Jared Loughner is just "a lone nut"?

[Krimson X]

Quite possibly he is. However, just in the past two and a half years, here's the record of "isolated incidents" amassed so far that can be tied to political rhetoric of the far friges of the right and left.... but more right than left:

-- July 2008: A gunman named Jim David Adkisson, agitated at how "liberals" are "destroying America," walks into a Unitarian Church and opens fire, killing two churchgoers and wounding four others.

-- October 2008: Two neo-Nazis are arrested in Tennessee in a plot to murder dozens of African-Americans, culminating in the assassination of President Obama.

-- December 2008: A pair of "Patriot" movement radicals -- the father-son team of Bruce and Joshua Turnidge, who wanted "to attack the political infrastructure" -- threaten a bank in Woodburn, Oregon, with a bomb in the hopes of extorting money that would end their financial difficulties, for which they blamed the government. Instead, the bomb goes off and kills two police officers. The men eventually are convicted and sentenced to death for the crime.

-- December 2008: In Belfast, Maine, police discover the makings of a nuclear "dirty bomb" in the basement of a man shot dead by his wife. The man, who was independently wealthy, reportedly was agitated about the election of President Obama and was crafting a plan to set off the bomb.

-- January 2009: A white supremacist named Keith Luke embarks on a killing rampage in Brockton, Mass., raping and wounding a black woman and killing her sister, then killing a homeless man before being captured by police as he is en route to a Jewish community center.

-- February 2009: A Marine named Kody Brittingham is arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate President Obama.

-- April 2009: A man named Richard Poplawski opens fire on three Pittsburgh police officers who come to his house on a domestic-violence call and kills all three, because he believed President Obama intended to take away the guns of white citizens like himself. Poplawski is currently awaiting trial.

-- April 2009: Another gunman in Okaloosa County, Florida, similarly fearful of Obama's purported gun-grabbing plans, kills two deputies when they come to arrest him in a domestic-violence matter, then is killed himself in a shootout with police.

-- May 2009: A "sovereign citizen" named Scott Roeder walks into a church in Wichita, Kansas, and assassinates abortion provider Dr. George Tiller. DIRECT CONNECTION TO THE RHETORIC OF BILL O'RILLEY.

-- June 2009: A Holocaust denier and right-wing tax protester named James Von Brunn opens fire at the Holocaust Museum, killing a security guard.

-- February 2010: An angry tax protester named Joseph Ray Stack flies an airplane into the building housing IRS offices in Austin, Texas. (Media are reluctant to label this one "domestic terrorism" too.)

-- March 2010: Seven militiamen from the Hutaree Militia in Michigan and Ohio are arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate local police officers with the intent of sparking a new civil war.

-- March 2010: An anti-government extremist named John Patrick Bedell walks into the Pentagon and opens fire, wounding two officers before he is himself shot dead.

-- May 2010: A "sovereign citizen" from Georgia is arrested in Tennessee and charged with plotting the violent takeover of a local county courthouse.

-- May 2010: A still-unidentified man walks into a Jacksonville, Fla., mosque and sets it afire, simultaneously setting off a pipe bomb.

-- May 2010: Two "sovereign citizens" named Jerry and Joe Kane gun down two police officers who pull them over for a traffic violation, and then wound two more officers in a shootout in which both of them are eventually killed.

-- July 2010: An agitated right-winger and convict named Byron Williams loads up on weapons and drives to the Bay Area intent on attacking the offices of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU, but is intercepted by state patrolmen and engages them in a shootout and armed standoff in which two officers and Williams are wounded. DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE RHETORIC OF GLENN BECK.

-- September 2010: A Concord, N.C., man is arrested and charged with plotting to blow up a North Carolina abortion clinic. The man, 26-year--old Justin Carl Moose, referred to himself as the "Christian counterpart to (Osama) bin Laden” in a taped undercover meeting with a federal informant.

[Kloogy]

I agree with you. Extremist propaganda on either side is sheer stupidity. Caters to the lowest common denominator amongst us. Garbage like this will continue to happen.

[PersonaNonGrata]

So long as there are mentally ill and mentally unstable people there will be these sorts of events. Whether it's blamed on what Glenn Beck said or whether it's a person's black lab telling him to kill or the just voices in his head, there can be triggers that affect mentally ill people. Loughner is clearly very mentally ill. The guy believes the government was trying to control his mind through grammar for goodness sake!

[JCL]

Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata

So long as there are mentally ill and mentally unstable people there will be these sorts of events. Whether it's blamed on what Glenn Beck said or whether it's a person's black lab telling him to kill or the just voices in his head, there can be triggers that affect mentally ill people. Loughner is clearly very mentally ill. The guy believes the government was trying to control his mind through grammar for goodness sake!

I agree with that. I do think that the level of rhetoric is far too high in general though, and both sides have used gun sights in their advertising, 'targeting' candidates and using phrases like 'take them out'. I think that probably is part of a negative atmosphere in politics, but it is hard to say which is the cause and which is the effect.

How about the discussion over the size of the clip in his weapon, and whether that should be controlled or banned? I read some suggestions that he would still have been shooting, but if his gun only held 1/3 as many bullets then 2/3 of the casualties may have been avoided. I gather that bystanders tackled him when he went to reload.

[PersonaNonGrata]

Originally Posted by JCL

How about the discussion over the size of the clip in his weapon, and whether that should be controlled or banned? I read some suggestions that he would still have been shooting, but if his gun only held 1/3 as many bullets then 2/3 of the casualties may have been avoided. I gather that bystanders tackled him when he went to reload.

The magazine capacity issue is a non-issue as far as I am concerned. It's an easy one to point the finger of blame. I will state the following without empirical data but based on anecdotal evidence and my experience.

The high capacity magazine issue was raised as an issue with the Clinton ban in the '90s in the "Brady Bill". It banned high capacity magazines nationwide. Of course there were many, many pre-existing high caps in circulation already. When they were banned, I certainly don't think violent crime decreased nor did the number of mass killings decrease. Did the ban prevent crime? No. When the "Brady Bill" sunsetted and high capacity magazines were allowed federally (some states enacted state bans) I don't think violent crime and mass killings suddenly increased.

These are not spurious correlations. The fact is that magazine capacity has nothing to do with preventing crime, specifically mass killings. I would venture to say that the level of violent crime and the number of mass killings was unaffected by either the ban or the expiration of the ban. I would bet that the rates stayed relatively constant. The magazine ban is just another "feel good", "look how proactive I am as a legislator" kind of law.

The theory that if Laughner, or any other mass killer, had a smaller magazine fewer people would have been shot is a fallacy and far too simplistic a conclusion. Many factors come into play including the person's proficiency with the weapon and the person's state of mind. If one is proficient and calm enough to effectuate magazine changes, magazine capacity is irrelevant. The limit in California is 10 rounds so it just means 10 shots before a magazine change.

Laughner was overcome when he was changing magazines and I believe that the 33 round magazines he was using actually worked against him and slowed him down. The extreme length of the 33 round Glock 9mm magazines actually makes them more difficult to manipulate, draw, and insert into the weapon. I have not used ultra extended magazine much but the ones that I have tried are awkward to use.

Look how fast these guys can change magazines and be back online shooting.



Here is something more logical to think about:

Arizona has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country. For instance, there is a new law that allows anyone over the age of 21 who is not otherwise prohibited, to carry a concealed firearm. Prior to that, state law was a "shall issue" policy for the issuance of concealed weapons permits. Basically, if you applied, took a class, and was not a felon or had other prohibiting convictions you would get a permit.

There are hundreds of thousands or even millions of guns in Arizona. People routinely carry concealed firearms. How many mass shootings have occurred in Arizona? Does this ONE INDIVIDUAL reflect the hundreds of thousands of Arizonians who carry concealed firearms? Absolutely not. In fact, an argument can be made that the prevalence of firearms REDUCES crime. How many car jacking are there in a place where the victim could shoot back. "An armed society is a polite society." True statement? Maybe. Also, an armed citizen could terminate a mass shooting like Laughner's if necessary. One of the people who wrestled him to the ground was armed with a concealed firearm and he said that he reached for his gun but was able to tackle Laughner instead.

Obviously I am a firearms owner and a proponent of the Second Amendment. Obviously there are many who will disagree with me. I am honestly not opposed to REASONABLE and SENSIBLE gun laws but what we see too often today with respect to any hot button issue is the knee jerk reaction to enact more laws that are based on emotion and rhetoric.

So to answer your question: No, magazine capacity does not need to be regulated.

PS: For everyone's information, "magazine" and "clip" are not the same thing in gun technical terms. A "magazine" is an enclosed container that holds ammunition and from which ammunition is fired. A "clip" is a metal device that holds ammunition that is used to load ammunition into a magazine. A "clip" goes inside a "magazine". That's a basic explanation. Just one of my gun pet peeves....

[JCL]

Thanks, I'll call it a magazine from now on.

I wasn't suggesting that restricting large magazines would reduce crime. I agree with you, I don't see a correlation there. I can also understand your point that a skilled shooter could reload quickly.

But how about an unskilled shooter? The magazine size certainly let this unskilled shooter fire more bullets before he was tackled.

I understand the concept of the right to bear arms. I don't own, or want to own, a gun, but I do respect the wishes of those who want to own a gun. I just struggle a bit with those who want to own this type of gun, purely because the consequences of an individual like this having one are worse. I also wonder why regulations couldn't exist that restrict such individuals (not trained law abiding gun owners) from owning guns. We aren't talking criminals here, this was a mentally ill person by most accounts.

[Viperfreak2]

Good points. Thinking material for intelligent people. Sane people.

People who are dumb and or insane....

I can run from a guy with a knife.

I can tackle a guy with a one shot 22.

I can hide, then tackle, or run from, a guy with 6 shots, when reloading (crazies are not thinking like Neo in the Matrix!)

I cannot survive a guy with 30 round magazines and some preperation.

I do not think the solution is to ban guns, or arm everyone. There are moments of rage in everyone (I assume) when you are not thinking clearly (when I get cut-off in traffic) and could do something life changing.

Organized criminals will find a way to get the arms they want, BUT stronger rules for law abiding citizens shouldn't be a big deal, to hopefully make it more difficult for the 'loners'. So you have to fill out more paperwork, or wait a few days....life would go on.

[Krimson X]

Now Palin has weighed in with an 8 minute speech via Facebook in which she is quoted as saying that liberals and media pundits are "manufacturing a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn." I know she did not write that speech, but does she even know what blood libel is? I have to admit that I didn't until this morning, but come on Mama Grizzly! If you make statements like that, understand first what you are saying.

Blood libel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is Jewish as reported, Sara has some explaining to do for her apparent anti-semitic statement. Talk about hatred and violence.

[Krimson X]

Originally Posted by Krimson X

Now Palin has weighed in with an 8 minute speech via Facebook in which she is quoted as saying that liberals and media pundits are "manufacturing a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn." I know she did not write that speech, but does she even know what blood libel is? I have to admit that I didn't until this morning, but come on Mama Grizzly! If you make statements like that, understand first what you are saying.

Blood libel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is Jewish as reported, Sara has some explaining to do for her apparent anti-semitic statement. Talk about hatred and violence.

UPDATE: Simon Greer, president of Jewish Funds for Justice released the following statement today:

We are deeply disturbed by Fox News commentator Sarah Palin's decision to characterize as a "blood libel" the criticism directed at her following the terrorist attack in Tucson. The term "blood libel" is not a synonym for "false accusation." It refers to a specific falsehood perpetuated by Christians about Jews for centuries, a falsehood that motivated a good deal of anti-Jewish violence and discrimination. Unless someone has been accusing Ms. Palin of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood, her use of the term is totally out-of-line.

In the past two months, Ms. Palin and Glenn Beck, the most well-known media personalities on Fox News, have abused two of the most tragic episode in the history of the Jewish people: the Holocaust and the blood libel. In addition, Roger Ailes, the head of the Fox News channel, referred to the executives at NPR as "Nazis." Perhaps the popular news channel has such an ingrained victim mentality that it identifies with one of the most persecuted minorities in human history. But the Jewish community does not appreciate their identification, which only serves to denigrate the very real pain so many Jews have suffered because of anti-Semitic violence. It is clear that Fox News has a Jewish problem.

Sarah Palin did not shoot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Only the perpetrator can be found guilty for this act of terrorism. But it is worth pointing out that it was Rep. Giffords herself who first objected to Ms. Palin's map showing her district in the crosshairs. "We're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, the way she has it depicted, it has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that they have to realize that there are consequences to that action." According to Ms. Palin's logic, Rep. Giffords statement was a blood libel against the Fox News host. The fact that Rep. Giffords is Jewish and Ms. Palin is Christian makes the accusation even more grotesque.

Ms. Palin clearly took some time to reflect before putting out her statement today. Despite that time, her primary conclusion was that she is the victim and Rep. Giffords is the perpetrator. As a powerful rhetorical advocate for personal responsibility, Ms. Palin has failed to live up to her own standards with this statement.

[PersonaNonGrata]

Palin = FAIL. Unfortunately she is just not the best spokesperson for any cause. She ought to not be in the spotlight in any form.

Reasonable regulations, including waiting periods, are fine. There is a 10 day waiting period in California and I am fine with that. I have something in that period now. There is an additional rule that a person cannot then purchase another handgun within 30 days. That is a rule I don't quite understand. If the 10 days is intended to do background checks and to allow for a "cooling down" period then 30 additional days does nothing. If the extra days is to act also as a cooling down period that is nonsensical because the person already has a gun. Making the person wait another 30 days doesn't make anyone any safer.

I still don't think that banning or restricting high capacity magazines will help. Theoretically an unskilled shooter could inflict more damage but that same unskilled shooter would necessarily not be an expert shot. An unskilled shooter with 33 rounds can "spray and pray" and still hit people but guns are not like in the movies where spraying a submachine gun from the hip mows down a row of people. I've done that at the range and spraying 30 rounds fully automatic from the hip results in very few hits. Likewise, an unskilled shooter with 33 rounds does not mean they are endowed with special skills that results in being able to hit targets effectively. One need only look at police shootings whee hit percentages with 15 or 17 round magazines are woefully low - with trained shooters!

As far as Viper's comment about lesser threat situations, he mentioned a running from a knife. One would be shocked to see how quickly a knife can be deployed and how much more damage an edged weapon can do versus a gun. People generally don't miss with a thrust of a knife but a shot fired from a gun can easily miss its intended target.

My point is that dangers exist in one form or another. There are always going to be people bent on hurting others. We are a society that reacts extremely to isolated incidents. Think about any major disaster or dramatic high profile event and there is probably some sort of new law or regulation that follows. I think it's partly driven by human nature but it's primary driven by politicians. The shooting is absolutely tragic but I think that reacting by restricting the rights and lives of millions of law abiding people because of the actions of one person is wrong.

There are regulations in place to prevent those who have had prior mental health issues from obtaining guns. The problem is that guys like Loughner never had that documented and the Virginia Tech shooter who did have some documented history of mental health treatment still got a gun. It is just too difficult to document and classify what mental health issues are and which ones should restrict a person's rights. It is a more fundamental question when it comes to mental health. That question is about how we treat mental health issues and how far we go in things like involuntary civil commitments. If you know that someone is mentally ill and needs help, even if they are potentially dangerous but have yet to do anything dangerous, should we be allowed to incarcerate them or civilly commit them? That poses are question more fundamental than how to prevent such people from getting guns.