|
March 11, 2009
Assigning blame
The big news last night and today is the report of a man who killed his mother, burned down her house with her inside, then went on a shooting spree. No one seems to know why, but I expect a lot of people will be blaming the gun. Alabama State Trooper John Reese told "Good Morning America" this morning. "We are still unclear of what caused the incident."Commenters here and at Daily Kos are pointing out that the gun has been described as "fully automatic." If it was a fully automatic weapon, there are numerous existing laws which make them almost impossible to obtain legally, and of course converting a legal semi-auto to full-auto is highly illegal (and requires considerable expertise). The man was certainly a murderer and a gunman, but he was also an arsonist. The fire he started could have spread and killed just as many people as whatever weapon he used. This was another awful crime spree, but I don't see why people focus on the means used by the criminals. In light of reports that the target of the man's wrath was a metal company which laid him off, it would make about as much sense to blame the economy. I blame the guy who did this, and secondarily if turned out he was another of the numerous mental patients who don't get adequate treatment, I might also be inclined to blame the mental health system. But the one common denominator I've seen in nearly every shooting case is that it's just not emotionally satisfying for people to blame the individual who did it. Nor is it politically satisfying. So whatever happens, I expect this to result in another push to reinstate the useless and illogical "assault weapons" ban. UPDATE: It now appears that the shooter (Michael McLendon) had been employed as a police officer and had multiple guns: Armed with two assault rifles, a shotgun and a .38-calibre handgun, McLendon then headed for his grandmother's house 12 miles away in Samson.Automatic fire? If that's true, then he might have had a genuine assault weapon. posted by Eric on 03.11.09 at 10:25 AM
Comments
I can believe a cop "acquired" a police assault rifle (in the proper military sense), yep. Plainly this means that the police should be prohibited from owning firearms that the common man can't - or in ways that Joe Citizen can't - and that if they want a Class 3, they should have to fill out the paperwork, pass a background check, and get a tax stamp like everyone else. Personally, that is, not at the department level. Sigivald · March 12, 2009 01:54 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
March 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2009
February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Does power breed arrogance, or do the arrogant seek power?
Dalinian Republican prophesies? (Some irrational illustrations) Remembering Madrid Assigning blame A Lack Of Trust The New Gospel Of Liberty I'm in bitches Watch me on PJTV! September 30, 1999 the airbrushing of the airbrushing
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Obviously the police cannot be trusted with guns.