink or blaze away all you want.
update:
Local sources tell me that the two bystanders who were injured were not involved at all. The person who was killed apparently had just arrived on the scene with intent to kill the other guy, but the other guy was a quicker draw, and apparently succeeded in blending with the crowd and making his getaway. A third person has been taken into custody.
The comments to the newspaper article are telling. Virtually all of them point out how upcoming initiative 594, which would require background checks for all gun transfers, would not have stopped this. Perhaps, but over time, things will be different. Right now, we have a gun culture. Too many people think, incorrectly, that having a gun makes them safer. The statistics say something quite different. As illustrated by Friday night's gunfight, the presence of a guns makes the situation much more dangerous for everybody, both those with the guns and others. This was most likely an argument that escalated. Had there been no guns, there might be bloody noses or even broken bones, but it's unlikely anybody would be dead. It doesn't sound like it in this case, but it could also be that it was gang related. Were possession of an unlicensed firearm a crime, the police could have stepped in before there was a problem. The only people who are made safer by having a gun are those who have a job that exposes them to armed and dangerous people all the time: basically police and active duty military. All have extensive training. A 19 year old pub crawler does not.
The backers of I-591 not withstanding, nobody is suggesting confiscating firearms (or anything else) without due process. Seriously, nobody, apart from those who are raising it as a strawman to be opposed. If you think such a thing is at any risk of happening in the United States, your sanity is in question.
This is not what is in the law, but here's how I think it should work: To buy or receive a gun as a gift, you should require a gun license. This is functionally similar to a drivers license--you would need to pass a test, which includes a background check for mental health and criminal issues, and a demonstration of safety and handling competence. The license itself should simply be a number--16 digits, like a credit card, should suffice--which represent an account in a universal database. In that account are stored your safety and background check history and photographs, and the registration number of any guns you have. When transferring a gun, the seller looks up the number on the smart phone and submits a new photograph of the buyer. The seller can look through the old photos to verify that this really is the person, but apart from yes/no on whether the purchase can be allowed, has access to no other information, not even the name and address of the buyer. Submitting a photo of a person other than the recipient of the gun would be a crime. There would be no general access to the database without a specific, court-issued warrant--e.g. look up the ownership history of a gun that was used in a crime, or look up the guns owned by an individual suspect of a crime. Broader searches, such as looking up all owners of a specific model of gun, should probably not be allowed, although there are fuzzy areas, such as if the registration number has been damaged.
There are some things that should be banned from general use: fully automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, explosive projectiles, projectiles above some caliber, etc. All of these things should be allowed on a safe range, or to be handled by specially trained and supervised individuals, but their use off-range or unsupervised should be a crime. A swat team member may, for example, use a fully automatic weapon, but should be supervised at all times. An individual (including one early in their training) may use such a weapon on a safe firing range, but taking it off range would be a crime. It should be relatively straightforward to establish a safe range. If you have a big field with berms in appropriate places, or a big basement with thick walls, an appropriate inspector can certify that the range is suitable and you can plink or blaze away all you want.
update:
Local sources tell me that the two bystanders who were injured were not involved at all. The person who was killed apparently had just arrived on the scene with intent to kill the other guy, but the other guy was a quicker draw, and apparently succeeded in blending with the crowd and making his getaway. A third person has been taken into custody.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)