Words of Advice:

"We have it totally under control. It's one person coming from China. It's going to be just fine." -- Donald Trump, 1/22/2020

“We will not see diseases like the coronavirus come here..and isn't it refreshing when contrasting it with the awful presidency of President Obama."
-- Trump Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, 2/25/20

"I don't take responsibility for anything." --Donald Trump, 3/13/20

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It." -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Monday, October 5, 2015

Mass Shootings

Chris Hernandez, who is a career cop, has posted a fairly lengthy piece about mass shootings and what can be done.

You should go read it.


w3ski said...

I especially like where he admits that getting rid of guns is not possible.

CenterPuke88 said...

A well reasoned piece, but still not comforting. Getting rid of guns, btw, is possible...it's just likely to run about like prohibition and cost a ridiculous amount of money. For those reasons alone, it's impractical, and another reason the "Obama is coming for your guns" people make me shake my head. I'm reluctantly on board with the solution of causing culture change over time by tightening current checks, ensuring a national database of disqualifying events/conditions, and by ensuring accountability through prosecutions of those who violate the current laws. In short, we need to make it unacceptable to not properly handle and secure a weapon; it's not an accident, it's negligence. Note that does not require you to lock away a gun and keep the ammo separate, but it would hold you responsible if someone grabbed a gun that was not secured in a manner appropriate for your circumstances.

The problem is handguns, the whole assault rifle thing just hardens both sides against compromise, so let's just forget it. On the other hand, is there any reason not to prohibit magazines over 30 rounds? I know they aren't commonly used, but I'm looking for a legitimate use for them short of war.

One other thought, why not charge a small additional tax on ammunition (say just 5 cents a round), but exempt designated target/practice rounds (identified in some manner) from the tax, similar to off-road fuel being dyed. Then, anyone arrested with a gun loaded with untaxed ammo could be charged with tax evasion...it worked on Al Capone. Use the (likely very small) tax receipts to pay for education, training and such.

Comrade Misfit said...

Prohibition is a bad example. Largely because of 5th Amendment issues, Prohibition did nothing to outlaw the ownership of existing stocks of alcohol. A little known fact is that the Yale Club in NYC had so much liquor on hand that they still had a good store left when the repeal amendment passed in 1933.

Will said...


Most magazines that hold more than 30 rounds are bulky, finicky, and lean more toward being junk. In fact, they may save lives, as illustrated by the Aurora theater shooter. He had his rifle loaded with a very large aftermarket mag, and encountered problems with it. IIRC, it caused problems that led him to toss the gun aside, and finally switch to another gun. I think it was a 100 round mag, but I'm not positive at this point.

Generally speaking, those types of outsize mags are intended for defending a fixed position, as size and weight makes moving around with them installed an awkward situation. The size and weight also tends to make them more fragile or delicate, which leads to common problems in use.

One factor that has a bearing on the subject is the size of the cartridge involved. Typical rifle ammo sizes get heavy and bulky pretty quickly. Even with handguns, the bigger the caliber, the more problems you have with bulk.

CenterPuke88 said...

Comrade, it's a good example for exactly that point. People would have hordes and hidden weapons, and with our volume of weaponry, we'd have no hope of getting even reasonably close to picking it all up. That's the other thing that makes me laugh at the paranoia of the "Obama's coming for my guns" crowd. I just wonder how much the gun companies pay quietly, through intermediaries, to keep some of the more radical anti-gun groups making headlines...seems like a solid investment.

3383 said...

What I worry about lately is the incremental steps being taken now. I can't sell a firearm to anyone- total stranger or long time friend- without taking it to a licensed firearm dealer. That is a hassle, it chokes down transactions, makes a weapon less valuable. Imagine only being able to sell a car through a dealer; and a car is not a constitutionally guaranteed right.

On another note- cnn.com has what try to sound like neutral pieces on "gun discussions", but they all ignore Heller and tie "responsible" arms ownership to "well regulated militia" concepts.

Eck! said...

Prohibition is an excellent example of how bad it can go.

People got poisoned by rot gut and wood alcohols.

Trafficking and black market became profitable.

Crime because of that alone was rampant.

Yes, lets do it again. Only now we take personal property.

As the kids say, seriously?


Joe said...

With all due respect, Comrade, that article is insane. His "solution" is to abandon every benefit that civilization gives us.

We can't all live our lives like infantry in hostile territory, constantly ready to fight. People living like that don't grow food or weave cloth or invent medicines or design circuitry. They can't concentrate on anything else. If every public place is full of people with guns, every place is Ramadi.

Comrade Misfit said...


<a href="The CBO can document 11.1 million CCW permit holders in the states that report such data. NY, for one, does not report it. There are states where no permit is required.

For all intents and purposes, your nightmare of "lots of people carrying guns in public" exists.

Joe said...

Comrade, I live in Virginia. There's about 20 law-enforcement agencies that have people carrying guns around here. That's OK, though I have doubts about some of them. There's also a bunch of people who think they're carrying concealed weapons, but a t-shirt with "molon labe" superimposed on a confederate flag doesn't conceal much. It's not quite a nightmare, but the trend is headed that way.

I should have said "full of people with guns and that frame of mind," since the frame of mind is Hernandez's solution and the thing I object to.

CenterPuke88 said...

Joe, I understand your view and I too lament the solution, but I don't see anything changing in the short term to stop this. In 15-20 years, with work to make people responsible and enforce current laws, we would start to see improvement, but till then, it sucks.

I really don't think most of the posters here like the current situation either, but they also don't like solutions that remove rights they view as critical and that they don't think will work. It's a hell of a catch-22, and I'm deeply afraid of how this will play out.