Boehner Resists Rush to Legislation  |   Home  |   The Walker Test

Do Something?

James Wigderson penned a good column about the completely natural, if utterly irrational, push to “do something” after something like the Connecticut killings. He concludes.

None of these bans would have had any effect on the Connecticut school shooting. They would not have prevented the attack on the Sikh temple earlier this year. They would not have prevented the shooting at the Azana Salon & Spa in Brookfield. The proposed gun control measures would not have prevented any mass shootings, any more than declaring the schools in Connecticut gun-free zones. The worst school massacre in American history was in Bath Township, Michigan in 1927. The killer used bombs, not guns. Timothy McVeigh used a fertilizer bomb in Oklahoma to kill 168 people. The same day as the school shooting in Connecticut, a man stabbed 23 children at a school in China.

We’re a can-do society, and we believe there’s a solution to every problem. But the problem is that there are evil people in this world intent on doing evil things. “Doing something” that is completely ineffective only gives a false sense of security, and we should expect our leaders to know better.

Posted by Owen at 1836 hrs
Culture + Firearms + Politics + Politics - General + Politics - Wisconsin

1. Such a facile argument.  The fact that kids and crazies and junkies can obtain high powered firearms so cheaply and easily in this country is a direct product of our firearms policy. 

   Bans make guns harder to obtain.  Not impossible, but considerably more difficult than in the absence of such bans.  And I don’t endorse the idea of bans, but it’s stupid to pretend that they’re useless, or that they couldn’t have resulted in a potential shooter resorting to a less destructive violent act.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2012 at 1038 hrs
   
   
   

2. An AR 15 or M4 is not a “high powered” firearm.  People who don’t know anything about firearms should stop presuming that they should be listened to about firearms policies.  The only firearms “policy” needed is the 2nd Amendment.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2012 at 1152 hrs
   
   
   

3. LOL!  Okay boss, you keep talking about an M16 like it’s a cap gun.  I’m sure the rest of the country will take you super seriously and you’ll do great things for your cause.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2012 at 1318 hrs
   
   
   

4. There’s an impressive list of school shootings in the United States here:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#1950s

   When I think of a “high powered” weapon, I tend to think of a rifle with a high muzzle velocity. But in this context, the concern would be with short-range lethality. For which a full-auto weapon firing large caliber ammo. (e.g., a .45 cal Thompson machine gun, or an Uzi) might be exemplars). Although an RPG round could be pretty lethal as well. Fortunately weapons like these don’t seem to be all that available to civilians.

   I don’t much care for the “do something!” bias. There’s already security (or “security” in most schools), but what does that actually do (other than inconvenience and annoy those who have a legitimate reason to be in the school)?  It’s the nature of a school to have people frequently entering and exiting, and it’s hard to see how one could truly be secured without turning it into a prison-like fortress.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2012 at 1329 hrs
   
   
   

5. The .30-30 cartridge used in My Winchester 94, a design over 100 years old Jason, is considered to be of intermediate power yet still is considerably more powerful than a .223 over ranges of a couple of hundred yards.  There are states that do not allow the .223 to be used for deer hunting because of this.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2012 at 1348 hrs
   
   
   

6. r horsefeather—I agree, the 2nd Amendment which states that “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE…”

   Let us go back and hold to this amendment which give us the right to bear arms only for the purpose of having a militia.  That is what the amendment says.  Courts, laywers and others have expanded the scope, but the original amendment refers only to the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2012 at 1428 hrs
   
   
   

7. The right to bear arms is a pre-existing right of the individual, another voice.  The second amendment grants no rights to anyone.  It specifically prohibits infringement upon a natural right.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2012 at 1440 hrs
   
   
   

8. anothervoice, you’re misunderstanding the qualifier.  Individuals do not have the right to bear arms so that they can be part of a militia.  They have the right to bear arms so they can fight AGAINST the army.  “Well regulated militia” means “army” in that context.  It’s saying that because our government needs an army, and governments with armies occasionally tend to oppress their citizens (as the British government had just done), individuals can’t be prevented from keeping firearms in order to overthrow that government (as the Americans had just done against the British).  It’s an individual freedom from government, as all of those in the Bill of Rights are.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2012 at 1526 hrs
   
   
   

9. Timothy McVeigh used a fertilizer bomb in Oklahoma to kill 168 people.

   Funny he uses this example when after the OKC Bombing laws were passed to limit the sale and possession of ammonium nitrate which was the main ingredient in the bombs.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2012 at 1526 hrs
   
   
   

10. The same day as the school shooting in Connecticut, a man stabbed 23 children at a school in China.

    
    And how many of thos children died?

    Oh yeah, none.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2012 at 1527 hrs
    
    
    

11. The last time i checked.
    Murder is against the law.
    That did not stop him, or any of the killers.
    So lets make more laws and regulations.
    Then the killers can brake more laws.

    How many shootings are there in a police station?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2012 at 1858 hrs
    
    
    

12. The last time i checked.
    Murder is against the law.
    That did not stop him, or any of the killers.
    So lets make more laws and regulations.
    Then the killers can brake more laws.

    Using this logic we should just get rid of all laws.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2012 at 1912 hrs
    
    
    

13. An AR-15 or M-4 is mild enough that a female Soldier or a progressive metrosexual can fire them very comfortably.  Scary buzz words always have to be used by folks who allow emotion to run their lives, rather than reason.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2012 at 2123 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.