Friday, April 03, 2009
No, the first question is: "Why was nobody prepared to defend themselves and others?"
"One of the first questions is going to be, what motivated this?" he said. "What caused this to happen? What was the kind of person who did it?"The cause is simple. The citizens of New York are disarmed, promising every shitbag sociopath that he can kill without opposition for however many minutes it takes until the police arrive, an offer that is too tempting for some of these cesspools of envy and spite pass up.
As for the particulars of Liverlily Voong's pretended grievances against innocent people, who gives a damn? If he was an Islamofascist committing an act of war, the country needs to know that. Otherwise, his rancid reasons can go to the pit along with his rancid soul. The only thing that matters is that people be able to defend themselves against these monsters wherever they inevitably spring up, be they agents of the Wahhabist-Khomeinist war against liberty, or the authors of their own war against mankind.
How indicative that the victims were taking a citizenship test, while the State of New York was forcing them and everyone around them to fail the first duty of citizenship: to be prepared to defend themselves and each other.
UPDATE: And when the police do arrive, they might not be in any hurry to take on the shooter:
Police heard no gunfire after they arrived but waited for about an hour before entering the building to make sure it was safe for officers.That's with 26 people still hiding in the basement. If the police did hear shooting, would they have been less cautious, or more cautious? Not saying the police were wrong here. Two officers were murdered in Oakland last month when then weren't cautious enough in going after a spree killer. It is just a measure of people's need to be able to defend themselves.
Next time you or I get caught in the middle of such a mass-shooting, better pray that one of the good guys has BROKEN THE LAW and brought a gun into the building anyway.
I just watched a youtube video of the testimony of one of the survivors of the 1991 Luby's Cafe massacre:
Only defenders need to be armed at all times. Assailants pick their time. Thus laws that keep people from carrying only impede defenders.
Just walk it backwards from there. Every marginal increment of infringment of the rights to keep and bear arms have the effect of tilting the field towards aggressors and away from defenders.
I think that's a good question, because after all, you don't want to do anything to increase the number of armed bad guys.
However, the problem of how to make us safer from these mass shooters is made more difficult by the constraint that it is not possible to disarm such people, so you have to weigh that against the benefit of having some armed good guys at the scene, who will be able to stop an attacker in the early stages of an attack, before it becomes a drawn-out Virginia Tech or Columbine style massacre.
This was written a long time ago:
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Thomas Jefferson
I believe that since the 1970's, there have been no mass casualty school shootings in Israel, due to a policy of arming teachers there.
A person who is out for his own death is the last person that can be controlled through legislation. He is the hardest to disarm because he doesn’t care about the law, or ANY worldly consequences. If there are any arms to be had, he will find them, and finding them on the black market becomes EASIER when white markets are eliminated. Just look at England, where extreme prohibition has caused the black market in firearms to explode, piggybacking on the established trade routes for illegal drugs.
Even if we could get guns away from these suiciders, they will just find another way to take people with them: poison, or explosives, or arson, or automobile rampages. We are probably lucky in a way that they seem to get such satisfaction from the personal nature of murder by firearm, where at least they can’t take really large numbers of people with them.
The one thing we can do to better deal with these shitbags is yes, have more guns, even in these domestic type situations. In particular, our police officers are in general way under-gunned. In addition to handguns, they need to have rifles in their cars. A handgun is simply no match for a long gun, not in power, range or accuracy. Again and again these situations occur where large numbers of police are totally outgunned by one person with a rifle. It’s insane. They should ALL have rifles. They are always going to be vulnerable to an ambush, but there is no reason that even after they are alerted to a threat, they still have to be outgunned.
Of course the 2nd Amendment is not predicated on there being no costs to the right to keep and bear arms. Rather, the costs are justified by the much greater benefits. Most importantly, gun rights are our protection against a ursurper. Secondarily, they tip the field in favor of defenders and away from aggressors (who will generally not be allowed to bear arms, due to their history of aggression).
On the negative side, the costs are actually very small and easy to count. If we give up the right to bear arms, the only kind of crime we stop is crimes of opportunity committed by people who have no significant criminal history (since those who do have criminal records are not allowed to bear arms anyway). But it is vanishingly rare for people who do not have criminal records to commit crimes of opportunity, never mind gun crimes. They do once in a while stew for a long time before carrying out a PLANNED murder, but such cases cannot be interdicted by laws against carrying a gun. A person who plans to commit murder obviously doesn’t care about violating laws against carrying guns.
Thus the cost of the right to bear arms (crimes of opportunity committed by previously law abiding people) is almost zero, while the benefits are huge. Crime drops FAST when “shall issue” CCW laws are passed.
Similarly with gun crime committed at the home by people with no history of criminal violence. ALL serious violence is generally preceded by long histories of escalating violence, and this is particularly in cases of domestic violence. For gun violence to occur in a domestic situation without a history of violence is again, vanishingly rare. The suicide-by-cop in PA seems to be one such case, but these are a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of crime that is prevented by arms in the home. Home robberies are very rare in the United States compared to England. Here almost all assaults on the home are burglaries (when nobody is home), not robberies. In England (where the violent crime rate is more than twice ours), robberies are the more common crime.
A question for anonymous: what do you want to see done? If you really think that the safest thing to do when faced with danger is disarm, what about the more fundamental purpose of the 2nd Amendment: to resist a usurper? Every large scale mass murder in history has been preceded by government disarmament of the people. Are such concerns somehow passé now that we are supposedly so civilized?
Disarmed Europe is now under violent threat from its hostile Muslim immigrant populations, who increasingly control the black markets for both drugs and guns. We are likely in our lifetimes to see white European’s slaughtered in their homelands, just because they were foolish enough to disarm. Those who think that they no longer need to be prepared to deal with the scourges of history are likely to be in for a rude awakening.
April 3, 2009 2:59 PM[7+] Robert Johnston said:
I'd guess this is almost certainly a terrorist incident, a symptom of right-wing eliminationism. And just as certainly the mainstream media will be reluctant to treat it as such and the far right will utterly refuse to acknowledge it as such. Rabid promotion of irrational hate has consequences, and the responsibilities for incidents like this should be allocated accordingly.
Their take on the Binghamton shooting is equivalent. They have no interest in the truth about anything, but only think of how any event might be spun so as to be most useful to their prejudices. Thus an illiterate immigrant, taking out his envy and spite on other illiterate immigrants, is imagined to be a "right winger." Pure moral trash.
Looking back at this question by anonymous: I now believe he is thinking in terms of statistics, as in: if the overall number of guns increases, will some of those additional guns statistically find their way into the hands of bad guys (by being stolen or black market sales or other back channels)? I think the answer is yes, and anonymous is wondering whether more guns in the hands of bad guys is offset by the advantage of having more guns in the hands of good guys as well. I think it is more than offset, and the case for that is made in this book: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239125118&sr=8-1
The British experience indicates that criminals actually have an easier time getting guns when a society is devoid of legally owned guns that criminals can steal. Hardened criminals will always have an inelastic demand for at least their first few guns (that is, they will pay anything for them). Without a stolen-gun market to service this demand, a black import market develops, typically piggybacking on established black markets for drugs. Once this market is established, it taps into industrial-scale sources of supply, much more systematic than the random whatever-somebody-managed-to-steal black market we have here in the States.
Where Max's analysis might come into play is with so-called "safe storage" laws, requiring people to keep their guns locked up. Such laws should marginally decrease the supply of stolen guns while often keeping gun owners from being able to use their guns for self-defense. On this specific point, the costs and benefits do seem to work out as Max suggests, with "safe-storage" leading to significant increases in crime.
Lott published a study on this back in 2000:
Most tragically, not letting kids have access to guns has led in a number of instances of slaughter where kids who had been trained to use guns were unable to defend themselves against attackers because their parents were required to leave the guns locked up.
Kids can handle guns. They just need to be taught that a gun can never be used in anger, but only when immediately necessary to PROTECT human life. Kids get that. Just tell them that if they ever use a gun because they want to hurt, not protect, then their life is over. They'll spend their life in jail, and all their opportunities will be gone.
Technically this is part of the 4th rule of gun safety: know your target. If it is a human target, you have to know that it is a target that needs shooting, and what that means. I prefer to break it out as a 5th rule: when should you shoot another human being? (When you HAVE TO to save yourself or someone else from grievous bodily injury, and only when you have to.)
I also have two special rules for kids. The Eddie the Eagle rule (if you find a gun, don't touch, leave, go tell an adult) and my own semi-automatic rule: if you drop the magazine from a semi-automatic pistol, IT IS STILL LOADED. Every kid needs to be taught that, because not knowing it is how almost every accidental shooting involving kids occurs. A kid finds a gun, knows enough not to pull the trigger, but still plays with the other controls. When the magazine pops out he thinks the gun is unloaded and can't help making his friends wet their pants by pointing the gun at them and pulling the trigger. Happens over and over and over, mostly because anti-gun parents don't know enough about guns to teach their kids to avoid this mistake.
A few posts ago you said that you knew that Obama is a Manchurian candidate but you were not yet sure whether he was a radical Communist or an islamist jihadist.
I think the proof is now with us.
He bows to the Saudi King and kisses his ring.
He says that America will never be an enemy of islam.
The Communist thing is just a stepping stone, a means to weaken us before the final killing.
The first point, why bow? Because the Saudi King is The Protector of the two holy places, if you believe in that stuff.
The second phrase, "never"? Never is a long time. Even Obama realizes, I think, he is not yet masterful enough to promise and deliver a result throughout eternity, except...
there is one way.
That way is the way of saying "this guy will never bother you again, I just popped three caps into his brain".
In other words, a killed America will never be the enemy of islam. Because it is dead.
You know, this guy tells us what he means to do, and we think he is stupid.
Yet it is most of us who are stupid. And we need to wake up really really fast.
This islamist prezodent wants us dead.
How come the citizens in so many of the disarmed European countries get shot so much less frequently, by Muslim immigrants or anybody else, than we Americans do, if our freedom to legally arm ourselves to the teeth is protecting us so much?