Politics Gun violence in CT

Maybe not in a dark theater, but the Clackamas shooter did stop when he saw an armed shopper had him in his sights. He didn't fire as he didn't (yet) have a shot clear of other shoppers. The shooter ran into a corridor/stairway and committed suicide without using the rest of his ammo.

 

Quite a lot of supposition there. It is just as possible that the shooter had no idea that the "armed shopper" had a gun on him. We can't know.

 

I have no idea what happened inside the Clackamas Town Center. If someone had him in their sights and choose not to shoot based on a line of fire issue then good for them, smart move. I've been to several trainings on this and have watched a lot of video of scenes from security cams and I've yet to see a CC person take reasonable responsible action that helped the situation. Most never manage to get their weapon out many who manage do so while running for an exit. I think I've seen one civilian take out a gas station robber after he shot the clerk. The robber exited the station still staring at the clerk and the civilian shot him in the back.

This is more like the actions real people take in multiple/mass shootings-



You need a lot of training to insert yourself in an active shooter invention in my opinion. I carry when I'm in the states. I do so to protect myself for the lone whacko at a rest stop in the middle of the night or some road rage situation. Basically a one on one me or the other guy type situations. I think, never know until the shit hits the fan, but I think had I been in the Town Center that afternoon I would have tied to get myself and as many other shoppers as I could to a "secure" location. Withdrawing my firearm would have been low on my to do list.

We used to go out to Camp Rilea for the Oregon State Police "active shooter engagement" training. Every time we went the instructor stressed you need this training every other month to keep your skills up. Sometimes we'd only have the training once a year, depending on budget. The training is good, it's stressful when you get out of the class room and onto the shooter rooms. Flash bangs and people running at you. You get about a 1/4 of a second to decide if the people running and screaming at you are victims or shooters. The last time I had that training was in 2001. So I'd likely keep my sidearm holstered in a mass hooting situation.

Last thing I'd want is to end up handling any shooting like this-


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi5kj-krgso


8 maybe 9 shots (my count, video states 20) from the officers, trained officers I assume. They not only failed to hit the suspects, they failed to hit the suspects vehicle. This was an even shoot out, two cops two suspects, with no people running around screaming.
--- merged: Dec 18, 2012 12:41 PM ---

The word I'm getting is the shooters gun jammed and that's why he retreated to the another location. I got that from a friend on the Milwaukee (Oregon) PD who's a member of the same Jimmy Buffett Parrot head club which I belong. He said he was told that by a friend of his in on the Clackamas Sheriff's investigation team. What's that REO Speddwagon song? I heard from a friend who heard it from a friend? Well in this case I believe what he's telling me. Clackamas and Milwaukee are next door to each other. Later today I'll call and ask about the civilian armed shooter theory. If some one had him in their sights it's likely on security cam.

 

I said I was going to stay out of this thread... but it has called to me over and over again. Maybe it is because I've had a moment to "calm down" and maybe I can more accurately portray what I think. :shrug:

I understand the reactions that this tragedy has brought about. Hell, I have kids around the same age as the ones who were slaughtered in cold blood, so first, I don't want people thinking I'm insensitive because this shit has hit me hard and makes me worry even more about the world my kids are growing up in. Second, I do believe it is a very complex issue and one that needs to be handled correctly, not with knee-jerk reactions from either side.

I'm sort of like @tully here. I own multiple weapons and would use lethal force if absolutely necessary, but it is something that would rock me to the core if I needed to do it. I'm not some NRA moron who believes any and all guns serve a purpose and that the second amendment gives absolute rights and that the government is a big bad boogey man.

Now, a buddy of mine had the first reaction that if teachers carried guns this wouldn't have happened. I was quick to inform him that not only is that bad because it puts children in a crossfire situation, it is something that speaks to what is going on when people think teachers need/should carry guns in class. Something about that seems very, very wrong. On the flip side of that, some people are saying to ban all guns and if you want to use a rifle to hunt, you should have to check a gun out of a civil building first. Both of those ideas are highly moronic and serve no real purpose in my view.

Ok, so where I'm going with this is that I really want to reiterate that I believe the assault weapons ban needs to be revisited. I personally don't see any reason an every day person would need one other than for collection purposes or for the fun part. That's fine and dandy, but while the federal mandate was allowed to expire during BushII, most states did adopt strict gun laws regarding these weapons. It wasn't long before makers like Remington and Bushmaster started just dropping the specs that labeled the weapons as banned. For instance, if a state listed a model that had, for instance, a pistol grip, grenadier or shroud, then they would just drop those and get around the law. So, if we're going to revisit the assault weapons ban, it needs to be comprehensive and the makers need to be held to it. The question here though is what happens to those who have legally purchased these weapons before the new ban? Will they be forced to surrender them? That's a sticky proposition to say the least.

To go along with a comprehensive model/feature ban, then you have to ban clips over a certain size just like Clinton did. Again, the question becomes does this only apply to clips used in assault weapons or is it for all guns? My wife and I have 16+1 clips for our Springfields. Are we going to have to surrender those and go to a 10+1? Just a question... I'm not saying right or wrong.

The mental health access is another thread entirely. There's no real evidence yet pointing to this killer having a specific mental illness, but I say that when one commits matricide, there is some obvious mental trauma, even if it wasn't diagnosed. Asperger's is not an issue here.

I think what saddens me the most in this situation is that I didn't see this sort of outrage after Columbine, Virginia Tech, Dark Knight or the multitude of others that the news didn't inflate. While it is certainly upsetting that these school children were gunned down, I don't think it should be any more outrageous than the other mass shootings.

So no, I'm not reversing the fact that I own, enjoy and like my guns, or that I think mental health is a key issue in these cases. I'm just clarifying (hopefully) that if we're going to talk gun control, it shouldn't be knee-jerk from one side saying "ban all guns" or knee-jerk from the other side saying "second amendment". If anything, we should start with an emergency reinstatement of the 93-04 assault ban and then take it from there to make it more comprehensive.

 

well, one thing that's happening is that cerebus has been more or less forced to sell off its interest in freedom works, a nauseatingly named gun corporation that produced the weapon adam lanza used to mow down all that collateral damage of our wonderful second amendment, interpreted in the shabby, ridiculous way that the right has been trafficking in for years:

Newtown shooting: Cerberus to sell stake in firearms company Freedom | World news | guardian.co.uk

here's a little article outing these secretive ethics-free arrangements:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/business/how-freedom-group-became-the-gun-industrys-giant.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1

here's something from the spineless statement those captains of industry at cerebus issued:

because of course they've been profiting from this weapons trade quite handsomely until now when, for reasons to do with the composition of their own investor pool, it is no longer expedient.


of course gun manufacturers can't be held liable for crimes committed using their weapons thanks to those humanitarians of the bush period:

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

here's a list of the ethical heros who voted for it:

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005; 109th Congress S. 397) - GovTrack.us

every one of these people still in office should have this and every other massacre since 2005 laid at their feet.

the right is all blah blah blah responsibility.
but they originated and passed this.
so fuck you.

i am thinking it's time all these manufacturers were brought to their knees.
given that the nra is little more than a front organization for them, it would come around pretty fast.
and given that the neo-fascist set is basically passive/reactive, they'll think as they're told they think by the neo-fascist outfits that shaped their neo-fascism.

maybe it's time to go after the big game here. take down the militarization of class relations under the lunatic regime of neo-liberalism by taking down the corporate persons who profit from its dysfunctions.

gun control from this viewpoint, and the terms of the debate particular to it, is not the main issue.
forcing change in the context that shapes that idiotic debate would be far more effective.

perhaps the sociopathic world that is the united states has had enough.

 

That Protection of Lawful Commerce Act was bullshit. Basically when it comes to firearms you can sell whatever dangerous product you want and if someone gets hurt or injured you can't be sued.

But the fact they use a purple triangle to indicate Larry Craig is priceless-

Larry Craig, former Senator from Idaho - GovTrack.us

 

so what we have here is yet another subordination of the well-being of people to corporate profits.

we also have an extension of neo-liberal social philosophy--the reduction of the populace to atomized, paranoid individuals who see in the weapons systems they procure a way to assert themselves in a chaotic (capitalist) situation that admits of no political remedies--because capitalism is like nature, you see.

risk for the state is minimized because the state is set up as the problem, so it can be complicit in the enabling of this pathological situation and not take the hit for it.

in the fantasies of those who imagine a universally strapped population will somehow cancel out violence there's just another version of the neo-liberal hallucination of self-regulating markets that tend toward equilbrium.

meanwhile the corporations that produce these weapons systems rake in giant profits.

the nra is just a marketing organization.

the conservative interpretation of the second amendment isn't worth shit.

the circle of conservative-employed "academics" who profit from supporting the bullshit interpretation of the second amendment are essentially marketing flaks.

the entire debate about gun control is a diversion that protects weapons manufacturers from bearing the consequences of what they do.

 

I get your point.

However, Freedom Works (they own remington too btw iirc) is already worried about what is going to happen. They saw their profits rise 27% in the "sporting firearm" division over the past year. This sporting division is basically their assault weapons division. They are worried because while they were forced to remove pistol grips, grenadiers, shrouds etc from their guns (not like you can't buy it elsewhere to add), they fear a more comprehensive model and feature ban. So while they may not be held liable in a court of law because a deranged individual used their weapons, if they see their sales plummet, it can have the same effect as long as the law is comprehensive enough to close any loopholes like the last one. They are worried about this and stricter laws regarding BG checks at gun shows etc.

Private sales are a completely different matter and one that is hard and close to impossible to regulate however.

 

That's exactly what I'm hearing. I called my friend with Milwaukee PD this morning and he told me there was a younger guy who claimed he "drew down" on the shooter but didn't "pull" because he could see "women and children" standing behind the shooter. The police were skeptical to say the least. First all the witness statements and video they could find had people either on the floor or running to the exits within seconds of the first shots. Second they couldn't find this guy on any video cam in the food court area. Basically they couldn't find him on a cam in a location where the shooter was at the same time the shooter was there. After several more interviews he changed his statement from there being "women and children behind the guy" to seeing one person behind the shooter. He also first stated he was standing using a concrete column to conceal himself. He later changed that to he hit the floor after the first shots were fired and stood up after the firing stopped. They searched all the security cam footage they could find and on a horrible ATM footage there's a guy who could be him. If it's him he's on the floor 44 yards from the shooter, behind two trash cans and a column and never has a weapon in his hand. He never stood up until well after the shooter ran down the stairs.

Whatever really happened with his guy I think it's good he didn't try to take the shooter out or has he put it "pull on him." If he did in fact come face to it's not on any video they've found yet. He was searched and did have a 9mm short barrel handgun on him. 44 yards with a 9mm handgun is a very difficult shot without any added stress. You're talking nearly 1/2 a football field with a pistol. I own a Ruger GP-100 .357 with which I could consistently make that shot on a range, with a rest. In a stressful environment free hand? Yeah I'm not likely taking that shot.

I'm also being told there were 6 other customers with legal concealed carry weapons. Where they were during the shooting I have no idea but it doesn't sound like they were rushing to the food court to drop the suspect. Probably for the best. All these calls that more armed civilians will lead to less crime and gun fatalities is more Hollywood fantasy then reality.

 

We have an individual willing to mass murder children and that individual somehow rationalizing the decision to do it - but it all boils down to an argument related to protecting the profits of gun makers, absolving gun makers of responsibility for their product, and gun sales - all within a NRA conspiracy? This is a rhetorical question - I am simply taking advantage of an opportunity to put it in writing.

 

nice try, ace.
how about you go back and actually read what i posted.
the counter to your mangled version of my post is already up there.

 

My question was rhetorical, perhaps more specific a rhetorical question in the form of a metaphor. There is no answer - there can be no legitimate answer. You know, like - How do you catch a moon-beam in a jar?

 

here's a tip: it's bad form to open with a wholly mangled version of what you are attempting to argue against.

try again.

 

What? Am I arguing? I simply posted a rhetorical question, and i wrote that it was rhetorical. This shooting is a serious matter, and we can not boil it down to old political arguments regarding gun control - depending on motivation the individual could have used other means - I doubt we will ever understand this issue. I certainly can not explain it.

 

so you fuck up my posts, basically mis-stating what the points were, and defend it by having your hand around in the direction of a rhetorical question, as if that authorizes the the basic mis-stating of the post, and then follow it with a predictable move, which is to say:

"well, this is all TERRIBLY MYSTERIOUS what happened so there can't be any contexts that enabled it and there's certainly nothing to be done."

which of course enables an avoidance of all larger issues because its all TERRIBLY MYSTERIOUS and can have no contexts that enabled it.

so the point, such as it is, of your "rhetorical question" is obvious.

but the question is not so much about explaining this particular case in its detail---this particular case has been added to a whole series of other particular cases---unacceptable levels of gun violence in general, abundant data that correlates lax gun laws with unacceptable levels of gun violence in general, and a chain of massacres since colombine for example...

and people have apparently decided enough is enough.

that cerebus was forced to sell off freedom works by its own investors is interesting.

and the ethical trainwreck that's been advanced by the marketing organization called the nra that separates rights from any regard for consequences---a stance that's infantile---has quite abruptly found the political grounds upon which is rested moving out from under it.

so it appears that reality has already left you behind again, ace.

 

I can not fuck up your posts, your posts stand on their own. My post is exactly what I said it was, a rhetorical question. It was a question in the context of days and days of theories, including yours, trying to superficially explain what happened through political argument. Like trying to catch moon-beams in a jar - how do we explain why this event happened? Are you trying to say that you know? I don;t think you are, and I was not responding to your political gun control argument, I think your argument is purely political (I am not saying it is good or bad, just that it is a political argument) and not an argument seeking real answers. Just call it what it is.

 

i haven't been following the infotainment about the case itself as it's been coming out...i understand that lanza wrecked his hard drive before he started what appears to have been a planned out series of actions. there was no manifesto, so far as i know. so the kid wanted this to disappear into a hole, the story of exactly what the chain of events were that led him to snap.

insofar as "real answers" are concerned, you seem to want to pretend that they all reside in the particularities of the chain that led up to it. but so far, that's not knowable. it's reasonable to infer that there was some intense problem involving the relationship with the mother, who inadvertently facilitated what happened by, from what i understand, being a survivalist of some kind who had a bushmaster and a shit-ton of ammunition in the house. so it's clear that the availability of that weapon and ammunition plays a role in what happened. so it's not unreasonable---like it or not---to see in the availability of such weapons an proximate cause of what happened. and that weapon is what enabled lanza to mow down as many kids and staff in that school with the speed he did. so it's not unreasonable to wonder: what the fuck happened that allowed weapons like that to be available in---for example---1700 walmarts around the country or in any dick's sporting goods store.

the debate about these weapons---and about gun-related violence in general---has been displaced to a significant extent by a very well funded, sustained campaign by the marketing wing of the main weapons manufacturers onto loopy arguments about the "right" of anyone to accumulate as many weapons of almost any kind that they want based on a specious reading of the 2nd amendment (see above, the wills article---there's alot more where that came from). the proximate cause of that argument coming to have weight has been conservative packing of the judiciary. it's not because the arguments were ever well-founded---it was the result of *political* actions by conservatives ideologically predisposed, for whatever reason, to find that set of specious interpretations of the 2nd amendment to be compelling.

accompanying this has been a separation of arguments about "rights" from arguments about consequences and whether those consequences are socially acceptable. that is a politically legitimated form of narcissism. it's infantile. the *political* contexts in which this has happened were dominated by the right. so that was the general ideological condition of possibility for a host of decisions with respect to gun availability. and that ideological situation appears to be coming unraveled at speed.

if the general political climate has been shifted because of 28 more instance of collateral damage due to absolutist claims concerning gun rights that has also enabled---for example---an increase of about 1/3 in the 300 million or so guns known to be circulated around the united states, then things will undoubtedly change.

the effects of the ethical disconnect noted above have rebounded directly to the profits of the manufacturers of these weapons. who cannot be sued as a result of crimes carried out using them. so, given that these arguments have been advanced in the main by the marketing arm of the weapons manufacturing industries, it is a case of the subordination of the well-being of people to profits.

what's a no-brainer in all this goes back to what we, collectively, do know about newtown: what enabled adam lanza to do what he did was the availability of that bushmaster and the ammunition in his house. the purchase was legal. availability is, then, an obvious problem. what complicates an approach limited to altering laws that shape availability is the surreal number of guns already out there. i do not know what to do about that.

the set of arguments that encounter more problems because of the information left behind are those that would scapegoat people with autism or other forms of mental difficulty. while its good that the general question has been raised about the availability and quality of mental health care in the states---as a function of the privatized barbarism of the american health care system---this set of correlations is more seriously undercut by the fragmentary nature of the information to this point.

 

No offense but FUCK the NRA. Actually... I don't care if that offends anyone or not. Just FUCK'EM.