Well, this is disturbing

[catsittingstill]

Report on NPR this morning (summary available but for the full thing you'll have to download the mp3.)

The parts that interested me: 
1) Big clips like the one that let Giffords' would-be assassin get off 31 shots before he had to reload are flying off the shelves in at least one gun store.
2) Owners of 9 mm pistols are flocking to gun ranges to shoot them.  Apparently there is a lot of interest in seeing if they can better the killer's reload time.

Interesting.

Comments

[frith]

I LOL'ed. It's probably a very small percentage of the general population entertaining these gun fantasies, or at least I hope so.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

It occurred to me just now that maybe the difference between our countries gun-wise is not so much that we have more regulation, but simply that we don't have anything written into our basic legal code that says "Hey! You have the right to carry a gun!" (As far as I know, that is. There's also the fact that Brits in general are probably far less familiar with the core principles of their law than Americans are with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.)

Doesn't make it easier to fix, though.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

I think, without checking, that there are various customs and laws dating back to the Middle Ages about how some people are allowed arms in the presence of the monarch, about who could carry hunting weapons in the Royal Forests and I'm certain there are laws about arms in Parliament that date back a while. Not to mention that you needed a licence to crenelate. (Hey, would you believe that 'crenelate' is in Firefox's English dictionary?)

However, I am pretty sure that most common and statue law is about stopping people carrying arms... unless you count Henry VIII insisting on archery practice.

PS Whoops, missed a I off the Henry number!

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I seem to recall being allowed to carry weapons in the presence of the monarch was a mark of special favour.

But not anything about the details, I'm afraid.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I think part of the problem is that there is a culture of gun worship in the US, and for people in this culture, their competence, their personal power, their *potence* (in every sense of the word) is apparently psychologically linked to their weapons.

If someone tries to restrict gun ownership--by even so minor a test as we give for a drivers license--these people react as if we were trying to take their manhood away.

I really don't know what can be done about this. As the cartoon says "The battle on gun rights is over. You won. The occasional civilian massacre is just the price the rest of us have to pay. Again, and again."

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

In my opinion, if somebody suggests that there's a rumor of gun restriction being considered, a small segment of the population reacts as if somebody is trying to take their manhood away.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

The US law, it turned out when I researched it, was actually based on English common law. But that was flintlocks.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

That doesn't interest me so much as terrify me!

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I was trying for a neutral word.

But yes, your reaction seems quite reasonable to me.

[nojay.livejournal.com]

I've shot pistols with an extended mag; they don't work that well. Magazines are more than simple bullet-holding devices and something like the double-stack Glock magazine design extended to 30-odd rounds is a recipe for jamming or simply falling out of the gun at random intervals (the retaining catch may not be able to handle the extra weight). Basically it's a piece of gun bling, not something professionals would ever use or carry.

As for reloading times, I used to have a snapshot photo of my shooting club's champion during a practical shooting drill carrying out a compulsory reload during a timed sequence of fire. The gun's slide had returned to battery, the empty magazine (standard size) falling from the pistol was around knee-height, the last case ejected was visible in the air and he had nearly completed feeding the fresh mag into the gun's butt. His time for a sequence involving draw from a holster, fire six aimed rounds, reload and fire six more rounds was usually about four seconds.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

So they don't want the big magazine because it actually works well. (Though I will note the shooter still hit about 20 people out of 31 shots which strikes me as doing pretty (retch) well...)

Which leaves them wanting it because...

And its great that your club's champion shooter could reload really fast. I'm just really, really glad that the other (mass-murdering) shooter couldn't.

[nojay.livejournal.com]

They want it because it's bling, it's a Shiny! Some folks go for trick computer parts, some fit giant noisy energy-sapping zorsts on their cars and gun folks are not immune to the same sort of magpie desire whether it makes any real sense. We had folks at the club who had "raceguns" and "spaceguns". The raceguns were designed for speed with all sorts of aftermarket titanium and plastic parts, the spaceguns had things like laser sights and complicated muzzle brakes making them look incredibly skiffy. More than once I saw these expensively-tricked out machines disassemble themselves during a shooting session...

As for the club champion being that good, he practised two or three times a week burning at least a thousand rounds a month. That takes dedication, time and money. He had a couple of folks help him out technically and logistically. He made the British team a couple of times, representing the UK at international competitions. One year he was ranked the British no. 2 in the Nationals behind a guy who owned a gun shop and a shooting range and who practised even more than he did. This is not the sort of dedication you get from someone who's so far off his meds as to go on a shooting rampage. Oddly enough he could have gotten official permission to shoot people if he had wanted -- he was a serving Metropolitan police officer. He wasn't qualified by the Police Force to use firearms though and he would have had to quit hobby shooting to be retrained as a firearms officer since one of the things the safety officers beat into you in club shooting is that you must never ever point a gun at anyone.

[judifilksign.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the first thing that comes to mind for gun enthusiasts is not how others feel about victims, but being afraid that they will be denied some kewl toy.

I spoke to a gun enthusiast friend about how people were going to see whether they could better the killer's time, and how sick that was. He replied that the viewpoint amongst his friends at least was not whether one could beat a killer's time, (thus being a better killer able to kill more innocents)but if you are being shot at, can you beat the time of the other shooter, and reload faster than the guy shooting at you? (and thus save more lives.)

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Because, of course, what would *really* have made that situation better would have been a second person firing off thirty rounds in a public place.

I don't get how these people think. Sure, I understand fantasizing about stopping crime by violence--it's the not realizing this is a fantasy that baffles me.

[judifilksign.livejournal.com]

I suppose we must take comfort that these guys are at least fantasizing about being the hero of the piece, instead of a better, faster, nastier bad guy shooting up people with whom they disagree!

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Hmm.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Well, but all the political assassins I can think of believe they are the heroes. Probably even Loughner.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Actually apparently some assassins of public figures (don't know what happens if we sort them into "political only") are very ambivalent about it. They make no bones about the fact that they're seeking fame, rather than doing it for heroic reasons, and some of them start out several times and turn back several times minus one.

Check it out here (http://www.npr.org/2011/01/14/132909487/fame-through-assassination-a-secret-service-study)

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I did some quick homework on the Fein and Vossekuil Exceptional Case Study Project, and I think the NPR report distorts it. You can read the reports and articles here. See in particular the Journal of Forensic Sciences paper, "Assassination in the United States: An Operational Study of Recent Assassins, Attackers, and Near Lethal Approaches." I note in particular Table 2 from the paper, "Goals for the Principle Incident," which cites harm to the target as the primary goal in 68% of the cases, attention/notoriety as a goal in 38% of the cases, and suicide as a goal in 22% of the cases. (Table 5, which includes weapons use and interest is also, I think, relevant.)

I think I will here quote a chunk of the paper, since it is so strongly at variance with the NPR report:

Assassins, attackers, and near-lethal approachers had a range of reasons for action, with a subject often having more than one motive. Motives for attacks and near-lethal approaches included: to achieve notoriety/fame; to avenge a perceived wrong; to end personal pain—to be killed by law enforcement; to bring national attention to a perceived problem; to save the country or the world; to achieve a special relationship with the target; to make money; to bring about political change. Some subjects are known to have had more than one motive.

Some subjects are known to have had more than one motive. JD for example, wanted to kill the president (whom he believed to be "leading the country in the wrong direction"), to be killed in the attempt, and to gain notoriety (no longer be a "nonentity"). Sirhan Sirhan longed for notoriety and to change United States policy regarding the Palestinians. Lynette Fromme, who tried to shoot President Ford in Sacremento, CA. in 1975, wanted to retaliate against a government she believed had wrongly convicted and incarcerated Charles Manson and to call attention to corporate and government activities that she believed threatened the environment.

"Avenge a perceived wrong" and "save the country or the world" are heroic motivations.

Notice also the political motivations cited as primary in all cases of attacks on political figures. Later in the paper, F&V write, "Only one person whose primary target was a public official considered attacking a celebrity. One subject whose primary target was a celebrity is known to have considered attacking a public official. It may be that attackers and near-attackers of public officials and those who select celebrity targets are fundamentally different sets of persons." This is journanimalism in action: the NPR reporter has trouble conceiving that politics is a motivation here, or perhaps is badly wants the politics to go away.

I wish more people would pay attention to the sense of powerless that became part of the motivations of the politicals F&V cite. The current economic situation feeds that: people suddenly impoverished, out of work, losing their homes, yeah, that makes people feel powerless. Even people not directly affected know people who are affected. The huge gap between the political will of the people and the politics of our elected officials is actual powerlessness; even the modicum of political power promised every citizen seems to have been taken. And, finally, there are the right-wing propagandists stirring the pot: actually telling people they are powerless and suggesting that violence is an appropriate response to that situation.

Are the political issues of these criminals really so different than those of the wider public?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

It is interesting to know that NPR's interpretation differs from that of the original study--I should check this out.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

"Slacktivist," it turns out, has written at length about heroic fantasies on the radical right. "By pretending to believe that America is on the verge of collapse into a totalitarian tyranny, they can pretend to themselves that they are the vanguard of a courageous resistance."--http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2011/01/dont-you-know-that-you-can-count-me-out.html

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Someone present in Tuscon had a firearm and nearly used it on the wrong person. See.

"Better the shooter's time" is part of the obsession. As Judi says, at least they are hoping to be the hero of the piece, but it is not so easy to be the hero. Much easier to run towards the victims and administer first aid.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Interesting transcript.

So, when you've heroically wrested the gun away from the bad guy, you'd think your troubles are over, but they're not. People with guns are likely to mistake you for the shooter and kill *you*.

Yum.

Yes, MOAR GUNZ! That's what we need!

[boywizard.livejournal.com]

I have been waiting for a case where a gun-toting citizen is present at a mass murder scene and returns fire, perforating some other innocent bystander by mistake. This seems to almost have been it. I will be interested in how the gun nuts respond in this instance. Perhaps there is an acceptable level of 'collateral damage'?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I would also be happy to see a gun-toting citizen actually shoot the bad guy at one of these mass-murder scenes.

Not that I think it's very likely, but the immediacy of stopping the killing would outweigh the encouraging-gun-fantasy aspect for me.

To the folks at the firing ranges...

[erin-ruston.livejournal.com]

Just stay classy Arizona.

Re: To the folks at the firing ranges...

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Yep.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Hopefully, Obama's speech and the shock of an assassination has defused some of the hate. I think Murdoch (FOX News) and the Koch Brothers (I-Mordor) will keep stirring the pot, so this isn't over. Personally, I'm all for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. I'm hoping for Noam Chomsky on Fox...

What we have is a deeply scared culture, with a weapons and violence obsession. Considering our history, and how badly stressed we are right now, this is not surprising. The best things we could do about it are to adopt some big liberal programs: a stimulus to get people back to work, fix the mortage mess, stop the wars. I don't know; maybe Obama will be shocked into doing more. It's going to be much harder now, with the radical right so powerful in the House. Obama--as his speech shows--is great at conciliation, but not so good at conflict. I wish he'd study his hero Gandhi more: when Gandhi thought something was "evil" he pulled out all the stops.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

What we have is a set of cultures in which one culture is deeply scared--not entirely without reason, because it used to be in charge and pretty soon it won't be, and this is basically demographic and beyond its control. But it's scared all out of proportion to the seriousness of the natural shift that's going on.

A large part of this culture also worships guns.

I think it's pretty clear where this is going, whether or not the shooter in this case was part of this culture.

I hope that this will be some sort of turning point. That would certainly be nice.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I think we are arriving at the turning point, but are not quite there yet. In the next two years we are going to have a taste of what the radical right will do, domestically, if given its head. It is not likely to be popular: the radical right can hardly hide the cruelty and elitism of its programs while putting them into practice. And so it is decision time, and who knows how that will go. I like the following quote: "You can't blame the voters. In 2006 they voted out the party of endless war and corporate bailouts. In 2008 they voted out the party of endless war and corporate bailouts. And in 2010 they voted out the party of endless war and corporate bailouts." (Via Avedon Carol's Sideshow.) My guess, though, is that we are in for a period of fear and regimentation similar to that of the USA of the 1950s. I expect demographic changes will bring this period to an end around 2020. Good, I suppose, but I will be an old man by then.

Trolley Square

[paiyatamu.livejournal.com]

On February 12, 2007, a lone man with a shotgun and a pistol and a backpack full of ammunition walked into the Trolley Square mall in Salt Lake City. As people were cowering, he would walk up to them and shoot them point blank. He killed 5 people this way, including a 15-year old girl. An off-duty policeman having dinner with his wife, heard the shots, drew his concealed weapon and shot back at the gunman, pinning him down until SLC police could arrive.

One of the requirements for concealed carry in Utah is knowing your target and what lies beyond the target and to NOT fire if there's danger of hitting some innocent bystander. Those of us who've received military and/or law enforcement training know the difference between wolves and sheepdogs (although sheep don't trust either because both have teeth).

Unless you've had a gun at your head (like I've had--during a robbery when I was a teenager), not knowing what the guy with the gun was going to do (because he was chaotic evil and he could have killed us all once he had us lying face down on the floor), then you cannot possibly know what it's like to be completely helpless at the hands of someone who has the means to kill you. Imagining what you would do in such a situation flies completely out the window when the reality of that gun barrel is pointing at your face.

I've seen a wolf in people skin. I've also know that when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

The man with the gun in Tucson approaching the crime scene did not come in with his gun blazing. In the fog of war, with the madman already subdued, he acted responsibly. No one else got hurt and all the "well, what if he had fired..." fantasizing poses a disservice to all those who did act responsibly in the aftermath of a horrible and chaotic situation.

True, guns are easy to get. Some people who have them, shouldn't. The genie is out of the bottle, though and the best we can do is minimize the chances that we or our loved ones will become victims of some delusional lunatic. /soapbox

Re: Trolley Square

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

My problem is not with concealed carry, which requires taking classes and passing a test. Gifford's attacker probably couldn't have gotten a concealed carry license--I imagine someone would have twigged to his detachment from reality during the classes.

My problem is that it's way too easy for irresponsible people, or even mentally disturbed people, to get their hands on guns.

I have known of careful, responsible people, like at my church in Knoxville, where we had a member with a concealed carry license and his weapon on him when the crazy with the shotguns attacked. Our church member's gun was useless, of course, because he couldn't get a clear shot, but he had the cool head and presence of mind to hold his fire and I'm very glad and grateful. He's a gun owner. Sure, he counts.

There was, of course, also the killer. He was a gun owner too. He also counts. And because of that gun owner we had 2 church members dead and 6 wounded that day. And you know what stopped him? Unarmed people sitting in the pews who rushed him and took his guns away.

Guns don't protect people. People protect people.

I've known careful responsible gun owners like my dad and my brother, who keep their guns secured except when they're taking them to target-shoot, and who spend a day in a clear-cut shooting skeet or paper targets, and I have no problem with that. They're gun owners. They count.

I've also known a complete doofus who took his (loaded) pistol to a party in a girl scout camp, got drunk, and lost the gun somewhere in the bushes, where despite assiduous searching it probably remains to this day. He's a gun owner too. He counts.

So some gun owners are careful, responsible people, and some careless or even malevolent. I would like to see guns restricted to careful, responsible people like my dad and my brother, and that member of our congregation. I would like to see guns out of the hands of the careless and the mentally disturbed.

No system is perfect. But I think ours could be a whole lot better.

I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon, of course. As Tom Tomorrow says. (http://www.salon.com/entertainment/comics/this_modern_world/2011/01/10/this_modern_world)

And I think we will get along better if you don't refer to me as a sheep simply because I do not worship guns.