Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot

[sourmìlk]

And as for unions: obviously they cause problems, but they are by far the lesser of two evils.

The thing about unions: They follow the same narrative arc as the ideology that helped solidify them--communism. In the beginning, incredibly idealistic and useful for striking down tyranny; in the end, incredibly perverse and useful for enforcing that tyranny.

Not to say that unions are tyrannical murderers (they usually don't have enough power for that); but nowadays, most unions exist for the sake of profiting the union--not for profiting the workers (and certainly not for producing a better product).

Basically, there are situations where they're very helpful and situations where they're very harmful. But when it comes down to a decision between who the assholes are--unions or corporations--we should keep in mind that "C) All of the above" is a viable answer.

When asking who is the asshole, "all of the above" is nearly always the correct answer. That said, I think it's somewhat of a slipper slope fallacy to compare unions to communism: yes, they were both implemented to support the rights of workers, but without reason to think that unions will devolve into communism, I'm not really worried.

[Aikanaro]

When I think of Palin (Sarah, not Michael), I think of the phrase "Never attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to stupidity."

And as for unions: obviously they cause problems, but they are by far the lesser of two evils.

Ah, you're falling into a logistics trap that I frequently fell prey to in my younger days: Don't be so close minded, remember that it can easily be BOTH!

[sourmìlk]

When I think of Palin (Sarah, not Michael), I think of the phrase "Never attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to stupidity."

And as for unions: obviously they cause problems, but they are by far the lesser of two evils.

Ah, you're falling into a logistics trap that I frequently fell prey to in my younger days: Don't be so close minded, remember that it can easily be BOTH!

Oh, obviously she's malicious at many, many, many, MANY points. But one's initial assumption should be "stupidity."

[The Great Hippo]

When asking who is the asshole, "all of the above" is nearly always the correct answer. That said, I think it's somewhat of a slipper slope fallacy to compare unions to communism: yes, they were both implemented to support the rights of workers, but without reason to think that unions will devolve into communism, I'm not really worried.

When I made that connection I was explicitly thinking of all the union-building that communism did in America throughout the early 1900s; pretty much every big union leader was either a communist or friends with a communist. But really, the arc I'm describing isn't one that's exclusive to communism or unions; it's the basic arc that all revolutions--peaceful or otherwise--tend to follow. Once an organization throws off the chains of tyranny and arrives in a position of power, they inevitably realize that they like having that power, and they'll do anything to hold onto it--and continue to justify their existence.

Of course, I shouldn't imply that there's no need for unions, or that all that needs to be done has been done--simply that the geography of unions is not homogeneous. There are places where unions are very strong and lead to negative trends (the teacher's union, for instance); there are also places where the corporations are very strong and lead to negative trends. And then there are places where both are very strong and both inflict negative trends.

What I'm saying is that the best way to understand a union is probably through the lens of a private business-turned-corporation; once they get to a certain size, the actual business is less important than producing money for their various 'shareholders'. They still do good (corporations produce all sorts of niceties for us, after all!), but their agenda is no longer to provide the best service they can provide--it's to make money.

Edit: Slight aside: I am in no way well versed in the modern model of unions or how they've evolved past the 40s. I am simply taking references from what I've seen in other organizations and applying it here. Therefore, it is quite possible I am completely talking out of my ass, and I welcome someone actually knowledgeable on the subject to tell me so.

[sourmìlk]

When asking who is the asshole, "all of the above" is nearly always the correct answer. That said, I think it's somewhat of a slipper slope fallacy to compare unions to communism: yes, they were both implemented to support the rights of workers, but without reason to think that unions will devolve into communism, I'm not really worried.

When I made that connection I was explicitly thinking of all the union-building that communism did in America throughout the early 1900s; pretty much every big union leader was either a communist or friends with a communist. But really, the arc I'm describing isn't one that's exclusive to communism or unions; it's the basic arc that all revolutions--peaceful or otherwise--tend to follow. Once an organization throws off the chains of tyranny and arrives in a position of power, they inevitably realize that they like having that power, and they'll do anything to hold onto it--and continue to justify their existence.

Of course, I shouldn't imply that there's no need for unions, or that all that needs to be done has been done--simply that the geography of unions is not homogeneous. There are places where unions are very strong and lead to negative trends (the teacher's union, for instance); there are also places where the corporations are very strong and lead to negative trends. And then there are places where both are very strong and both inflict negative trends.

What I'm saying is that the best way to understand a union is probably through the lens of a private business-turned-corporation; once they get to a certain size, the actual business is less important than producing money for their various 'shareholders'. They still do good (corporations produce all sorts of niceties for us, after all!), but their agenda is no longer to provide the best service they can provide--it's to make money.

Edit: Slight aside: I am in no way well versed in the modern model of unions or how they've evolved past the 40s. I am simply taking references from what I've seen in other organizations and applying it here. Therefore, it is quite possible I am completely talking out of my ass, and I welcome someone actually knowledgeable on the subject to tell me so.

You're basically saying "yeah, sometimes unions are needed, other times they really aren't", which is a pretty damn benign position, so if you're talking out of your ass it hardly matters.

[StNowhere]

When I think of Palin (Sarah, not Michael)

I think you've hit on the perfect ticket here - Palin/Palin '12: "One's a joker, the other's a joke!"

[sourmìlk]

When I think of Palin (Sarah, not Michael)

I think you've hit on the perfect ticket here - Palin/Palin '12: "One's a joker, the other's a joke!"

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. John Cleese, when asked about Sara Palin, just laughed, insulted her, and concluded with "And I used to think Michael was the funniest Palin."

[Eseell]

There is a lot of hate and flippant callous disregard floating about out there.

what did you expect from extremist blogger, rational discourse?

No. I'm not shocked, merely dismayed and disheartened and disgusted.

Folks might be interested to know that the author's Massachusetts gun permit was suspended due to this blog post. I have a real problem with MA restricting one of his constitutional rights without at least charging him with a crime. If he's a threat, he should be arrested.

Edit: Looks like his blog was pulled down, also.

[EsotericWombat]

As a Massachusetts resident, I'm perfectly happy living in a state where you don't get to have a gun if you're the sort of jackass who thinks it's cool to threaten an elected official. One way you regulate that "well-regulated militia*" that the Second Amendment refers to is removing people who *don't* contribute to the Security of a free State.



*in contemporary legal terms "milita" refers to the armed populace as a whole

[Eseell]

I don't have a problem with them suspending his license, I have a problem with the idea that the guns made him dangerous. If he's a dangerous individual, he's dangerous with or without his firearms and should be treated accordingly. Also, in my completely non-lawyery opinion that's a lot less "due process" than there ought to be for suspending a constitutional right.

[Nordic Einar]

I'm always amused that people are so quick to disparage (or at least dismiss) the unions, while enjoying daily the fruits of union labor. Minimum wage, 8-12 hour work days, 40 hour work weeks, paid breaks, etc are all products of the labor movement in which Unions played crucial roles.

I understand that Unions, left unchecked, can lead to some problems. But the modern worker, and work as we see it in America today, are the direct results of the labor movement.

[EsotericWombat]

Seems like the standard for suspending the license is probable pending further inquiry. I don't see how this isn't completely above board.

[Malice]

I don't have a problem with them suspending his license, I have a problem with the idea that the guns made him dangerous. If he's a dangerous individual, he's dangerous with or without his firearms and should be treated accordingly. Also, in my completely non-lawyery opinion that's a lot less "due process" than there ought to be for suspending a constitutional right.

Can't he sue or appeal over the loss of his gun permit?

Also, no, his guns don't make him dangerous; but they make him much more dangerous, because guns make it easier for somebody to kill successfully, and kill more people at once. It's a risk assessment; based on his blog post, it is unlikely (but not overwhelmingly unlikely) that he will try and kill somebody. If he were very likely to try and kill somebody, we'd take away more of his rights, making his chances of success (and the eventually death count) much, much lower, to the point where he's in solitary confinement and has no one to kill. As it is, it's enough to say, "Just in case, no guns for you." We can't run around arresting everybody who says "don't retreat, reload."

[Eseell]

Can't he sue or appeal over the loss of his gun permit?

Probably, and I think he should.

We can't run around arresting everybody who says "don't retreat, reload."

No, and we shouldn't go around taking their guns either. That's the point I'm trying to make; either someone is so dangerous that we cannot trust them with firearms and they therefore need to be run through the system - complete with arrest and formal charges - or they get to keep all their constitutional rights. It's a Big Deal to deny someone any of their rights, and it should be a high bar for the government to clear if they want to do so.

[EsotericWombat]

Feel the same way about people who are denied access to firearms for mental health reasons? Or ex-cons?

You aren't making a lot of sense here.

[Eseell]

Feel the same way about people who are denied access to firearms for mental health reasons? Or ex-cons?

You aren't making a lot of sense here.

People who are denied access for mental health reasons have to be adjudicated mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution. That's due process. You can't just say "Fuck, this guy's crazy! No guns for him!"[1] I actually do think ex-cons should have their right to bear arms restored. If they're so dangerous that they can't be trusted with firearms then they should never have been released from prison. What, you're an ex-con so now you have no right to self-defense? That doesn't make sense to me.

[1]Well, gun store employees can, sure. They can, and do, refuse sales to people who seem a bit touched. But they aren't federally prohibited without due process.

[EsotericWombat]

A man made a threatening statement that gave law enforcement officials probable cause to believe that he was a potential danger to others. His license to carry a firearm is suspended, pending an investigation into whether or not it should be revoked.

in other words, due process.

[Eseell]

in other words, due process.

I'll be surprised if there isn't at least a US Circuit Court opinion in our future that says otherwise.

[EsotericWombat]

Prepare to be surprised.

[Eseell]

I'll hold my breath. It'll be awesome.

[LtNOWIS]

Giffords should go to a new facility in Houston on Friday, apparently with world-class rehabilitative care. That's also convenient, because it's where her husband lives.

At least Bush had a political office with which to achieve results that would weigh against his various gaffes. Palin seems to have nothing but idiocy, and yet also has clear water between her and one third of all Americans giving her a thumbs up.

Arguably, Bush's overall results were quite negative, and another random potential president would have done a much better job. If Bush had never run for national office, his approval ratings would've be higher than they were.

Palin is nothing more than a standard-bearer and crusader for conservatism, while Bush actively wrecked the country in many ways. So a conservative person would see it like this: "Wrecking the country is bad. Advocating/advancing conservatism and annoying liberals is good."

Personally, I don't have much against Palin. In the past election, I would say she made good endorsements overall, with only a few clear exceptions.

[folkhero]

Lucky for us, Peter HItchens has discovered the real cause of the shootings: cannabis.

Spoiler:

There is another aspect of this case that the smug media seem to be avoiding. Look at the strange picture of the alleged killer Jared Loughner. He has just been arrested for a crime for which he could be put to death, if convicted. And he is smiling.

From this, and from many other things we already know about this man, it seems likely that he has lost his reason.

Why and how? The most likely cause is Loughner’s daily cannabis-smoking habit. The link between this drug and serious mental illness grows clearer every day. Wickedly, the dope lobby still tries to deny this and seeks to legalise it.

Loughner has been, for much of his short life, a habitual smoker of this so-called ‘soft’ organic drug. This is not in doubt. Police records, the testimony of U.S. army recruiters who rejected him partly on these grounds, and the accounts of several friends confirm that Loughner is a marijuana victim.

Yes, I know. Not all cannabis-smokers lose their minds. And not all cigarette-smokers get cancer. But in both cases the risk is enough to cause concern.

When police caught him driving a car that stank of marijuana, Loughner was let off,
as he would have been here. So much (as usual) for the non-existent ‘war against drugs’.

Cannabis is now effectively legal in Britain and in several parts of the USA, where this dangerous and unpredictable poison is ironically permitted for ‘medical use’.

Arizona voters, fooled by years of cynical and shameful ‘cannabis is harmless’ propaganda, approved just such a stupid law in November.

The town council of liberal Pima (scene of the murders) last week took the first step towards licensing ‘dispensaries’ for dope.

Arizona has always had plenty of guns. America has always had heated political rhetoric. What is new is that it now has legal dope as well.

So Arizona's very recent legalization of medical marijuana, even though not a single ounce of it has yet been sold, is somehow related.

This article doesn't really surprise me, people have their narratives, and they alter reality to fit the narrative. You think rock music or video games are making the kids more violent? Rock music and video games must be partially responsible for the shooting. You think that drugs are destroying the youth? Then it must have been cannabis that made him snap. You think that right-wingers are destroying the country with their hateful and anti-government rhetoric? ... well you get the idea.

[Malice]

Can't he sue or appeal over the loss of his gun permit?

Probably, and I think he should.

We can't run around arresting everybody who says "don't retreat, reload."

No, and we shouldn't go around taking their guns either. That's the point I'm trying to make; either someone is so dangerous that we cannot trust them with firearms and they therefore need to be run through the system - complete with arrest and formal charges - or they get to keep all their constitutional rights.

What you don't understand is that constitution rights are not "all or nothing", they're a sliding scale of limitations. You accept the idea of a gun license in the first place. Every single constitutional right, in practice, is enforced in a way that balances some rights against others. Your right to free speech is balanced against the right of someone else not to be slandered. Your right to bear arms is balanced against the public's safety; hence, gun laws.

The point being that it is better to apply appropriate limitations, sliding a notch or two down the scale, rather than going whole hog at every little thing, or (as I'm sure you'd have it) only applying the law in the most extreme cases. This is one of those situations. Arresting that guy would be egregious misuse of state power--he hasn't done anything wrong, yet, according to the law. But completely ignoring him is unsafe. We compromise by trying to decide just how dangerous he is, and if we should therefore pull his license. It's not that we're afraid he'll kill somebody; it's that we're afraid he'll kill at 15 rounds per second.

Basically, if somebody had taken away Jared Loughner's gun license, this thread might have been the story of how some nutball got arrested trying to buy a black-market gun, or it might have been the story of how two people were stabbed nonfatally in front of Congresswoman Giffords, but it probably wouldn't have been the story of six deaths and fourteen injuries. We could be perfectly free by allowing the Jared Loughners of this world complete access to guns; we could be perfectly safe by throwing them in jail the instant we spot them saying something that clearly means "I or somebody else should kill hundreds of people off this list"; but better societies work toward the right compromise between safety and freedom.

[StNowhere]

What you don't understand is that constitution rights are not "all or nothing", they're a sliding scale of limitations. You accept the idea of a gun license in the first place. Every single constitutional right, in practice, is enforced in a way that balances some rights against others. Your right to free speech is balanced against the right of someone else not to be slandered. Your right to bear arms is balanced against the public's safety; hence, gun laws.

This is a point that, in general, I think isn't made often enough (or, perhaps it is, and I'm just not seeing it interpreted as such).

[EsotericWombat]

You think that right-wingers are destroying the country with their hateful and anti-government rhetoric? ... well you get the idea.

AHEM

Those who identify with the Tea Party are twice as likely to consider anti-government violence to be justified. I'm sorry Dave, I just can't dismiss out of hand the idea that some of these fuckers ought to cool it.

[Bakemaster]

I don't have a problem with them suspending his license, I have a problem with the idea that the guns made him dangerous. If he's a dangerous individual, he's dangerous with or without his firearms and should be treated accordingly.

You have a problem with the idea that weapons make people dangerous?

What the fuck do you think they're for? Making people smarter?

[EsotericWombat]

Hey now, keep my INT +4 Saiga-12 out of this.

[bentheimmigrant]

Guns don't kill people. Unless you use them as a bludgeon. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure it's the bullets.

[Eseell]

Basically, if somebody had taken away Jared Loughner's gun license, this thread might have been the story of how some nutball got arrested trying to buy a black-market gun, or it might have been the story of how two people were stabbed nonfatally in front of Congresswoman Giffords, but it probably wouldn't have been the story of six deaths and fourteen injuries.

Jared Loughner didn't have a gun license and didn't require one. There's no such regulation in Arizona and there never has been.

I'm not saying that some restrictions on freedom are not necessary. I'm saying that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right in the United States. As of last year, it has been incorporated against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment. It has the same constitutional protection as freedom of speech. It shouldn't be easy to ristrict the exercise of one's right to keep and bear arms. It was too easy in this case.

Would you be cool with it if all the government had to do to limit your freedom of speech was suspend a license? A license they don't even have to grant you in the first place, the issuance of which is entirely up to the policies of your local chief of police or sheriff? Maybe it'll be a graduated license. It'll be easy to get one if all you want to do is talk about sports, but if you want to talk about politics or religion you need to get a Class A License to Offend, for which you need to show cause and take an anger management class. And even then you can't use hate speech or any words that aren't on the Massachusetts Approved Diction Roster. You can get one without trouble in the suburbs, but in Boston you had better be a professional journalist or, well, I guess you won't be talking about politics because the Chief of Police there is a hardass who thinks only the Right People need the freedom of speech. If you get caught spouting off about the Governor without a license that's a felony. Does that sound like an individual right with constitutional protection to you? Oh, never mind. Of course speech isn't dangerous.

You have a problem with the idea that weapons make people dangerous?

Weapons are tools. People are dangerous. Do you think this guy couldn't kill a politician with a knife? Or his bare hands? Or a bat? Or a big stick? Piano wire? A car? If he's a threat, he's a threat with or without his guns. Even right now, I bet you that it's trivially easy to get within stabbing distance of a congressperson. I don't think the police are taking this threat seriously if all they did was take away his guns.

[Dauric]

I don't have a problem with them suspending his license, I have a problem with the idea that the guns made him dangerous. If he's a dangerous individual, he's dangerous with or without his firearms and should be treated accordingly.

You have a problem with the idea that weapons make people dangerous?

What the fuck do you think they're for? Making people smarter?

The point being he was a danger with or without a gun. Sure he could have grabbed a kitchen knife and fatally stabbed one or two people, injure others, rather than killed 6, however common fertilizer components can be had to make ANFO, couple of bags of concrete to direct the explosion and he could have been -more- deadly with a car-bomb in that supermarket parking lot.

Gun control laws don't help with the underlying failure of the mental health institutions that would have done more to actually solve the root of the problem.

[Xeio]

Weapons are tools. People are dangerous. Do you think this guy couldn't kill a politician with a knife? Or his bare hands? Or a bat? Or a big stick? Piano wire? A car? If he's a threat, he's a threat with or without his guns. Even right now, I bet you that it's trivially easy to get within stabbing distance of a congressperson. I don't think the police are taking this threat seriously if all they did was take away his guns.

Well, I can say anyone trying to attack a crowd of innocent people would have a much harder time with piano wire.

[bentheimmigrant]

I don't think the police are taking this threat seriously if all they did was take away his guns.

Well, since it's also a constitutional right not to be detained without cause, then no matter what they did they'd be violating the constitution. Sometimes I get the impression America only has 2 amendments. There has to be some regulation on the "militia", or some infringement on the right to bear arms, if you wish to look at it from that side. How do you define arms? I'm pretty sure a grenade launcher comes under the definition of "arms". Stinger missiles? Smart bombs? There are already limits, and placing one on threatening members of the government probably beats just arresting people.

The point being he was a danger with or without a gun. Sure he could have grabbed a kitchen knife and fatally stabbed one or two people, injure others, rather than killed 6, however common fertilizer components can be had to make ANFO, couple of bags of concrete to direct the explosion and he could have been -more- deadly with a car-bomb in that supermarket parking lot.

Gun control laws don't help with the underlying failure of the mental health institutions that would have done more to actually solve the root of the problem.

The point is he had easy access to a gun, and used it. The point is that America leads the world in gun crime. The point is that the majority of assassinations in the US have been carried out with guns. And most importantly, the point is that less people (if any) would likely be dead right now if he hadn't had a gun with a 30 round clip.

[Endless Mike]

The point is that the majority of assassinations in the US have been carried out with guns.

Is this different elsewhere? I am genuinely curious.

[Dauric]

The point being he was a danger with or without a gun. Sure he could have grabbed a kitchen knife and fatally stabbed one or two people, injure others, rather than killed 6, however common fertilizer components can be had to make ANFO, couple of bags of concrete to direct the explosion and he could have been -more- deadly with a car-bomb in that supermarket parking lot.

Gun control laws don't help with the underlying failure of the mental health institutions that would have done more to actually solve the root of the problem.

The point is he had easy access to a gun, and used it. The point is that America leads the world in gun crime. The point is that the majority of assassinations in the US have been carried out with guns. And most importantly, the point is that less people (if any) would likely be dead right now if he hadn't had a gun with a 30 round clip.

You're getting hung up on gun control, and it's not helpful.

1) You're never going to see gun control in the U.S. that you will be happy with in the U.K. period. Since we're talking about a state in the American Southwest, a region long associated with frontiersmen and the wilderness (which by the way -still- has a lot of wilderness with all manner of animals that will gleefully disprove Disney's sanitized cuddly cartoons by chewing your leg off) you'd be even more hard-pressed to pass any kind of gun legislation.

2)Most assassination attempts in modern U.S. history (since 1950 or so) have been attempted by the mentally ill.

3) The U.S. has two of the largest contiguous, and largely unpatrolled borders in the world. Just after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when Russian soldiers were selling their guns for food because the government wasn't sending them paychecks, I was in high-school and one guy I knew had the connections to get one of these AK-47s with a few hundred rounds of ammo.. And I'm not particularly 'street-wise'. They were being smuggled in through the Canadian border, which is longer than the Mexican border, but receives a hell of a lot less attention despite most of that border lying along completely open wilderness. Banning shit outright in the U.S. only drives it to a black market, it really doesn't do shit to availability.

[Dark567]

The point is that the majority of assassinations in the US have been carried out with guns.

Is this different elsewhere? I am genuinely curious.

Doesn't look like it. I took a random sample from Wikipedias list of Assassinated people and 17 of 20 were shot. The other three were poisoned, stabbed and piano wired. Thats probably a lower ratio than in the US, but its still a majority.

[bentheimmigrant]

The point is that the majority of assassinations in the US have been carried out with guns.

Is this different elsewhere? I am genuinely curious.

The only assassination attempts I'm aware of over here recently have been one with a samurai sword and one with a knife. I think it's obvious that these could have been much worse with a gun.

You're getting hung up on gun control, and it's not helpful.

1) You're never going to see gun control in the U.S. that you will be happy with in the U.K. period. Since we're talking about a state in the American Southwest, a region long associated with frontiersmen and the wilderness (which by the way -still- has a lot of wilderness with all manner of animals that will gleefully disprove Disney's sanitized cuddly cartoons by chewing your leg off) you'd be even more hard-pressed to pass any kind of gun legislation.

2)Most assassination attempts in modern U.S. history (since 1950 or so) have been attempted by the mentally ill.

3) The U.S. has two of the largest contiguous, and largely unpatrolled borders in the world. Just after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when Russian soldiers were selling their guns for food because the government wasn't sending them paychecks, I was in high-school and one guy I knew had the connections to get one of these AK-47s with a few hundred rounds of ammo.. And I'm not particularly 'street-wise'. They were being smuggled in through the Canadian border, which is longer than the Mexican border, but receives a hell of a lot less attention despite most of that border lying along completely open wilderness. Banning shit outright in the U.S. only drives it to a black market, it really doesn't do shit to availability.

1) I'm not looking for gun control I'd be happy with in the UK (whatever that means). I enjoy shooting and hunting, and I fully support the right to bear arms in the US within limits.
2) All the more reason to have restrictions on who can buy guns.
3) "Well it would happen anyway" is hardly a reason to ignore a solution. It's safe to say this guy probably wouldn't have been approached by someone selling AK47s, so what does that have to do with anything?

[Azrael]

Gun control laws don't help with the underlying failure of the mental health institutions that would have done more to actually solve the root of the problem.

I hate to be ... hyperbolic ... but I'd be careful not to suggest reducing governmental gun control by increasing mandatory psychological screening and treatment.

Yes, treating mental illness is a good thing, and we should be doing more of it. But for the uninterested or uninsured? Treatment is, effectively, non-existent under the current model.

[EsotericWombat]

FYI: Machine guns are legal for private ownership in the United States. Even up here in Socialist Massachusetts. It requires a special certification, a $200 tax, and the weapon can't have been manufactured after 1986. Only twice have crimes been committed with legally owned automatic weapons, and since the restrictions were put in place, crime committed with illegally obtained automatic weapons has been extremely low relative to gun crime as a whole. In terms of gun control in the United States, the restrictions on automatic weapons have been a rare success story.

The black market doesn't exist because there are some firearms that are illegal. It exists because people want to have firearms without the government knowing.

[Dauric]

Gun control laws don't help with the underlying failure of the mental health institutions that would have done more to actually solve the root of the problem.

I hate to be ... hyperbolic ... but I be careful not to suggest reducing governmental gun control by increasing mandatory psychological screening and treatment.

Yes, treating mental illness is a good thing, and we should be doing more of it. But for the uninterested or uninsured? Treatment is, effectively, non-existent under the current model.

I agree, and the point I was getting at is that since 1968 "persons who have been treated for mental illness or substance abuse are restricted from owning and carrying firearms" (Gun Control Act of 1968), and despite having spent most of his life in and out of psychiatric care, and that before the shooting he was expelled from his college because the administration felt that he was a physical threat to the other students on campus...

That adding -yet another layer of gun control laws- and -focusing entirely on new gun control legislation- wouldn't have stopped this.

[sourmìlk]

I'm always amused that people are so quick to disparage (or at least dismiss) the unions, while enjoying daily the fruits of union labor. Minimum wage, 8-12 hour work days, 40 hour work weeks, paid breaks, etc are all products of the labor movement in which Unions played crucial roles.

I understand that Unions, left unchecked, can lead to some problems. But the modern worker, and work as we see it in America today, are the direct results of the labor movement.

I don't think anybody is arguing that unions weren't at least once useful and necessary. I think the argument is whether today they do more harm than good.


And about the blogger whose gun license was revoked: the right of free speech does not apply to the inciting of violence, right? Obviously that's an accepted condition for taking away a constitutional right, and I see no reason why that condition shouldn't apply to guns, especially when the danger is far more immediate and direct.