Facts, not emotions, must guide post-Newtown debate

I have deliberately waited to comment on the horrific mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., for a variety of reasons. Not least was the abundance of wrongly reported “facts” early on that made it difficult for someone hundreds of miles away from the story to feel confident about even the basics of the case; this story was not exactly the news media’s finest hour.

Still more important is the impropriety, in my view, of too soon devoting words at a time such as this to anything other than the victims and their families. They deserve better than to be gathered up as evidence for a policy debate within mere hours of their terrible deaths.

Eventually, though, those of us outside Newtown have to grapple with whether there is something we can do to prevent the evil and the insane among us from committing other such acts of wickedness.

As someone who is generally opposed to making our gun laws stricter, and who believes proponents of gun control have spent years making their case to the public without success, I don’t keep a lot of crime statistics at the ready. Here are some facts I’ve been able to gather that might surprise some of you:

  • The steps we’ve already taken — including longer jail terms for dangerous offenders (and, yes, some nonviolent offenders) and smarter policing methods — have resulted in a steady drop in violent crime in the U.S. over the past few decades. In 2010, violent crime reached a 40-year low nationally. The U.S. rate of assault deaths per 100,000 people has fallen almost in half since the late 1970s.
  • During the 20th century, the average number of people killed in a mass murder involving a gun was barely higher than the average number killed in a mass murder involving a knife, blunt object or one’s bare hands.
  • Along with the generally lower incidence of violent crime, mass killings have also been on the decline: from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the following decade.
  • One thing has been consistent about mass shootings for more than a half-century. According to economist John Lott, who co-authored a study of mass shooting in 1999 and spoke with National Review’s John Fund after the Newtown massacre: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”
  • Schools and shopping malls are common spots. But Lott also noted this fact about the shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., earlier this year, per Fund:

[T]he Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

People who look to other explanations for mass shootings — such as the degradation of the culture, falling religiosity, or gun violence in movies and video games — also have to account for the declining crime statistics above.

It certainly goes against the grain for most of us to look at what happened in Newtown on Friday and conclude nothing can be done. And it is counter-intuitive for many people to believe more guns can lead to lower crime. But if we really are interested in eliminating as many violent deaths as humanly possible — and I know of no one arguing the contrary — we ought to let our policy debate be guided by the facts, rather than the understandable and heavy emotions we’ll all be dealing with for days to come.

(H/t for a few of these links to Ben Domenech’s excellent Transom newsletter. Normally it’s for subscribers only, but today’s edition can be seen for free here.)

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

482 comments Add your comment

carlosgvv

December 17th, 2012
12:29 pm

It’s clear our guns are here to stay.

Therefore, the only logical thing to do is make the schools safer by posting armed police officers at the doors the entire school day, and give them “shoot to kill” orders if a gunman or gunmen show up and try to enter the school.

Georgia, The "New Mississippi"

December 17th, 2012
12:50 pm

Facts, not emotions , must guide post -Newtown debate….. I wish repubiCons would apply this same standard to fiscal policy, economic issues , social programs, tax reform , military spending , corporate welfare.. SMH

Dusty

December 17th, 2012
12:53 pm

Thank you, Kyle, for a most reasonable and compassionate view of the terrible events in Newtown.

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

December 17th, 2012
12:54 pm

Georgia, The “New Mississippi”: I wish repubiCons would apply this same standard to fiscal policy, economic issues
——————–

You must not be paying attention. I for one have recited many of the sad facts of our fiscal and economic policy for months.

Kyle Wingfield

December 17th, 2012
12:55 pm

carlosgvv: I heard one suggestion that we do just that — financed by a tax on movies that depict shootings…

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

December 17th, 2012
12:57 pm

“Facts, not emotions, must guide post-Newtown debate”
———————-

If that thought was being observed, there would probably not be as many threats of violence against innocent, law-abiding citizens emanating from the left today.

http://twitchy.com/2012/12/16/amid-increasing-death-threats-nra-braces-for-d-c-anti-gun-march-led-by-left-wing-credo-mobile/

The Snark

December 17th, 2012
12:57 pm

OK, here are three facs to start off with. I trust no one would dispute these.
1. Semiautomatic weapons with high capacity magaines are designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
2. Law abiding civilians rarely, if EVER, find themselves in a position where they must kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
3. The first choice of mass killers is semiautomatic weapons with high capacity magazines.
4. The average citizen has a need for semiautomatic weapons with high capacity magazines because … hmmmm, can’t seem to find an answer to this one.

The U

December 17th, 2012
12:59 pm

Not so sure we can consider anything the Mr. Lott says as “facts”. His study has been shown to have quite a bit of holes in it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-concealed-weapon-laws-result-in-less-crime/2012/12/16/e80a5d7e-47c9-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_blog.html?hpid=z2

The Snark

December 17th, 2012
1:00 pm

Anyone who thinks MORE guns in the street is the answer to mass murders has never been in a real shootout. The only guaranteed result of a shootout in a confused, frightened crowd is lots of innocent bystanders hit with stray bullets.

Don't Tread

December 17th, 2012
1:01 pm

It’s refreshing to see an op-ed with actual facts posted instead of the trash pile next door (and the rest of the MSM).

But as the Democrats say, “never let a crisis go to waste”, and they’re already drumming up all the usual emotional arguments to support their continued attacks on individual liberties.

Sure

December 17th, 2012
1:03 pm

I bet The Snark’s next comment will be about how people are unwilling to trade their high-capacity clip for 20 children’s lives. Because, clearly, it’s that simple.

td

December 17th, 2012
1:06 pm

The Snark

December 17th, 2012
12:57 pm

Answer: 2nd Amendment right against potential tyranny of the government. Look up what our founders said on the subject.

Kyle Wingfield

December 17th, 2012
1:11 pm

Snark @ 1:00: The point is that people tend not to commit mass murders in places where they’re likely to encounter someone else who is armed. Take the shooter in Newtown. Perhaps some other explanation about his motive for going on a killing spree at an elementary school — and, specifically, in kindergarten classes — will emerge. But it seems to me, given what we know so far, that he probably chose the place where he was least likely to encounter resistance from either someone who was armed or someone large enough to tackle him (as he might have at a high school, for instance).

Class of '98

December 17th, 2012
1:14 pm

I am somewhat relieved that the focus has moved away from violent video games and heavy metal music. If violent video games and heavy metal music made someone violent, I would be on death row.

And I couldn’t harm a fly.

Kyle Wingfield

December 17th, 2012
1:14 pm

The U @ 12:59: At the same link, we find that other scholarly studies have come to similar conclusions as Lott’s. The problem seems to come when people try to make links that are too sweeping or definitive. I have not seen anyone dispute Lott’s claim that almost all mass shootings since 1950 have taken place at “gun-free zones,” which turned out to be places where only the good guys had no guns.

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

December 17th, 2012
1:16 pm

The Snark: The average citizen has a need for semiautomatic weapons with high capacity magazines because … hmmmm, can’t seem to find an answer to this one.
———————–

For the same reason that the average citizen has a need for his Second Amendment rights.

jconservative

December 17th, 2012
1:17 pm

I do not object to a national discussion on guns, violence and the Constitution.

One must start with the fact that the Constitution protects the right to “keep and bear Arms”. That fact must be in any conservation. That fact will only change with an amendment to the Constitution concerning arms.

One must also accept that mass killings, like Newtown, are apparently enhanced by the availability of modern rapid fire weapons. (Since I do not own any such arm I can be corrected on this.)

Most states say no to weapons for felons and the mentally ill, although the Constitution does not provide for keeping arms from such individuals. If it is Constitutional to prevent ownership by some individuals, is it also Constitutional to prevent some individual arms from being possessed by anyone? Say sawed off shotguns? Say AK-47’s? Say anti-aircraft rocket launchers?

I would like to see the discussion revolve, in part, around Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). Here are some thoughts from that opinion.

“Held:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. (Miller v. Texas)

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” would fail constitutional muster.”

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

December 17th, 2012
1:18 pm

Raise your hand if you’d be willing to trade your First Amendment rights for the lives of 20 children.

Didn’t think so.

hsn

December 17th, 2012
1:19 pm

HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE HAVE TO BE KILLED before common sense prevails on this issue? Senseless massacre after senseless massacre and the gun whackjobs keep telling us guns are not the problem but we should IGNORE OUR EMOTIONS and go with common “facts” that favor their pro-gun agenda.

ITS EASY to tell someone else to SUPPRESS his/her EMOTIONS UNTIL IT HAPPENS TO YOUR CHILD, YOUR BROTHER, SISTER, MOM, DAD, etc

Any attempt to promote a safe and sensible screening and licensing national process into the purchase of guns is wrongly touted by the gun whackjobs as an “ASSAULT” on their 2nd amendment rights and shouts of “Look, the Government is coming to take your guns away.” All of you idiots who still claim more guns are the answer and have opposed any sensible laws to screen the purchase of guns have blood on your hands whether you realize it or not.

YOU ARE EVEN WILLING TO SACRIFICE the lives of your children to a blind allegiance to a stupid gun club, the NRA, and all the false alarms it sells to raise your fears, so it can promote the sale of more guns.

I can see why a civilian may need a pistol for self-defense, but how can you justify the readily availability of high-capacity magazine assault weapons, designed for war zones to ANYONE for purchase? This is unconscionable!

Del

December 17th, 2012
1:22 pm

I think we should take one step at a time in the order of priority. First priority is the safety of our children in our schools. I don’t buy into the notion that we’ve done all that we’re capable of doing to protect our children in the school environment and Sandy Hook is the latest example. I would like to see a commission comprised of professionals in law enforcement and building security systems not politicians to determine best practice solutions for securing schools and protecting our children. There are far better egress regress systems that could be put into place. Inside the building as well as outside there could be CATV monitoring systems. There could be automatic classroom lock downs and hallway blocks in the event of an unauthorized breach. There could be armed plain clothed security personnel that outwardly appear as school staff personnel who’re actually trained security professionals. There’s much that could be done and securing the safety of our children should be paramount. All this subjective talk about banning certain firearms, ammunition and accessories doesn’t address the issue in an objective manner that could bring effective protections against mentally deranged individuals who act out their twisted fantasy by killing innocent children.

Lynnie Gal

December 17th, 2012
1:23 pm

High capacity magazines with 30+ rounds and military grade assault weapons should be banned from public sale. Those weapons are not for hunting or self-defense. But while that would be one step we could take–permitting madmen to become armed madmen with high capacity weapons–I’m not sure that would solve the problem. We need to look at what pharmaceuticals these mass murderers are on. Was Lanza on Zoloft? Was the Aurora killer on Paxel? Because of medical privacy laws, we will never know and news reporters cannot connect the dots for us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhO0Pul_FcE&feature=youtu.be

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

December 17th, 2012
1:24 pm

hsn: HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE HAVE TO BE KILLED before common sense prevails on this issue?
——————-

Whose “common sense” are we to accept? Some think the “common sense” is that we’ve cheapened the value of life thanks to our legacy of killing a million unborn children every year. Or by allowing kids to immerse themselves in shooter games. Or by cheerleading the breakdown of the traditional family.

BenDaho

December 17th, 2012
1:24 pm

It’s a complicated, multi-faceted issue that will not be solved by controlling the size of clips, or capacity of the gun. In this instance, I have to point a huge middle finger at this kids mom. Preparing your kid for a societal breakdown and teaching him to shoot a gun was the last thing this disturbed kid needed. Where is the familie’s responsibility to the community? They couldn’t tell that he was a little bit off? Or too proud to admit it? Maybe schools should start profiling “odd” kids and keep pressure on the parents to monitor and work with the kid.

Karl Marx

December 17th, 2012
1:34 pm

OK, here are three facs to start off with. I trust no one would dispute these.

Yes I would Mr. Snark

1. Semiautomatic weapons with high capacity magaines are designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

No, remove the Semi from automatic first but then there are other more efficient methods than guns.

2. Law abiding civilians rarely, if EVER, find themselves in a position where they must kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

Ask the populations of countries that had to deal with ethnic cleansing about that one.

3. The first choice of mass killers is semiautomatic weapons with high capacity magazines.

Wrong again the first choice is the Suicide Vest followed by the car bomb.

4. The average citizen has a need for semiautomatic weapons with high capacity magazines because … hmmmm, can’t seem to find an answer to this one.

The average citizen needs only air, food, water, and shelter. Everything else is a want not a need.

Thank you for playing…

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

December 17th, 2012
1:36 pm

Crime is down over the last 30 years because of legalized abortion, not better gun laws.

Limiting the output of unwanted babies who the parent(s) didn’t want, couldn’t afford, or couldn’t take responsibility for, in effect limited the number of those kind of babies growing into adults.

JamVet

December 17th, 2012
1:41 pm

Well written, Mr. Wingfield. Kudos.

And to your suggestions, wringing our hands and “concluding that nothing can be done”, save blaming the government, is NO longer acceptable…

td

December 17th, 2012
1:42 pm

Finn McCool (The System isn’t Broken; It’s Fixed)

December 17th, 2012
1:36 pm

Since you really believe that one and the research shows that most crimes today are cause by kids that live in single parent households then you should not have a problems with forced contraception for single mothers that want any type of public assistance? Would this not also reduce crime in the future?

Sure

December 17th, 2012
1:43 pm

Somebody read Freakonomics.

HDB

December 17th, 2012
1:46 pm

This is a multi-faceted problem and there’s no easy answer. In many cases, however, it’s been shown that many of these gunmen are severely depressed….without access to mental health services. It’s cheaper to buy a gun than to find a doctor to get help on mental issues; it’s cheaper to buy bullets than to get professional help to assist with mental disorders. Until this nation changes its attitude about mental health issues, the continuation of such events will be evident.

I remember when a person could turn themselves in to state mental facilities to get help; now that mental health services have been cut due to budgets, that access to help is no longer available!!

Kyle Wingfield

December 17th, 2012
1:51 pm

JamVet @ 1:41: I suspect the most effective measures we could take will be smaller than the kind of large-scale measures we’re more likely to be consumed with discussing.

Mr. Snarky

December 17th, 2012
1:54 pm

Fact: suicidal mass killers can always find soft targets where they can kill a whole bunch of people. Spending school budgets on additional security will not change that. More arms around kids may increase the likelihood of their deaths if you get a security guy who gets depressed.
Fact: Semi-automatic weapons make it a lot easier to kill a whole bunch of people. Making them illegal would make it harder for people to get them and reduce the likelihood of their use in mass killings.
Fact: There were 31k + gun related deaths in the US in 2007.

In my opinion, this is the cost of the 2nd amendment. This is too high a price. I can’t remember any deaths related to the other amendments.

Kyle Wingfield

December 17th, 2012
1:54 pm

HDB @ 1:46: Our approach to mental health definitely has to be examined. But if the shooter in Newtown had no condition more severe than Asperger’s, I doubt any measures we might have taken would have prevented his rampage. (And no, that’s not an “Oh well, let’s do nothing” statement.)

Del

December 17th, 2012
1:55 pm

Before we begin restricting the rights of the 99+ plus percent of millions of firearm owners who’re law abiding for the fraction of one percent who would be prone to commit mass murder we need to ask ourselves what external influences provoke the mentally disturbed to perpetrate violence. Is it a desire to put their hands on a so called assault weapon or is it a desire to act out their fantasy of killing. If it’s the latter the question becomes what triggers that desire to kill, certainly not the gun because it’s only a tool, maybe its the uncensored violence they immerse themselves in through violent movies, violent television programs, violent video games even our government releasing detailed information to the public regarding military operations to eliminate our enemies that in my opinion should remain top secret could feed the fantasies of a mentally disturbed person. Maybe before we jump on the typical knee jerk bandwagon of banning guns we might pay attention to some other considerations.

Kyle Wingfield

December 17th, 2012
1:58 pm

Mr. Snarky @ 1:54: Almost every modern firearm is a “semiautomatic weapon.” This piece of advice from a gun-owning journalist to his fellow reporters is apropos here:

“The use of the phrase semi-automatic when talking about guns is like using the phrase ‘gasoline cars.’ ”

And a question: Are you suggesting we amend the Constitution to repeal or limit the Second Amendment?

bluecoat

December 17th, 2012
1:58 pm

Our schools will become more like prisons,with the opposite objective.School buses will either arm the driver or hire someone to ride shotgun.

Class of '98

December 17th, 2012
1:59 pm

Great column in the WSJ today postulating that the 1st Amendment may be as much to blame for mass killings as the 2nd Amendment. A quote:

“An industry (the media) devoted to serving the public’s right to know gives twisted and evil men the means of becoming known.”

How true.

It’s apparent that the motive for the majority of these killers is to “earn” the recognition they have never gotten before. And with round-the-clock televised investigation and speculation of “what made them tick”, they get exactly what they want. We all know the names of the monsters who killed at Columbine. And that, said to say, is why they did it.

This is not to say that the 2nd AND 1st Amendments are obsolete and detrimental. My point is that once we start limiting freedom for the sake of safety, we will find that we have neither.

Rob Stone

December 17th, 2012
2:03 pm

Well-thought out and well-said, Kyle. A refreshing contrast to most of your critics above. Keep up the great work!

MarkV

December 17th, 2012
2:04 pm

While Kyle tries in his article to avoid appearance of strong arguments, “we ought to let our policy debate be guided by the facts,” the overall tone is obvious: no more gun regulation!

With this aim, Kyle repeats some arguments that have been made on the blog yesterday, and which should be unmasked as ridiculous, most notably the following:

“One thing has been consistent about mass shootings … every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

What is the point of this drivel? Would anyone expect a mass killing of a group of armed soldiers by a single gunman (in a non-war situation)? The only way the argument can be interpreted is that those killed in a mass killing should have been armed. The way to prevent mass killing in schools is to make them into armed camps?

And Kyle continues with this insidious argumentation with the following: “And it is counter-intuitive for many people to believe more guns can lead to lower crime. But …” Again, the only interpretation is: More guns CAN lead to lower crime. Let’s hear from Kyle some FACTS to support that.

Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America

December 17th, 2012
2:05 pm

First, this get rid of Automatic weapons talking point is totally off track. Every firearm in existence other than single shot and double barrel shotguns and revolvers are semi automatic. People who do not know a revolver from a semi automatic pistol need to just too uninformed and needs to keep quite.

These tragedies all seen to have things in common and these things should be examined as to why. They all involve young men between teenager and 30, the perps are usually white, they usually involved people with mental and emotional issues, they all take place in “safe” zones, they all involve much planning and thought, and a weapon is used to expedite the killing. All of these things should be examined and discussed rationally as we attempt to find an answer to prevention of future incidents. We have been trying since at least 1927, when a guy in Bath, MI killed 38 children and adults with bombs at a local school. The answers are complex, and the idea that there are any simple solutions to the problem is ludicrous.

Linda`

December 17th, 2012
2:05 pm

“I’ll lend you, for a little while, a little child of mine,” He said.
“For you to love while he lives, and mourn when he is dead.
“It may be six or seven years or 22, or three,
“But will you, ’til I call him back, take care of him for me?
“He’ll bring his charms to gladden you, and shall his stay be brief,
“You’ll have his lovely memories as solace for your grief.
“I cannot promise he will stay, as all from earth return,
“But there are lessons taught down there I want this child to learn.
“I’ve looked the wide world over in my search for teachers true,
“And from the throngs that crowd life’s lanes, I have selected you.
“Now will you give him all your love–not think the labor vain,
“Nor hate me when I come to call to take him back again.”
“I fancied that I heard them say, ‘Dear Lord, thy will be done.’
“For all the joy this child shall bring, the risk of grief we’ll run.
“We’ll shower him with tenderness and love him while we may,
“And for the happiness we’ve known, forever grateful stay.
“And should the angels call for him much sooner than we planned,
“We’ll brave the bitter grief that comes, and try to understand.”
–Author Unknown

Just Saying..

December 17th, 2012
2:08 pm

Lil’ Barry Bailout – OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 17th, 2012
1:18 pm
Raise your hand if you’d be willing to trade your First Amendment rights for the lives of 20 children.Didn’t think so.

Barry, even for you, this is a new low.

Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America

December 17th, 2012
2:08 pm

First sentence should read … get rid of Semi Automatic weapons, Automatic weapons are already banned and only used by criminals.

JamVet

December 17th, 2012
2:08 pm

Kyle @1:51, agreed.

Change starts with individuals and in their hearts. These atrocities are merely the manifestations of our disease.

Senseless, depraved violence is a huge money maker in this country (and nowhere else, really) because so many people here want it. They have been conditioned to like it and now they will pay BIG money for it.

Vicarious bloodlust and wanton violence – all in the name of “entertainment” – is cool, huh? Can you show me the dozens of headless bodies again, please, Mr. Stallone?

Witness the political success of that fantastically wealthy, albeit swinish Schwarzenegger. Did anyone even take a righteous stand against this star and all of the countless others associated with his filth?

No. I think not. And in my estimation the man was never fit to lead the people of California. Certainly from a moral standpoint. And it looks like I was correct.

I’ve done my part, and have for thirty years. I go to ZERO of these movies. I watch ZERO of those TV programs and games. And I have and will continue to denounce by name those who glamorize murder and mayhem for millions of dollars.

Your children will get the idea.

John Wayne is dead and he was fraud anyway…

retiredds

December 17th, 2012
2:09 pm

More facts today:
Another Day, More Deaths: Two Police Officers Shot And Killed In Kansas… 3-Year-Old Accidentally Shoots Himself, Dies… Gunman At Large After Shooting Victim 4 Times… Man Shoots Wife… One Person Shot In San Antonio, Gunman Later Shot By Cops… Woman Shot At Campground… Woman Shot To Death, Son ‘Thought She Was Sleeping’… 3 Gunned Down In Grand Rapids

Mr. Snarky

December 17th, 2012
2:12 pm

Kyle, if George Washington had foreseen the level of carnage associated with guns in modern America he and the other founding fathers might have thought longer about including it.

Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America

December 17th, 2012
2:15 pm

Class of 98

I think you make a good point. These kids today want notoriety. The first thing they think to do when something usual happens to them is to take to facebook and twitter and tell everyone how wonderful they are. They release every tidbit of information about themselves and their lives trying to impress someone in the ether.

bluecoat

December 17th, 2012
2:17 pm

I suppose pumps,bolt actions,lever actions are semi auto.Yeah an revolvers would that be a single action or or or.

Just Saying..

December 17th, 2012
2:17 pm

Kyle, if you truly believe all policy decisions are to be made solely upon facts, absent any emotion, then you should have the spine to include the economic uplift of civilian assault weapons sales, teacher job vacancies created, grave digger wages, and all other related benefits to American society.

JamVet

December 17th, 2012
2:17 pm

Also, I tend to respectfully and somewhat disagree with the sentiment: “It’s apparent that the motive for the majority of these killers is to “earn” the recognition they have never gotten before.”

Are we to believe that if this was Russia and the names and details of event like these were squashed forever that they would cease? Or even abate?

I think not.

If one is irrational enough to wantonly murder children, there would appear to be some much stronger motive than the “fame”, or more correctly infamy, involved.

Besides people can do I what I choose to do, which is to watch almost none of the salacious, self-serving news around these events.

Again, these news events are so fantastically successful because the men who run the media know it is what we want to see.

All it takes is a little self-discipline.

But to the point about the First Amendment, it is moot anyway…

Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America

December 17th, 2012
2:18 pm

retireddds

You forgot the lady who killed her husband with the tuna sandwich.

You could make a similar list of homicides not involving guns that would be just as impressive.