Analyzing the facts to solve the problem methodically and dispassionately like Sherlock Holmes would do.
1. There was a shooting incident in the USA recently.
2. There have been many shooting incidents in the USA over the years.
3. Almost always in these cases the shooter is deranged, or is a social misfit in some aspect or other.
4. The recent shooting took place in Arizona.
5. The recent shooting took place in Tucson.
6. The recent shooting took place in an urban shopping area.
7. The recent shooting involved a minor political meeting where a congresswoman was intending to interact with her constituents and receive their comments and input.
8. There was a large grocery store near where the shooting occured.
9. There was a large pharmacy near where the shooting occured.
10. The shooter arrived in an automobile.
11. The shooter had a handgun.
12. The shooter had ammunition for his handgun.
13. The shooter knew how to fire his handgun.
14. The handgun was capable of firing a large number of bullets before having to be reloaded.
15. Old people were shot and killed.
16. Young adults were shot and killed.
17. A child was shot and killed.
18. Sometimes these types of shootings take place on college campuses.
19. Sometimes these types of shootings take place in high schools.
20. Sometimes these types of shootings take place on the grounds of elementary schools.
21. Sometimes these types of shootings take place where the shooter used to be employed.
22. Sometimes the shooter is young.
23. The shooter in the most recent case had parents and lived in their home.
What other facts and potential clues can you think of?
What things can we deduce from the clues? What action needs to be taken in order to prevent public shootings from happening again in the future?
I know the followers of this blog pretty well, so certainly the most obvious remedy they would most likely suggest would be to make it illegal for private citizens to have guns in the U.S.
But what other things should we do, based on the other facts we’ve uncovered?
1. All people should, at the very least, be given psychological testing at least every three years. (Crazy people do more than just fire guns in crowds.) One would be issued a “not crazy” stamp on his driver’s license. Definition of "not crazy" would be set by a committee consisting of Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and James Carville.
2. All schoolchildren would be moniored to make sure they weren’t loners or being bullied. Or at least not allowed to wear black to school.
3. Arizona obviously needs to just be ceded to Mexico and be done with it. They’ve simply offended liberal sensibilities one time too many. Their professional sports teams could be moved to Alabama.
4. Tucson is not as bad as Arizona as a whole. Pehaps everyone could be moved on campus and just build a wall around it.
5. It is obvious that shopping centers draw crowds of people, therefore we need to take another look at the “freedom of assembly” thing to see if that portion of the constitution is outdated. In the meantime, no more permits for large stores within 2 miles of each other.
6. Private automobiles have a terrible history of causing and facilitating crime in the U.S. For one thing, drunks couldn’t kill nearly as many innocent people if they were made to walk or ride buses. Cars use oil and mainly only create more and more Arab wealth. Americans have no constitutional right to own cars. Cars need to go.
7. If guns can’t be banned, at least require them all to be single shot .22s.
8. Obviously, the elderly should not be allowed to attend public events.
9. The time has come to find an alternative to education where large amount of students congregate in a confined area. Home schooling for elementary students is the answer, if coupled with computer degrees for older students.
10. Employees who are fired instead of retired should be assumed to be disgruntled, and each must be followed to insure they don’t return to their previous workplace.
What else can we do? Much. but the above would be a start.
The very thought makes me feel safer already.
Tomorrow: quotes on this subject by politicians and talk show hosts.
I just don't think america could ever hold down the lid on the "guns in the hands of crazies" problem.
ReplyDeleteYou have far too many guns in circulation, and no way at all of tracking ownership or movements.
You have no credible mental heath care.
And your law-enforcement is simply an "after the event" system.
If ever I want to go berserk and shoot up a random crowd of people, I'll move to America first.
Yes, I get the point, the guy was a crazy, he'd been tagged as a crazy way back, and generally speaking, crazies are the more at-risk group, when it comes to shootings.
But then you've got a constitution, which guarantees the crazies the right to carry enough weaponry to take over a small country.
That second amendment was written in the days of muzzle-loading single-shot muskets, but hey, obviously they meant it to include large-magazine automatic weapons and pump action shotguns, right?
Killing the crazies before they reach puberty might work. Careful observation of kindergarten playgroups would be the start.
I'd go after anybody with tattoos as well. Anybody who wears all black to school. Anybody who has a piercing, other than females with one piercing per earlobe. Lip, nose, eyebrow, cheek, and all other body percings? Cull them!
@Soubriquet - So, to summarize, I was right about my readers, including you, thinking that the obvious answer would be to not let private citizens own guns? Or at least restrict the kinds of guns they can own? Ok. I already knew that. And it would work. Works in your country. And, lord knows, a lot of people in this country pine to be like your country.
ReplyDeleteI think you failed to properly read what I said.
ReplyDeleteActually, I'd like a nice big arsenal of guns, and I've always kinda hankered after a tank of my own.
I'm not against the concept of armed civilians, just armed and unstable civilians, armed drunken civilians, armed enraged civilians. And criminal civilians.
It seems that where, say, there's a major domestic dispute, and there's a gun at hand, the situation can rapidly become a tragedy.
Where kids get hold of guns, where petty criminals get hold of guns, where the kid who's been bullied at school can go back in with a bagfull of weaponry and spare mags.
I would quite like to own a few guns. It appeals to my inner delinquent. And I'd quite like to be a sniper, and pick off a few of the people who've pissed me off in the past.
I'd like, in traffic, when somebody cuts in front of me with their fuckwitmobile, all smoked glass and low-profile tyres, rap music blaring, I'd like to flip up the red switch, hear the whirrr as the gunports open in front of the browning automatic cannon barrels...
I'd like a grenade launcher and maybe a few little missiles I could use to track people who annoy me.
I should be allowed all the guns I want. But my neighbours? Definitely not.
So no. I'm not against gun ownership at all.
Jesus H. Christ, soubriquet is going postal on your blog Relax Max. If laws were enforced, like the death penalty for instance it could deter the criminals from popping a cap in someone's ass.
ReplyDeleteNow, now, Sue. Not to worry. This is Arizona. They will take care of Mr. Crazy in due time. Soubriquet is a friend of this blog but he comes from a kinder, gentler place. ) I know very well the frustration you feel when the laws aren't enforced often enough or fast enough.
ReplyDeleteYou don't know this, but for cases like this where it is out in the open with plenty of witnesses, Soubriquet would have no moral problem with executing the crazy right on the spot instead of wasting the court's time.
We both know that we have to give due process if we are going to call ourselves civilized. Sometimes it doesn't happen fast enough, and sometimes you get the impression the crazies are gaining ground. But so many people are good and law-abiding. It wouldn't do to punish all the good people (by curtailing more of their liberties) just because of a few crazies. I realize that the closer you get to a Russian or Chinese society, the fewer shootings like this you will have, but...
@Soubriquet - I'm pretty sure I read what you said correctly. Let's go over it to make sure.
ReplyDelete(You can disregard all the following if you want to; I'm not trying to offend you, just debating.)
"I just don't think america could ever hold down the lid on the "guns in the hands of crazies" problem.
You have far too many guns in circulation, and no way at all of tracking ownership or movements."
To me, I see that as a way of saying "Take away the guns". What did I misunderstand there? Of course you exaggerate, too. Serial numbers on guns are tracked every day, and criminals are put in jail every day because of that record keeping and the databases of the FBI. I do admit we don't track the movements of private citizens in the U.S. even if they own guns. There is a black market in guns, which bypasses the registration or transfer process, but most "no questions asked" gun show sales are a thing of the past. That probably seems pretty lax to you and I'm sure you wouldn't see tighter rules as a personal liberty infringement. It is indeed an unfortunate necessary tradeoff for personal freedom. All this stuff is my own personal opinion, of course, though I think I am still in the majority.
"You have no credible mental heath care.
And your law-enforcement is simply an "after the event" system."
That's a pretty ridiculous statement about mental health care.
All law-enforcement all over the world is "after the fact". Otherwise it isn't law enforcement, it is crime prevention. We have crime prevention programs. Our police work around the clock, never stop, never sleep. :) Our system follows and checks up on known criminals; our police speak regularly in schools, have youth programs after school, including the Police Athletic League. If you mean do we have spies on every corner or have tv cameras on every building, you would be right. I admit that. Also, our constitution does restricts searches and seizures. You may see that as an impediment to crime prevention as well. Again, a trade-off.
"If ever I want to go berserk and shoot up a random crowd of people, I'll move to America first."
Prepare to be executed if you do. Just saying.
"But then you've got a constitution, which guarantees the crazies the right to carry enough weaponry to take over a small country."
Our constitution allows private citizens the right to own weaponry. When it was written, the lesson of Concord and Lexington was fresh. One never knows when one will have to throw off one's government again if it gets too oppressive. True, tanks and fighter aircraft are out of the price range of most private citizens, but the states each have their armies and air forces, and we can go guerilla if we have assault rifles at least. Only a government bent on tyranny seeks to disarm it's citizenry in order to not be threatened by them. I prefer my government to feel threatened. Whatever type of guns we can have is determined by our courts, not our constitution. Just out of curiosity, what else should be taken out of our constitution? That silly speech thing? That one is troublesome, isn't it?
"That second amendment was written in the days of muzzle-loading single-shot muskets, but hey, obviously they meant it to include large-magazine automatic weapons and pump action shotguns, right?"
Back then, the only weapons our government had were muskets and cannon. They have more now, and so citizens need more if the government decides to get frisky.
"Killing the crazies before they reach puberty might work. Careful observation of kindergarten playgroups would be the start.
I'd go after anybody with tattoos as well. Anybody who wears all black to school. Anybody who has a piercing, other than females with one piercing per earlobe. Lip, nose, eyebrow, cheek, and all other body percings? Cull them!"
God forbid we profile anyone. :)
You all carry guns
ReplyDeleteYou are all crazy
You kill one another
Simple!
The government should focus on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals… instead of making it harder, and costing my more money to own a gun legally.
ReplyDeleteThe problem starts there in my mind.
This is a huge argument to open, so, I’ll leave my comment there.
Can someone explain why the same people who think women can't be trusted to deal with an unwanted pregnancy as they choose are the same ones who think citizens should be trusted to carry around enough firepower to kill a dozen or more people?
ReplyDeleteThere's a logic there I don't entirely get.
@ Jeff. You said, "The government should focus on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals… instead of making it harder, and costing my more money to own a gun legally. " I'll bite. How do you do both?
Making guns easy to obtain is done by assuming purchasers are trustworthy. The more you distrust purchasers, the more checks you need to make sure a particular client is trustworthy (adding to cost and reducing availability as criteria becomes more stringent).
There's a logical fallacy in thinking trustworthy honest citizens are more likely to be able to take advantage of that trust than crooks who know the system (or people who are psychos but don't even know it).
Good guys and bad guys look the same to the casual observer.
@Jeff King - I agree. But, unfortunately, our government seems to lack the imagination to do that and their only solution seems always to pass blanket laws which punish EVERYONE, instead of just going after lawbreakers more forcefully (and imaginatively.) A good recent example is how EVERYONE has to go through searches at airports. Duh. That is really brilliant. But, god forbid we profile people like gang members or follow up on ex-cons to see if they have guns.
ReplyDelete@Stephanie Barr - Sure. Here’s the explanation: people who think it is wrong to kill innocent babies also think it is wrong to kill innocent adults, and therefore can be trusted with guns.
(A second note: it is ok to kill caribou in Alaska, if you then eat the meat, and still trust the hunter not to kill humans.)
(And ROTFLMAO at your government-like lack of imagination in your note to Jeff King, if I may say.)
Making bologna easy to obtain is allowed because it assumes purchasers are responsible and won’t overeat.
With regard to your seond to the last paragraph, You are wrong, I think. Trustworthy honest citizens will never take advantage of that trust. If trustworthy honest citizens explode in an argument and shoot their spouse, they would have done it with a knife or baseball bat in that same fit of passion. And if you add “mentally stable” to the list of attributes, then the rate of crimes committed by non-habitual criminals goes down even further. No, honest people don’t go out looking to commit crimes with guns or anything else. But bad guys do.
And it doesn’t matter if good guys look the same as bad guys. Even if you could tell by looking at them, the liberal PC establishment wouldn’t allow law enforcement to deter the threat by profiling.
I fear you miss my point, RM.
ReplyDeleteI'd bet 90% of the people who buy guns (legally) who end up using them on themselves or others considered themselves one of those decent trustworthy citizens when they bought them. They might even have been. Just like everyone thinks they are a better than average driver.
What I want to know is what a decent citizen who'd only use a handgun for defense (an oxymoron if ever I heard one) could possibly need a 31 bullet clip for? Or, in fact, anyone sane who isn't actively involved in a war?
If I thought I needed a gun for my defence, I'd consider a 31 bullet clip quite reasonable. And I'd carry a few spare clips too. Because a) my aim is likely to be poor, if i'm flustered by being under threat, and b) there might be more than one attacker, and c) i might want to fire a few warning shots, and d) i'd want to keep on shooting until the bad guys were either colandered or running like crazy, never to return.
ReplyDeleteFive or six bullets would not be enough.