James Holmes and gun control

The MSM is trying to change the James Holmes mass murder into a story about gun control. “Gun control, gun control, gun control” the MSM blathers on.

I am not as pro-gun as the typical right-wing nut. Knowing what I know about HBD, I don’t want criminal NAMs (or even prole whites) walking around packing heat.

However, only a complete ban on all gun ownership would have stopped Holmes from using rifles to kill his victims. And no one is proposing that kind of a total ban. And for good reason. Statistics show that vast majority of crimes committed with firearms are committed with handguns. For example, 57% of murders are committed with handguns, while only 3% are committed with rifles. (These statistics are nearly 20 years old, but I doubt the handgun to rifle ratio has changed much.)

So it should be obvious why nearly all gun control proposals that ban any class of gun focus on banning handguns. And yes, I do think that a ban on handguns would reduce the number of firearms crimes. The fact that handguns are concealable enables their more frequent use, and means that some hothead lowlife has one easily available. Carrying around a rifle takes a much bigger commitment, and announces the fact that you are armed to the guy you intend to kill as well as to the police.

The other types of things that gun control advocates propose, such as waiting periods and permits, also would not have stopped Holmes.

Permits prevent people with criminal histories, with low future-time orientation, and who can’t afford the permit fee, from buying guns. People who have a problem obtaining a permit are the type of people you don’t want owning guns. But Holmes wouldn’t have had a problem obtaining a permit. Until his crime, he looked like a perfect model citizen on paper.

Waiting periods are designed to prevent hotheads from going out and buying a gun because he’s pissed at someone and wants to kill them. Hopefully, a week later, he’s no longer pissed. Because the typical murderer has such low future-time orientation, waiting periods probably do help to reduce firearm crimes. But James Holmes planned his crime for several months, so a one-week waiting period wouldn’t have made a difference.

* * *

Jason writes:

The typical murder is a dispute over drugs, and the murderer is a gang member, often living in a city with gun controls, up to and including a complete gun ban.

This is exactly why handgun bans are so effective. These low-lifes often arouse the suspicion of the police, who then stop and frisk them. When the cops find a gun, the low-life instantly goes to prison and is kept off the streets, thus lowering the crime rate.

* * *

For the people who were too lazy to read my post, or too stupid to understand it, I do NOT advocate for a complete ban on all guns, and I clearly stated that gun control would not have prevented James Holmes from committing mass murder.

I've also previously recommended a Ruger 10/22 as a first gun if you want to go buy one. I don't own a gun myself, but I really don't care if any of my readers want to buy on. I'd probably buy one if I lived out in the country and had stuff to shoot at.

Comments

[Kosher Cowboy]

*sigh*
Where to begin? I read your blog despite your glaring flaws, HS. When does "Girls" return? Who is more of a WASP, Obama or Romney?

[Kaz]

The real issue is that in an open society like ours, it's incredibly easy to go on a mass shooting spree out of blue like this. It's a testament to our society how far we've come when you see how rarely this happens. Sacrificing freedoms for tiny gains like this will not get us anywhere. If you really want to prevent this kind of stuff look into expanding the mental health care so people like James Holmes are found and treated before it comes to this.

[Jason]

The typical murder is a dispute over drugs, and the murderer is a gang member, often living in a city with gun controls, up to and including a complete gun ban. Despite low future-time orientation, the perpetrator is well aware of the utility of violence, enough to have gone to the effort to acquire a gun by extra-legal means before the murder. The second most typical killing is a murder in the course of robbery or rape. Again, although the perpetrator has low enough future-time orientation to disregard the potential for punishment, they are still capable of preparing to ply their trade. Violence is not a sudden impulse, it is their avocation.

By definition, waiting periods only affect those who are both impulsively violent and have not previously considered violence as a tool. That is a very small group.

Draw it out as a quad chart: Considered the utility of violence vs. Impulsively violent

CI = gang member, armed robber
ci = average public.
Ci = CCW carrier, cops.
cI = the stereotypical guy who comes home to find his wife in the arms of another man, suddenly discovers that violence is an option he'd like to explore.

The last may be thwarted by waiting periods, but is not a significant component in the American murder rate.

[kawokmali]

It seems NYC cops are idiots...
http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2012/jul/16/wnyc-map-police-find-guns-where-they-stop-and-frisk-less/

[HS: Disagree. They seem to be doing their jobs here.]

[sabril]

"By definition, waiting periods only affect those who are both impulsively violent and have not previously considered violence as a tool. That is a very small group."

I agree, and I think the actual statistics bear this out. As far as I know, no waiting period legislation has ever resulted in a reduction in shootings.

[Franklin Marks]

The freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.

Re-read that a thousand times if you have to. Understand it. Know it. That's what it means to have a guaranteed right. You don't get to pick and choose and certainly not decide what "low-life" or proles or any other group (hey -- like black back in the day) get to keep a weapon.

Geez. Equality of outcome idiocy is one thing, but the least onerous standard of living peacefully with one another is equality before the law.

[HS: I've read the Bill of Rights a zillion times, the Founders only intended for it to be applied to Congress and not to the states who are free to control gun ownership. And since we all agree that people shouldn't be allowed to own their own nuclear bombs, the only think we are arguing about is the degree that a particular weapon is so much of a public threat that it needs to be outlawed.]

[Fiddlesticks]

"And no one is proposing that kind of a total ban."

The highly influential Jorge Ramos certainly is, if you check his Twitter feed from a few days ago.

In his concern troll way he always claims that laws can't stop large-scale human trafficking, but now he thinks they could stop trafficking of little pieces of plastic and steel.

[whiskey]

HS -- You're off base here. The REASON elites/NAMs like Jessie Jackson want a gun ban is that then, only the thugs of color will have guns, the law-abiding Whites will not, and be easier victims. That's a win for elites, and a win for NAMs.

While it is true in NYC alone, stop and frisk puts a lot of NAMs carrying guns in jail, that policy is not politically sustainable, given that Bloomberg and any successor (who WILL be a Democrat) depend on NAM votes. In Chicago, plagued by NAM gun violence, that's even less likely. Rahm loves Farrakhan who wants to stone gays to death, but hates Chick-fil-a.

Gun ownership puts power to defend one's self back into the hands of the individual, for good or bad. Gun Control makes only powerful elites with bodyguards and thugs who ignore laws able to fight back against attack by ... thug NAMs. That's the whole point of gun control.

Lets get real here, there is zero zilch nada none possibility of putting large amounts of NAMS in jail for gun violations. There is no political will to put elite supporters in jail.

[WesleyH]

Half Sigma

I have no ideological loyalty either to the people that are for gun control or against gun control.

I do think that getting violent low lifes off the street and in to prison is a noble goal.

Seems to me that the population of each city and town should be able to vote on its own gun rules.

For example, NYC has an almost complete handgun ban and it seems to be working. Crime is way down in NYC. Gun ban combined with stop and frisk is keeping guns off the street, period. And I like that.

Similarly, if a town is wealthy enough to pay for great police force and the people in that town feel safer letting the police guard them rather than having citizens be armed, that is fine with me. I am thinking Scarsdale or Larchmont are towns with people who would rather have no guns allowed and have the people protected by the police

That being said, in most towns in the usa, the majority of people will vote for concealed carry, and they should get what they want.

At the end of the day, people move to different towns for different reasons. What is wrong with a variety of gun laws?

[HS: I never said anything was wrong with anything. I think that high crime CAUSES gun control, so urban areas with NAMs will wind up with stricter gun control.]

[The Real Vince]

"[HS: I've read the Bill of Rights a zillion times, the Founders only intended for it to be applied to Congress and not to the states who are free to control gun ownership.]"

Yes, well, conservatives missed that lesson on federalism. We gotz to protect ourselves from the gubmit, preserve our freedum n' stuff. Fundamental, inalienable, Constitutional rights and all that.

Massacres are rare, but crazies could be limited if there was a licensing procedure. Holmes wanted to join a gun club, but gave a guy there the willies.

Other controls: limiting magazine size (yes, I know how quickly you can change magazines when you're shooting at paper targets of Bin Laden or Obama). Limit sales to one gun per month or two per year (Holmes purchased four in two months). More rigorous regulations of handguns.

The funniest thing about this episode is how on the Internet you find cowboys who think they could've saved the mother-fuckin' day in that darkened, smoke-filled theater against a guy wearing body armor. A bunch of George Zimmermans who believe they're John McClanes.

And that's the most disturbing thing about gun-nuts. They're paranoid little shits. Paranoid to the point they believe it necessary to leave the house with a sidearm. (Accidental deaths account for more than 50 times as many deaths as this massacre). You're probably statistically safer if you went everywhere with a helmet, but it turns out the only people who actually wear helmets to the movie theater are fucking retarded.

[Camlost]

Gun control in NYC may be a little more practical due to population density. A smaller policy force can effectively protect a large number of people by putting cops on a traditional street beat, especially when they're allowed to use stop-and-frisk as a deterrent.

That sort of policing doesn't work the same in Los Angeles or the Sun Belt.

[Mirco Romanato]

The ban of gun was stupid and is stupid.
People interested in owning gus (like Holmes) could find them anyway or, just because he is a smart guy, build them. It is easy to machine a gun. There are book about how to build a sub-machine gun with a normal metal workshop available in any place.
And Holmes could have used many other ways to kill people: flamethorwers. It is easy to build one. You just need two containers for the fuel, a natural gas canister for the pressure, tubes and the "gun handle" is the more complex part (just a bit more complex than an aeroghraph).

If he had built a flamethorwer he would have killed half of the people inside and burned a lot of them forever.

He built a lot of bombs. Is lawful to build and own bombs? He could not buy them, so he built them. And they didn't detonate only because the police or anyone open the door before the shooting. If had no gus, he would have used a bomb to hit the movie theater.
Hell, if he was able to open the security door and recover his arsenal he could be able to open the door and throw a few bombs around (ops. He did with smoking bombs).

Hey, he could have used a 3d printer to print a gun:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/additive-manufacturing-of-functional.html

http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2012/07/26/the-worlds-first-3d-printed-gun-is-a-terrifying-thing/

Banning guns is worse than banning drugs and have worse consequences. People, now, is able to brew their drugs and will be able to print their guns.
Prohibition only select for the most vicious to traffic and own what is prohibited.

Security is not Safety.
Gun ownership is safety. If all have a gun, who misuse a gun will face many people using their gun to restrain him.
Security is banning gun and hoping the ban is respected and enforced every time, every where for every one.
Armed NAMs are not a problem for you. Disarmed whites and Asians are.

[Mick Reactionary]

@HS:

"I do think that a ban on handguns would reduce the number of firearms crimes."

This is a clear statement that should be easy to prove or disprove using reliable stats.

Care to prove your assertion, HS?

[Melykin]

Say what you like about gun control, I still like watching this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm9o3vhKoF8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Black Death]

Norway has much stricter gun laws than the US. Didn't seem to help them much last year.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway)

[mel belli]

"These low-lifes often arouse the suspicion of the police, who then stop and frisk them."

If only. To focus on "low-lifes" means profiling. But to avoid lawsuits, cops (outside NYC) gave up on stop and frisk long ago. In reality, unlawful guns are usually found after traffic violations. But is true that strict handgun regulation would save mostly NAM lives. So it's interesting that elite whites maintain the positions they do. Theoretically, if you had a literacy or IQ floor for gun possession, you'd have the best of both worlds, guns only in possession of those who'd use them only for genuine self-defense.

[Prole]

"only a complete ban on all gun ownership would have stopped Holmes from using rifles to kill his victims"

There is the answer, then we should follow that ban with a ban of all dangerous drugs, and alcohol too. Those things hurt too many people and only a total ban will eliminate them from the marketplace.

Yes I know you aren't arguing for a ban. but guns and gun powder are not be hard to manufacture illegally. I can't believe that many of the same people who argue against drug laws believe that guns bans can work any better.

[Thrasymachus]

>>These low-lifes often arouse the suspicion of the police, who then stop and frisk them. When the cops find a gun, the low-life instantly goes to prison and is kept off the streets, thus lowering the crime rate. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2018762877_danny25.html

Liberals don't like to lock lowlifes up. Any restriction that may apply to a middle-class person as well as a lowlife leads to anarcho-tyranny, where the middle-class is kept strictly in line and the lowlifes do what they want. It's the rule in California these days.

[jeff]

Half Sigma is only partly right. The single best guidance to civil rules is: There is that which is seen and that which is not seen.

Given the dissolution and immolation of American society via diversity and overpopulation, we can expect a great deal of potential danger moving forward. Banning guns may produce the unintended consequence that highly intelligent people turn to bombs for which no ban can be made. Given the spread of knowledge, it will not be long before highly intelligent people can create agents of destruction that are epic in nature. Maybe better to let them keep their small arms so that they don't instead focus on building something bigger.

Also, a Brazilian at Vox Day said that in Sao Paolo, where all guns are banned, the criminals bum rush restaurants and even apartment buildings - going door to door, and rob everyone. A rifle is not a viable defense in these situations. Given our movement towards Brazilian demographics, we can expect similar things to happen in 40-50 years if civilians are not allowed to defend themselves.

But in the end, all the talk about violent deaths is just bull. What is the homicide rate in white vs black neighborhoods? If blacks are so dangerous, then why not ban them? Wouldn't banning blacks lower the gun-homicide rate more than an outright ban on guns? I bet it would!

[Peter]

Interesting that you mention waiting periods. Although New York has stricter gun laws than most other states, it does not have waiting periods. Walk into your local gun store and you might very well walk out with your legally purchased gun 15 minutes later.

"And that's the most disturbing thing about gun-nuts. They're paranoid little shits. Paranoid to the point they believe it necessary to leave the house with a sidearm. "

I've looked at some gun nut sites and the paranoia is so extreme it almost seems comical. For instance, the traditional gun in the nightstand isn't enough. A hard-core gun nut will have a loaded firearm in every room, in case, for example, he's in the kitchen when a ghetto gangbanger or schizophrenic breaks down the front door.

[DaveinHackensack]

If we're going to legislate gun laws based on an infrequent event, why not this one?: http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

[sabril]

My main objection to gun control laws is that they do not work. i.e. whenever a city, state, or country passes some strict new gun control law, there is never a significant drop in crime.

When you think about it, the reason for this is pretty obvious: The vast majority of crimes are committed by low-life thugs. For such people, the small chance of being caught with an unlicensed gun is pretty much meaningless. So the exact people who you want to prevent from having guns will be pretty much unaffected by gun laws.

I do think limited gun control could be effective -- a national "shall issue" licensing scheme combined with aggressive stopping and frisking of suspicious people. Unfortunately, such an approach is not practical given that it would be seen as racist and an abuse of people rights. Also, liberals would seize upon it as a way to abuse conservatives by making it difficult to obtain the necessary license.

[Peter]

Speaking of James Holmes, it's now come out that he had been seeing a psychiatrist at the university, one specializing in schizophrenia. It's the same shrink to whom he sent the notebook showing drawings of a massacre.

I would imagine this development is hugely important in terms of civil liability. Instead of pinning their hopes on dubious lawsuits against the theater chain, victims and their estates now have an excellent chance of collecting massive sums from the university, based on the psychiatrist's failure to recognize the threat Holmes presented and having him Taken Away.

[Melykin]

Might be a good idea to prevent mentally ill people from buying guns. Holmes was apparently a psychiatric patient of the doctor he sent that package to.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/27/justice/colorado-theater-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[The Real Vince]

@mirco

"People interested in owning gus (like Holmes) could find them anyway or, just because he is a smart guy, build them. It is easy to machine a gun. There are book about how to build a sub-machine gun with a normal metal workshop available in any place."

Stop. You're being ridiculous.

First, Holmes was a loner, not at all connected to the criminal underworld. He ordered a lot of his shit off the Interwebs. Second, it's not easy to build a gun. Though Holmes' intelligence has probably been exaggerated by the media, the typical criminal is dumb. The typical violent criminal is also impulsive. Most murders are unplanned. Can you connect the dots here?

How many people did he kill with his bombs? How many people did the Unabomber manage to kill with HIS bombs? Time-square killer who loaded up his SUV with explosives? Those sorts of attacks require a level of patience and intelligence outside the scope of a typical violent person, the kind who accounts for the vast majority of murders, but I grant you an exception of super-villains who want to smell the world burn.

As for the Norway-attack-disproves-the-effectiveness-of-gun-control non-argument... first, it's an anomaly. Norway's gun violence -- along with any other industrialized country in the world -- is lower than the U.S.'s (even accounting for blacks). There are people in the latest Volvos with the best safety features who still, nevertheless, die in auto-accidents. We had laws against hijacking airplanes, yet 19 guys did it with box-cutters. This stuff is inevitable, but you can create obstacles to reduce the murder rate. The problem with human nature is that we're psychologically inclined to be swayed more by catastrophic events than hard-headed statistics.

"But Marge, you don't understand. I felt this incredible power holding a gun... the kind of power GOD must feel when HE'S holding a gun." - Homer

[AllanF]

Banning large capacity magazines seems the one regulation that would actually make a difference in a schizo's ability to mass kill.

[Kotakoti]

Gun control works see China/Japan/Korea

Typical Chinese police are unarmed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbSMup_x7Pc

They learn martial arts to take down criminals.

Sure sometimes one criminal ends up stabbing 6 cops to death but if the cops are welled trained this probably won't happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Jia

>Six policemen suffered stab-wounds in their lungs, livers and necks and bled to death. Besides the knife and the molotov cocktails Yang carried with him a hammer, a dust mask and tear-gas spray

[whiskey]

Norway has a complete gun ban. That did not stop Breivik from simply smuggling them over from Russia. Other nations with complete national gun bans have found them to be totally ineffective in either preventing lone nut White guy massacres that are rare but garner attention, or the drip-drip-drip of daily murders by NAMS.

Most guns used by gangbangers are imported from China or Eastern Europe, which churn them out by the millions. You can no more keep guns out than drugs. The two ride the same criminal pathways. Ennis Cosby, Bill Cosby's son, was murdered by that gangbanger with a Makarov. Manufactured in Eastern Europe and smuggled into this country.

Gun bans just disarm the citizens, see Mexico and Brazil which have them and suffer horrific gun violence.

Holmes was NOT wearing body armor, rather a tactical vest containing ammo, about as much ballistic protection as a windbreaker. His 100 round magazine doubtless SAVED lives, like all ultra-high caps it predictably jammed (that's why the military does not use them).

Again, gun control in NYC is totally dependent on stop and frisk, which is likely to end with the Bloomberg Administration. Does anyone think Mayor Alec Baldwin will continue them? Locking up Black thugs? Come on.

[Matthew Walker]

No handgun ban has ever been shown to reduce violent crime involving guns, or any other kind. It's been tried on ISLANDS that already had very low gun ownership before the ban. Still didn't work.

It's not "so effective". The failure rate is an exhaustively docemented 100%, everywhere it's been tried. No exceptions.

I wish it worked too. But it doesn't. I know it sounds like it should work. But it doesn't. Every place with gun control and low crime had equally low crime before gun control -- some, like the UK, much lower (gun crime in the UK is up 89% this last decade). Go find me an exception. Should be easy, right? Well, it's impossible. We have a staggering amount of data on this.

Gun control is like central economic planning: It sounds like a wonderful idea at first glance, and people keep on trying it, no matter how perfect a record of failure it has. People don't learn from history.

[Pinandpuller]

Great White killed more people than James Holmes.

[map]

Look, Whiskey is right. You people keep talking about handgun bans as if the gun control movement is some kind of public health measure.

The purpose of gun control is to disarm white people...full stop. Take that in. Mass shootings are nothing more than grist to...disarm white people. The powers that be want to have a society where the elite are protected by heavily armed security services and the thugs are heavily armed to prey upon defenseless white people.

That is the goal. How do you think the FBI documented interracial crimes which show massive black predatory behavior are achieved? By disarming white people.

Mass shootings are sensational nonevents. More people die every year from drowning in buckets and swimming pools than die from mass shootings.

[map]

Incidentally, while I am against gun bans, I am all for keeping drugs illegal. Gang wars are attempts to engage in restraints on trade. They are killing each other because they want a monopoly on the drug trade, not because drugs are illegal. If drugs were legal, then gangs would still be killing any competitor that entered their territory.

[Gil]

Sure enough H.S. all the gun nuts come out of the woodwork when anyone tries to mention gun control. Strange how there's no equivalent car nuts. Cars are essential for the vast majority to get by - yet cars are banned to all and you have to prove you're worthy of a car licence by showing proficiency in your driving ability. So why not put guns in a similar category - you don't get own gusn and ammo until you get a gun licence where you show you don't have a criminal record, aren't retarded and/or aren't crazy. I have no problem with ordinary, law-abiding people getting a gun liccence but yes it should be a privilege. And yes I do believe the Bill of Rights/2nd Amendment was about maintaining a militia of freemen not a free-for-all for gun ownership.

To put it another way: why do gun nuts want gangbangers to freely buy their guns and ammo, no question asked, from supply stores? Of course, dangerous gangs are going to break any law that gets in their way, but so what? Such poeople would destroy society and lord over the survivors if they could get the chance. Let them take the risk of buying illegal guns and ammo. They can't exactly complain if the gear they buy isn't up to quality standards and unsafe to use.

[DaveinHackensack]

Where it's legal to carry concealed handguns, criminals never know if the woman, elderly man, or other potential target is armed. That creates a deterrent factor. John Lott makes an empirical case for this: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

[The Real Vince]

Whiskey:
"Norway has a complete gun ban."

This is just false. And nobody is calling for a complete gun ban anyway.

"That did not stop Breivik from simply smuggling them over from Russia."

"Simply" smuggle it. Yeah. Breivik's journal talks about removing his car seat, disassembling the gun, hacking off the tip, all for theoretical AK-47.

Other comparisons in this thread of guns to drugs do not wash. How much can you get on the street for a kilo of coke? Heroin? And how about a gun? And people are *addicted* to drugs.

Now we've seen gun sales surge in Colorado, and everywhere else. Scared, paranoid people buyin' guns to "protect" themselves. Those guns are more likely to kill a member of their family than be used to put down some asshead who wants his face on television.

[map]

Gil -

"Sure enough H.S. all the gun nuts come out of the woodwork when anyone tries to mention gun control. Strange how there's no equivalent car nuts. Cars are essential for the vast majority to get by - yet cars are banned to all and you have to prove you're worthy of a car licence by showing proficiency in your driving ability."

Because no one has ever talked about mass-confiscation of cars as a solution to auto accidents. Yet, gun controllers talk incessantly about taking guns en mass whenever man-bites-dog stories like Aurora come up.

Gun controllers keep trying to push their agenda despite being wrong when their parade of horribles don't come true. When concealed carry was spreading throughout the country, gun controllers shrieked that there would be gunfights over coffee and homicides would skyrocket. What happened? Just the opposite. Did the gun controllers change their tune when the evidence contradicted them? Nope. They kept making the same falsified claims over and over again.

Not trusting an advocacy group when they routinely lie does not make you a "gun nut." It makes you question what their real agenda really is.

As for gang bangers? Well, in Chicago, they have no problem getting high-quality weaponry that fires factory ammo, despite the city's ban on guns and the stringent requirements needed to get a handgun.

The more important question, "Gil", is why you choose to side with liars.

[sabril]

"Gun control works see China/Japan/Korea"

This is liberal nonsense; China/Japan/Korea have low crime rates because they are populated by law-abiding Oriental people.

When those same Oriental people immigrate to the United States, they still have very low crime rates -- even with much easier access to guns.

"It sounds like a wonderful idea at first glance, and people keep on trying it, no matter how perfect a record of failure it has. "

Agree 100%. And of course the abysmal failure of each gun control law is used to justify newer but equally worthless laws. Sometimes I wonder if liberalism should be seen as a mental illness.

[Pinandpuller]

Gil
You can buy cars and drive them on your property all you want without a license. You need a license for public roads. I don't necessarily have a problem with that.
So by your logic do you consider Gloria Steinem an abortion nut?

[Drole Prole]

"Because no one has ever talked about mass-confiscation of cars as a solution to auto accidents. Yet, gun controllers talk incessantly about taking guns en mass whenever man-bites-dog stories like Aurora come up."
_______
Gun controllers are also car controllers and prefer certain safety features be required in cars to reduce injury and death. We're all gun controllers, it's just a matter of degree. Except for extreme libertarians and anarchists, we all want a certain set of regulations for the government to enforce.

I personally am in favor of the government taking steps toward reducing traffic fatalities and health issues from the automobile. From strict emission regulations, to strict minimum fuel economy, to better city planning. Likewise, I am in favor of limited access to guns.

[Anthony]

Sabril - "As far as I know, no waiting period legislation has ever resulted in a reduction in shootings."

During the L.A. Rodney King riots, plenty of Korean shopkeepers would have bought guns and shot people if California didn't have a 15-day waiting period. Most of the people who would have been shot would have deserved it, though.

Whiskey, et. al. - Gun control was originally meant to disarm blacks, and the first wave of gun control laws specifically applied only to blacks. Google "The racist roots of gun control". This is *still* the case - gun control is how liberals think we should control black people. There's only a lot of political support for gun control where there are lots of liberals near lots of black people. Look at Vermont - lots of liberals, but no blacks. They have very little gun control. (Carrying concealed doesn't require a permit.) Look at Alabama - lots of blacks, but no liberals. Not much gun control. Look at most of the big cities in the U.S., outside Texas: lots of liberals, lots of blacks. Lots of gun control.

HS - Mass murders, like the Aurora shooting, can be committed all sorts of ways. The first mass murder in U.S. history (1780) had two people killed with a gun (by being clubbed to death with the gun) and three by fire.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/07/aurora_shooting_how_did_people_commit_mass_murder_before_automatic_weapons_.html

"According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns."

Clayton Cramer has been on a roll about how deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill is to blame for a *lot* of our urban pathology, but because schizophrenia can manifest rather quickly, I'm not sure that the mental health policies of the 1950s would have gotten to the Aurora shooter in time to prevent it. Even if the laws about mentally ill people being blacklisted from owning guns were actually being enforced (they're generally not), they wouldn't have stopped the Aurora shooter. (And if they had, he might have brought his bombs to the movie theater, instead.) It probably would prevent a lot of murders and suicides, and a lot of other misery, though.

[map]

Drole prole

Gun controllers are also car controllers and prefer certain safety features be required in cars to reduce injury and death. We're all gun controllers, it's just a matter of degree. Except for extreme libertarians and anarchists, we all want a certain set of regulations for the government to enforce.

__________

Gun controllers have stated time and time again that they want all guns to be banned. They simply revert to "regulation" when their gun banning fails.

No one has suggested cars be banned.

[Bilbo Baggins]

I'm surprised that no one's pointed out that having more restricted access to guns would not have stopped him from killing all those people: he had enough explosives rigged in his apartment to kill plenty more than that.

Prole whites don't typically own handguns unless they come from law-enforcement or military backgrounds. Those are the people on the lower half of the social ladder that you want armed against NAMs. Most prole whites who own guns own hunting rifles or shotguns: Not exactly what you'd use in crime.

Middle-class whites (and Asians who live in shall-issue states) are the people who get concealed-carry permits and benefit most from having some "firepower" in their house without being a nut about it. This is very typical in Sunbelt cities.

Handguns are primarily a defensive weapon: no one goes marching into battle with a handgun as their primary weapon. That's why handguns have historically been carried by officers. Their concealability is what turns them into offensive weapons in the hands of NAMs. If you want to lower the crime rate to negligible levels, then you should craft laws that keep handguns out of the hands of NAMs and encourage middle-class whites and Asians to learn to use them.

[Mirco Romanato]

@The Real Vince
"First, Holmes was a loner, not at all connected to the criminal underworld. He ordered a lot of his shit off the Interwebs."

Because it was easy, not because he would not be able to buy them there. In a jailed criminal survey (in the US), the large majority of them admitted to have owned a gun (for self protection, usually) at least one time during their life. They bought/obtained them from friends, relatives or accomplices in the great majority of the case. And it was easy. With hundreds of $ available Holmes would be able to do the same.

"Second, it's not easy to build a gun. Though Holmes' intelligence has probably been exaggerated by the media, the typical criminal is dumb."

The dumbs usually buy stuff from others. In this regard, we all are "dumbs" because we can not know how to do all things. So we specialize.
Dumb alcoholics don't know how to make booze, they buy it. They bough it during Prohibition.
Not dumb people liking booze buy it from others because they don't bother to know how to do it. But there are many kits around to do your beer, wine or high grade drinks.

http://www.lizmichael.com/200machg.htm
**The same is true for firearms. Any person handy with common tools can make a fully automatic weapon.**

http://www.amazon.com/Machine-Pistol-Workshop-Defense-Resistance/dp/0873648234/ref=pd_sim_b_3
http://www.amazon.com/Expedient-Homemade-Firearms-The-Submachine/dp/0873649834/ref=la_B001KILFNM_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343564746&sr=1-1

"The typical violent criminal is also impulsive. Most murders are unplanned. Can you connect the dots here?"

Most murders are unplanned but not unforeseen by the perpetrators. If a burglar enter an inhabited home, with a gun or another weapon, he is already accounting for a clash with the people in the home. He is not, probably, there to kill, but he is already ready to do so if expedient or needed.

If he is not willing to kill, he would not bring a weapon with him. The scope of a typical violent person is the same if he bring a knife, a club or his bare hands. They are usually violent with people weaker than them. Rarely they are violent with people stronger than them (because dumb or not they learn to respect people meaner and stronger than them after a beating or two or not survive in a single piece). Even nuts, certified psychiatric cases, learn it. The only to be unable to restrain themselves are the ones totally out of this reality.

"How many people did he kill with his bombs?"
How many would have he killed if he was forced to use bombs instead of firearms for his attack?

In Italy (not exactly violent like the US, or better, the inner city and ghetto US), we have a total ban on carry gun (it is a bit more relaxed with gun at home). To carry a gun is unheard apart for specific classes job related.
There are 10 millions (2010) of legally registered firearms in 5 millions homes in Italy (and a lot of unregistered). But only 45.000 carry permits and 900.000 permits for hunting or sport.
The right of self defense is very limited.

You know? Many maniacs/ lone terrorists simply moved to explosives:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Unabomber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Brindisi_school_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2009#October
"Italy A Libyan man, Mohamed Game, tried to bring a bomb into a Carabinieri barracks in Milan"
A DIY bomb made in the bathroom by a intelligent (and poor) libyan.

[Jason]

The problem with using a handgun ban as a foundation for stop-frisk-imprison is that you are also creating the foundation for anarcho-tyranny. Should the followup stage not be carried out in full, that is the default. All it takes is one change in policy. Compare and contrast NYC vs. Chicago. That is an extremely high risk, especially given how quickly administrations and budgets can change. Not to mention how easy it is to challenge stop-and-frisk on grounds of disparate impact. You are gambling that all of these factors will come together in a favorable way. Apart from NYC, this never happens, and even in that case I do not expect it to last.

[Reality Check]

"Knowing what I know about HBD, I don’t want criminal NAMs (or even prole whites) walking around packing heat."

Why not just say what you really mean (or at least what you should mean), which is that you deem some people not responsible enough to own guns? Why would the notion that those people are more common among NAMs/prole whites be relevant?

Why do the HBDers feel the need to try to shoehorn everything into the HBD mold?

[TBOU]

"The real issue is that in an open society like ours, it's incredibly easy to go on a mass shooting spree out of blue like this. It's a testament to our society how far we've come when you see how rarely this happens."

It was very rare before, and as a country we have more problems with it than most. This is also a reflection of normlessness and ennui; social pressure (which exists here in microlevel in some communities) might keep the Holmes in check in other countries.