Tom Toles for May 28, 2014

Can’t do the artwork with a knife, club, or even a car wielded as a deadly weapon; note, he also ran over a guy with his car and nearly killed him with his 4,000 lb BMW semi-auto.

The argument is made that you can kill people with a car, a knife, or a club just as well as with a gun, therefore the problem is not the availability of guns, the “bad guy” can find a way to kill people if he is determined to do so. Sounds reasonable? Well, now substitute “machine guns” or “hand grenades” or “land mines” or “shoulder-fired rockets” or “poison gas” for just plain “guns”. Does it still make sense? Should we remove the restrictions on the sale and purchase of those other items, because their availability would make no difference? Honest citizens would not misuse them, and the “bad guys” would get them regardless of the laws?A friend once got locked out of her house. Locksmith came and got through her deadbolts etc. in about 60 seconds. None of the locks any of us have on our doors or windows would slow down a professional, or probably even stop a determined amateur with a sledgehammer. Does that mean it is pointless to lock your doors? It is correct to say that neither locks nor weapon regulations will STOP criminals or madmen. But we still lock our doors, and we still don’t want hand grenades for sale at every Walmart. Yet nobody wants to outlaw knives, and few of us want to live in a bank vault. In short, we all believe in taking precautions, and we all believe that precautions if taken to extremes can be too expensive or do more harm or create more hassle, than they are worth. What we should be doing in this country is honest research to determine what sort of laws are most conducive to public safety, both from a self-defense and a crime prevention angle. Rather than passionately argue from abstract all-or-nothing absolutists “principles” the question should be approached with cold-blooded pragmatism. Personally, I think a ban on gun ownership would do a lot more harm than good. More stringent, or perhaps just different, controls on guns owned might possibly do some good. Maybe not. But that question should be settled by other means than appealing to the 2nd Amendment or to bodies of dead children. ( The 2nd Amendment has been abused and twisted. If each individual citizen has a fundamental right to arm himself as he pleases, to be prepared to do battle with, say, his own government, then there is no justification for not allowing anyone who wants to to buy Stinger missiles, hand grenades, or anti-tank rockets. ) Self-defense is a natural right that takes many forms, including the natural right of society (i.e. the majority of citizens) to take precautions against the employment of excessive force in the name of self-defense. (As the Heller decision acknowledged.)

NOBODY is saying to ban all guns. NOBODY. That is a pernicious lie. What most of us are saying is we should have some basic, minimal, sensible control of ownership. If we had half the precautions we demand of drivers, we’d probably cut gun deaths in half.

We probably won’t ever be able to insure some mental case won’t ever do this. We could enact reasonable laws that would prevent the gun running that brings a ton of illegal guns to Chicago gangs (probably a lot of other gangs too). We can pass a law requiring basic safety and legal training before someone can buy a gun. Perhaps more advanced training for concealed carry.

The present situation allows sovereign citizens to run around with AK-47s and stop people on a public highway for ID. It allows gang bangers to drive by and shoot up a crowd of kids because they think one might belong to a rival gang. People should be able to own guns just like they can own cars but there should be reasonable limits to insure the do so safely and to prevent the criminals and mentally challenged people from access.

In my mind there is nothing wrong with stop and frisk as long as it is non-discriminatory. The cop on the beat has a good idea of what is going on and who to be suspicious about. He should be able to closely watch those who engage in criminal activities.

It doesn’t matter what you write on the wall. As Paul Simon said, “People believe what they want to believe and disregard the rest”. Mass killings are going to happen as long as people with mental problems can get access to weapons. It is obvious that there is a problem with the mentally challenged getting access to guns. I wouldn’t mind seeing a “gun license” to verify that you are psychologically capable of having a gun without feeling the need to shoot others or yourself.What I don’t want to see is some lame ban on owning guns implemented in a political frenzy about doing something, anything to protect society. That would only make things worse for the security of each member of society.

The best way to prevent “lame laws” would be for gun owners, the NRA, to work with legislators at the federal level to create some common sense laws that both sides could live with. What is going to happen now is with enough of these horrible events, public outrage will build and politicians will be pressured so they will go out and do all kinds of dumb things. I do realize there a plenty of anti-gun nuts who think they can some how make all guns go away but I think there are a majority of moderates on both sides who would be quite happy with some reasonable, common sense measures.

Says it all.

well said, Mechanic.

The NRA has blood on its hands. In Canada, you need the testimony of two people who know you saying they think it’s safe for you to have a gun. That alone would have saved lives in this case. And yes, you can kill with a knife. But you can kill exponentially more with a gun, and guns have no other legitimate purpose.

The second amendment is not a person so does not live. It was written by people who saw the need to have state militias and required citizens to be in the militia, ie, “well regulated.” The militias are now mostly gone. Unless you propose to reinstate them as well as the requirement of membership, the second amendment has outlived its intended purpose.

I think we can (mostly) all agree that some people shouldn’t have access to deadly weapons. The problem is who determines, and what criteria are used.

It makes sense that gun owners have to be part of the conversation. But they have to be willing to say something other than, “You aren’t taking away my guns”, or else the conversation is over before it starts. And that’s where we are now.

Until gun enthusiasts decide that gun violence is out of hand (AND that something should be done about it), it doesn’t matter what people who are not enthusiasts think or want. The question is how much carnage will be required for them to come to that conclusion.

It took Representative Portman’s son to come out as gay for him to realize that not every homosexual has chosen to ruin our lives. I hope it will not take an incident where Mr. LaPierre’s family is wiped out by senseless gun violence for us to finally stop pretending there is no possible solution.

“Joe the Plumber” spoke the inconvenient truth. Sorry about your kids. But not that sorry. At least he had the guts to put it into words.

Another triumphant day for gun violence advocates.

This will get some people’s shorts twisted into a knot, how about mandatory gun safety courses taught in public schools from kindergarten on?

The number of deaths of teenagers killed in auto accidents surely has risen since driver training has been eliminated from high schools. Perhaps a little positive prevention is required.

what we need is strict gun control laws like cal or conn

Night-gaunt: More police were killed by cars used as weapons over a ten year period than were killed by blunt weapons. Rodger put a guy in the hospital he TRIED to kill by running him over with his BMW. When my son was in Sarajevo, one of the primary weapons he saw the local using was mowing down the opposition with cars or trucks as they walked down the street! Red Skelton invented a bit many years ago called “Pedestrian Polo”, which Bosnia apparently raised to a new high. I’ve also had people attempt to off me with their cars, 1st working directing traffic at a drive in movie theater (remember those?) while in high school, and later a couple times while in law enforcement. Fortunately point point of aim for a Pontiac can’t be changed as rapidly as with a pistol.

Sure.1. Require training before ownership (as we do with driving). This would prevent a great number of accidental deaths.2. Start a national database of gun ownership for law enforcement, so guns and people using them can be tracked accurately3. Sensible limits on gun ownership: say, everyone can own a rifle and a pistol. If you need more than that, then get a collector’s license.4. Another sensible limit: a waiting period, during which someone’s record can be checked.5. Require a special license for high-velocity or fully automatic weaponry — weapons you would not use for hunting or for home defense, but assault or military use. Put in database.6. Restrict the gun-owning rights of felons and ex-felons. This could be as limited as keeping them in a special database to track them, or banning ownership for a time. Right now the NRA has fought for the rights of terrorists to buy weapons freely7. Introduce smart guns, and encourage their use.Note that not one of those take away guns, nor does it even restrict the purchase of guns except in terms of delays or additional licenses, or in the case of a felony crime.

“And paranoia is much more common among Dems.”

And this would explain why Republicans continue to add to their personal arsenals.

True. I was going to say Samuel Wurzelberger, but I didn’t think it would come across the same.People know stage names better than real ones.

You’re right. Let’s do away with People!

“Will regulate kitchen knives now too?”

Be careful what you wish for. Try buying Sudafed without an ID.

But, to be more fair, it makes sense to deal with weapons that are the most lethal first, especially when there is no other legitimate reason for their being.

Cars, knives, baseball bats, bricks…all can be used to kill. Peanuts can kill those who are allergic. But their intended use is to transport, cut, play a game, and build structures, respectively. Guns have one purpose: to put holes in living things.

But you knew that. Are you saying it makes no difference?

actually it was NOT a mass shooting…in order to be called a mass shooting there would have had to be four people shot and killed….and only three were killed with a gun….so calling it a mass shooting is playing to an agenda.

OK Tigger, we GET your mass post. BUT, the STATE of California DID NOT sell him the guns. Individuals did. So WHERE does the STATE come in if someone decides NOT to do a background check, or if there was nothing entered into the data base?

The legislature in Ohio is considering a law to allow reciprocity on concealed-carry with other states.It has been brought up that while Ohio currently requires 12 hours of instruction, the bill would reduce this to 8. And Indiana currently has no training requirement, according to today’s media reports in Columbus.

Like everything else, mental illness exists along a spectrum. All the laws we have respecting mental illness say that a mental health professional has to certify someone an immanent threat to himself or others before he can be forbidden to buy a gun. Doubts about him are not enough. The police interviewed this one and could not find enough evidence to act. The default position is always, let him have the gun. It is as if you were given a driver’s license automatically unless someone could present sufficient evidence that you would be a danger on the road. But let’s suppose the system worked the way you think it is supposed to work, and he was barred from obtaining a gun legally. At present there are tons of NRA-inspired gun worshippers who would gladly sell anyone a gun “on principle” and places where the laws would allow him to buy without a background check. By the way, what do you mean the State of California sold him the guns? He bought them from the state at a state-run gun store? Are there such things?

I think there is a great deal to be said for the notion of mandatory (or near-mandatory) gun training for all high school students. The more knowledge everybody has about guns, how they work, and the dangers of them, the better.

^NIght-Gaunt49: I just renewed by CCP for another four years, and I totally agree that it should be the case for ALL firearms. I’ve been in law enforcement, combat, hunting, sporting clays, and like to use tools, like hammers, motorcycles, fast cars, or guns, but their tools, not fetishes for me. I’ve also been tested by the Army as an “expert” with firearms, and won many trophies to show I can drive a car competitively. Though age and treachery have caught up to some extent on the shooting and racing, I can still hold a four inch pattern with a 2" barrel pistol, double action, and have fun on the road in my “toy” car (under 150 mph).

The U.S. has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world: 88 guns per 100 people (that’s scary!). And no, we don’t have the highest rate of gun-induced homicide in the world—there are other social factors affecting these statistics—but it’s way up there.Imagine if we had the same strict gun-ownership policies as England, where the rate of homicide by firearms is only 2% that of the U.S., and there are only 6.2 firearms per 100 people.See http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/05/25/imagine-no-guns/