January 25, 2023
Regarding Mass Shootings:
Gavvy Newsom: <i> "What the hell is wrong with us? Society becomes how we behave. We’ve allowed this to happen. It doesn’t have to be this way. It wasn’t always this way. Decades ago it wasn’t this way. We’ve allowed this to happen.” </i>
Us who? We who?
<i>Newsom said the state will redouble its efforts at passing gun safety laws and legislation.</i>
The gun used in SoCal was illegal. How does adding laws help if we can't stop guns by enforcing the laws we have?
<i>“Gun safety works, we will not back away from that resolution. But we can’t do it alone, and we feel like we are,"</i>
You have the governorship, a super-majority in the legislature, and some of the toughest gun-control laws in the country. And the results are 3 mass shootings in three days, at least one of which used an illegal gun. And your answer is more laws?
<i>“Where has the Republican Party been on gun reform? One state can’t do it alone. Shame on them.”</i>
OK, let's go over this again: You have the governorship, a super-majority in the legislature, and some of the toughest gun-control laws in the country. Who are these Republicans that are stopping you? Why haven't the current, strict gun-control laws worked?
If we do have more laws, and say, start actually going in and taking guns from people, we'll need a very large and well-armed, militarized police force to carry this out. That means massively FUNDING the police to carry out your wishes. People are not going to give up their guns willingly, especially armed criminals and psychopaths. So good luck with your hypocrisy.
Sad to say, society is diseased, and social contagions of horror are becoming more and more common and spreading like Covid-19. And what no one wants to admit: there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. How do I know? Simple: if there was an answer, we would have done it already, instead of using an increasingly, clearly-non-answer to be spread as political fertilizer for simple minds (for partisan fundraising).
I offer no answers. Better than offering nonsensical, fund-raising-based delusions.
We Are Doomed :-|
Read this article:
Outgunned: Why California’s groundbreaking firearms law is failing
Then realize that in this massive backlog of seizures, two names were not among them: the perpetrators of the Dance Hall Mass Murder and the Mushroom Farms Mass Murder, both of whom had minor or zero criminal backgrounds. One had an ancient firearm violation.
So, how ya gonna so lower the number of guns in California that a mentally ill person bent on revenge can't get ahold of one? At the rate we are going, we'll be there in a few centuries. Better start militarizing those massive police forces if we're gonna catch up. New job in CA: Gun Confiscator!!! 1000's of positions open!
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | January 25, 2023 at 06:45 PM
(What the hell is wrong with us? Society becomes how we behave. We’ve allowed this to happen. It doesn’t have to be this way. It wasn’t always this way. Decades ago it wasn’t this way. We’ve allowed this to happen.)
Here's the thing: being permissive of "low-level" crimes like shoplifting leads to the increase in "higher-level" crimes like assault, drug-dealing, etc. This is pretty much an established fact as far as criminal justice is concerned.
Petty shoplifting doesn't happen in a vacuum. It feeds into a systemic establishment of law-breaking. The shoplifter is selling stolen property, using the proceeds for things like drugs, or even things like acquiring weapons so he can steel higher-value items. Now the police are dealing with home invasions and turf wars because they wanted to go easy on shoplifters.
If you really want to do something to solve this problem how about Re-Criminalizing Crime and reopen prisons again.
Just one person's humble opinion.
Posted by: Chris Griffith | January 25, 2023 at 08:48 PM
CG, understand your point and agree on your take on the broken windows theory. But in reality the two old men didn't commit any crimes that they would have been locked up for that would have prevented these mass shootings from happening. What did prevent some of the killings is Brandon Tsay, 26-year-old who wrestled the perpetrator and disarmed him and scared him off. I'm amazed the perp didn't return with his other gun that he killed himself with, but thankfully he didn't. Brandon said he'd never seen a gun before, but he was ready to pull the trigger.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | January 25, 2023 at 10:18 PM
"OK, let's go over this again: You have the governorship, a super-majority in the legislature, and some of the toughest gun-control laws in the country. Who are these Republicans that are stopping you? Why haven't the current, strict gun-control laws worked?"
Exactly! The California Democrats can pretty much enact any laws they want, they control all facets of the government. But it's easier to point fingers at the other side.
On a national level the Democrats are currently yelling unfair, foul play at McCarthy and the GOP for kicking Schiff and Swalwell off of the intelligence committee. First of all Schiff is a known liar and leaker and Swalwell slept with a Chinese spy so that alone should be grounds to remove them. But Pelosi started all this when she denied the GOP's selections for the Jan. 6 committee and instead handpicked Trump haters Cheney and Kinzinger. So for Democrats to now cry unfair a more than a bit hypocritical.
Posted by: Keith | January 26, 2023 at 07:08 AM
I dunno, have incidents like this actually increased on a per capita basis over some period of time?
Seems to me that killings have been going on for a long time, and in many different ways/settings.
Shootings happen every day in places like Oakland. As long as you stay out of those areas, your chances of getting randomly shot are probably far lower than being injured or killed via a serious auto accident. And way, way lower than getting run-over by your own snow plow. (These type of incidents barely make the news, unless a celebrity is involved.)
Or, as David Letterman used to note, your chances of winning the lottery are the same - whether or not you play.
(And that's probably statistically accurate.)
Apparently, neither of these latest incidents was totally random. Perhaps this demonstrates the same type of underlying reason why employers immediately escort fired employees off the premises (while hoping that they don't come back, later).
Which probably adds to the anger, though no job (or more accurately - perceived treatment, therein) is worth getting that angry about. Apparently easier said than done, for some people.
Similar issues regarding school shootings. Those incidents don't just occur out-of-the-blue.
I do recall that Homer Simpson was disappointed about not getting a gun right away, stating something like, "But I'm angry, NOW"!
But as I previously mentioned to Alan M., I can't help but think that some are "disappointed" that these latest two mass shootings can't be blamed on some racist white male - and counted as "Asian hate crimes".
Posted by: Ron O | January 26, 2023 at 08:03 AM
There is an excellent long article on gun control by Nicholas Kristoff in the NYT published two days ago. Writing from his small Oregon farm, I think he concedes a little too much to the cultural right, but is is an excellent detailed analysis packed with good factual info:
"A Smarter Way to Reduce Gun Deaths."
Posted by: Daniel Cornford | January 26, 2023 at 08:04 AM
Thanks, DC, I'll check out the article. Clearly 'more laws on gun control' isn't the path.
As for RO: "But as I previously mentioned to Alan M., I can't help but think that some are "disappointed" that these latest two mass shootings can't be blamed on some racist white male - and counted as "Asian hate crimes".
The Monterey Park Shooting Suspect Is an Asian Man. It Was Still Racial Violence.
AND . . .
Schumer, Schiff, other liberals blame Monterey Park shooting on 'bigotry' before facts come out
I have long been horrified by violence against Asians and any groups where people are targeted by appearance as belonging to a group some idiot(s) hate. Over-applying that or jumping the gun does not help the cause. Just asking everyone to be real instead of applying their political cause to every tragedy (because they'all hurt the cause and look like simple-minded fools).
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | January 26, 2023 at 08:24 AM
Alan M: Thanks for posting those articles.
There's apparently "no reason" to be "disappointed" (as I suspected), when activists can claim that white supremacy is the cause - regardless.
In other words ("Insert your own facts and conclusions, here").
Or, "Reality is irrelevant (or "worse"), if it gets in the way of the agenda."
But I'd suggest that this more malevolent than simply "looking like simple-minded fools". People like this are purposefully taking advantage of the situation. It's actually rather evil, for lack of a better word. (It's not just "hurting the cause", as the damage to other human beings goes beyond that, at least indirectly.) This is "sanctioned racism", itself. Possibly meeting the definition of "systemic racism", as well (given that there are "systems/organizations" which promote this.)
Posted by: Ron O | January 26, 2023 at 09:30 AM
Does anyone happen to know what types of weapons that were used in the Monterey Park incident??
I think one of them was a Mac 10.
Posted by: Chris Griffith | January 26, 2023 at 10:46 AM
I don't know what a Mac 10 is. I have a MacBook Pro, but it doesn't seem to fire bullets, no matter what keys I press.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | January 26, 2023 at 03:55 PM
It is chambered in either .45 ACP or 9mm. A two-stage suppressor by Sionics was designed for the MAC-10, which not only abates the noise created, but makes it easier to control on full automatic (although it also makes the gun far less compact and concealable). The one he had was 9 mm.
This guy was a killer he's probably done this before.
Posted by: Chris | January 26, 2023 at 06:19 PM
I've come to the conclusion that the only way we are going to reduce the burden of gun violence - whether in mass killings, gang violence, suicide, etc. - is 1) ban assault rifles; 2) restrict sales of guns in gun shows and other such venues; 3) increase the costs of the manufacturers of weapons and ammo; and 4) repeal the second amendment, which is at the root of the proliferation of guns. Getting rid of the 2nd amendment will take a long time, certainly not in my lifetime (I'm 74), and probably not in my kids' lifetime. But eventually we have to get rid of it. Let people keep the guns we have but start to limit how many guns are manufactured and sold, and the process of selling guns. Eventually - decades from now - the number of guns will start to diminish. The cultural issues surrounding guns will also be difficult to change but if there is concerted action and not a "throw up your hands in despair" attitude, I believe this can be done. The program to rid our country of excessive gun ownership and the violence associated with gun ownership and possession will take a long time and a lot of people will get killed and maimed in the meantime. There will be more Uvaldes and Sandy Hooks and Monterey Parks and Half Moon Bays - and all the several hundred mass shootings, as well as the gang-style killings in the Central Valley. But we must try.
Posted by: Robert Canning | January 26, 2023 at 07:29 PM
Robert, thanks for joining in the discussion; I was wondering how outrageous I would have to write before riling up an actual conversation; I hope that turns into 'presentation of views' and people riffing off of each other, rather than 'you're wrong' and doxxing :-|
While I don't think there will be a repeal of the 2nd amendment (thought as you say, neither of us nor the next few generations will find out), I do think that a long-term possibility is large 'gun free zones'. Like all of urban Los Angeles, like New York City and all it's suburbs. I think there may need to be a recognition that guns and dense populations of people don't mix.
I traveled the country solo very young and got to meet people from all over. It was clear to me then that people in rural areas away from the coasts are shaped by their landscapes. And when it takes 30-45 for a police response, those people will never be without guns. It's not going to happen (not within centuries).
I'm also concerned about the imbalance if guns are taken away from people who obey the bans, but the criminal element still has guns. I'm not sure that's a great solution, unless we really can all-but-rid LA of Guns. And possibly Roses as well.
Well, one down. 400 million to go.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | January 26, 2023 at 08:42 PM
CG: On the Monterey Park Gun
What We Know About the Gun Used in the Monterey Park Shooting
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | January 27, 2023 at 10:59 AM
Re. guns in the hands of criminals. My understanding is that many guns used in crime are stolen. Additionally, and taking California as an example, many guns come in from out of state, where gun laws are not as strict. With so many guns in homes, it stands to reason that if a criminal wanted a gun he would only have to burglarize a fe homes to find guns. Which reminds me that requirements to keep guns (and ammo) safely stored should be in place. The six year old who shot his teacher (certainly an outlier) used a gun that reportedly had been stored with a trigger lock and on a top shelf of a closet.
Posted by: Robert Canning | January 27, 2023 at 02:39 PM
"I hope that turns into 'presentation of views' and people riffing off of each other, rather than 'you're wrong' and doxxing"
There's "another" local blog for those who want to engage in the latter.
Though it does seem as though fewer-and-fewer are electing that alternative.
As far as guns are concerned, it seems to me that the "genie has already escaped the bottle". (Is that a "saying"?)
One of the worst mass shootings occurred in New Zealand, not too long ago. And I suspect (but don't know) that they have some pretty restrictive laws.
Then there's 3-D "printed" guns, which will likely become more-accessible.
Still, there's probably some common-sense steps which could be implemented.
Mass-shootings aren't something that I worry about all that much in regard to my personal safety, at least. Nor do I worry about getting struck by lightening (unless, perhaps if hiking on high-Sierra peaks, during a thunderstorm.
The media's focus on incidents such as mass-shootings contributes to misconceptions regarding the statistical danger.
Meanwhile, they ignore the "everyday" shootings and assaults - especially in dangerous neighborhoods. Which for the most part, helps "prove" that people normally don't care about their own skin color, let alone someone else's skin color (even if shared between perpetrator and victim).
Posted by: Ron O | January 27, 2023 at 03:31 PM
The gun laws of New Zealand are contained in the Arms Act 1983 statute, which includes multiple amendments including those that were passed subsequent to the 1990 Aramoana massacre and the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings.
Nearly 300,000 licensed firearm owners own and use New Zealand's estimated 1.5 million firearms. Gun licences are issued at the discretion of the police provided they consider the person to be of good standing and without criminal, psychiatric or drug issues; as well as meeting other conditions such as having suitable storage facilities. Several different categories of licence are permitted, with the most common, "A Category", permitting access to sporting configuration rifles and shotguns.
Tighter regulation was imposed immediately after the Aramoana massacre in 1990, the Scottish Dunblane and Australian Port Arthur massacres in 1996. After the Christchurch mosque shootings in 2019, legislation to restrict semi-automatic firearms and magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, and provide an amnesty and buyback of such weapons was introduced and passed by the New Zealand parliament 119 to 1.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | January 27, 2023 at 03:46 PM
Sounds pretty reasonable, regarding New Zealand.
Though I don't know what this means, how it's defined, or the implications of the following:
"at the discretion of the police provide that they have good standing AND without. . ."
(Some people think that police don't have "discretion", themselves. I'm not one to make that argument, however.)
Posted by: Ron O | January 27, 2023 at 04:22 PM
"Mass-shootings aren't something that I worry about all that much in regard to my personal safety, at least."
I take it you don't have school-age children nor are you a teacher. Must be nice to not worry.
Posted by: Rachel | January 28, 2023 at 08:17 AM
Rachel: The two most recent mass shootings had nothing to do with schools.
Put forth some statistics showing that kids or teachers are at "higher risk" than anyone else. If anything, they might be at lower risk.
Though every day, there's assaults and harassment occurring inside and outside of public schools from students, themselves. Especially inner-city schools.
I recall a bumper sticker which says, "Adults on Board - We Want to Live, Too".
(You might recall that this was a reaction to a "different" bumper sticker, which perhaps more-closely demonstrates your point-of-view.)
I am quite certain that there are far-more dangerous occupations than being a teacher.
But no - I'm not particularly-worried about mass shootings in regard to anyone I personally know and/or am related to - which includes kids. I think a bigger problem is represented by the ("different") bumper sticker referred to above.
Posted by: Ron O | January 28, 2023 at 09:15 AM
I don't live life walking around worried by mass shootings either.
That would be one Hell of a way to live.
Posted by: Keith | January 28, 2023 at 03:13 PM
I'm far more afraid of riding on some "mass transit" systems, than I am of "mass shootings".
Posted by: Ron O | January 28, 2023 at 05:06 PM
Exactly Ron, and I'll add that when I tread across a street I don't feel I'm risking my life either.
Posted by: Keith | January 28, 2023 at 07:03 PM
I was at a nightclub shooting in Berkeley, so I figure I got my allotment for my lifetime.
Although very rarely the same individual does get struck by lightning twice :-|
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | January 28, 2023 at 07:26 PM
"Although very rarely the same individual does get struck by lightning twice :-|"
Ah, but did you cross G Street when cars were allowed and put your life peril?
Posted by: Keith | January 28, 2023 at 08:09 PM
but did you cross G Street when cars were allowed and put your life peril?
No, but the I did see dozens of three-year-olds get flattened, and this was just on one Tuesday night :-
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | January 28, 2023 at 08:39 PM
Regarding getting "struck twice", all I know is that Jay Leno has had two-significant life-risking "problems" in regard to his own vehicles, recently.
I'd suggest that he at least not get a snow plow to add to his collection.
I did find his subsequent comment regarding becoming "Harrison Ford crashing planes" to be among his most-amusing comments, recently. (Something like that.)
Posted by: Ron O | January 28, 2023 at 08:41 PM
Isn't it about time to hold gun and ammo manufacturers liable for the deaths and injuries their products cause? We did it with cigarette manufacturers and pharmaceutical firms.
Posted by: Robert Canning | January 29, 2023 at 09:13 AM
"Isn't it about time to hold gun and ammo manufacturers liable for the deaths and injuries their products cause? We did it with cigarette manufacturers and pharmaceutical firms."
What's next, auto manufacturers when drivers use their product recklessly? Alcohol distributers when people can't handle their drinking? McDonalds when people overeat? I think we can all see where this might go.
Posted by: Keith | January 29, 2023 at 09:54 AM
Robert: I wonder how that would work, given that the entire purpose of guns and ammo is to potentially harm others. (At least, those not intended for hunting or sport.)
Though hunting "only" causes deaths and injuries to animals, who apparently lack standing to sue.
Interesting how this never comes up in regard to wars.
Posted by: Ron O | January 29, 2023 at 09:57 AM
RC, I understand the sentiment, but how do you see such a thing playing out, or doing good? With cigarettes, there isn't a constructive use. Some of the 400 million US guns have a purpose, even if you or I may not agree with that purpose. But, with illegal sales, printed guns, stolen guns - what would holding them accountable really change? And the perp in Idaho used knives for his mass murder.
While motivation may seem irrelevant to such seemingly meaningless crimes, what I have noted in most of these killing is the common threat of *supressed anger* on the part of the perpetrator. Perhaps why Ukraine is being invaded as well. Although these incidents seem to be increasing in frequency, the ability of a society to identify and locate individuals with these characteristics, and further to do something about them in the absence of a crime, may be beyond our capability. The factors which are increasing the frequency of mass murders is also nebulous and may be beyond our society's ability to change -- such as increased isolation brought on by the internet/social-media age, or as simple as not getting a slice of society by going to the store and seeing people, and instead having all of ones goods anonymously dropped at the doorstep.
One should work on releasing internalized anger. I have, for example: meditation and writing about how sh*tty the Davis Vanguard is in Al's Corner. Keeps me sane.
However, how does society find, locate, and diffuse anger in hidden, isolated individuals? Individuals who do not practice self-care or seek out professional help? Individuals whose brains may not longer be functioning properly?
All of this talk of getting rid of 400 million guns or suing the gun manufacturers would take time, the former would take generations, and that's once the 2nd amendment were repealed, also generations. This is happening now, and we need immediate relief. I don't see a path. That's why I'm saying we are doomed. I know it is nice to have hope, but I don't see this as being solvable. Hope, it often seems to me, is a mental illness in and of itself -- denying the reality of our lack of power to control such things, so instead grasping at straws. That two sides are completely polarized and fighting each other on their belief of a solution keeps us paralyzed. That only makes it worse. We just have to live with these shootings, and the many more to come. Realistically, there is little that will change, and little society can do. Or, carry a gun when you go to work, or out into the world for dancing or to any place that people gather.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | January 29, 2023 at 10:09 AM
"Perhaps why Ukraine is being invaded as well."
I know this is off topic, but how do commenters feel about the escalation of Biden arming Ukraine? Besides the hundreds of billion$ we've already sent over there Biden just okayed sending 31 highly sophisticated Abrams tanks. I've also read that Ukraine is in discussions to get jets, submarines and long-range missiles too. At what point does this turn into a WWIII?
Posted by: keith | January 29, 2023 at 10:31 AM
"This is happening now, and we need immediate relief. I don't see a path. That's why I'm saying we are doomed. I know it is nice to have hope, but I don't see this as being solvable. Hope, it often seems to me, is a mental illness in and of itself -- denying the reality of our lack of power to control such things, so instead grasping at straws."
How about a slogan of "Hope and Change"? (Thereby allowing supporters to "insert" their own definitions?)
Though the "other" guy didn't set such lofty, undefined vision. He appealed to some baser and perhaps more "honest" instincts, for some. Though maybe some "hoped" to Make America Great, Again?
I take it that you don't think that most homeless folks are going to be "homed" anytime soon, or that everyone on the planet will soon be switching to carbon-free energy sources.
Just remembered this film clip:
Posted by: Ron O | January 29, 2023 at 10:43 AM
"I know this is off topic, but how do commenters feel about the escalation of Biden arming Ukraine?"
Good guys with a gun, vs. bad guys with a gun? (But coming from those who don't normally make that argument.)
Or, how about a "reunification" with one of the countries that was part of the Soviet Union, not so long ago? Sort of an extended version of a civil war, in which the "South" was successful - at least until now? (But without that other unfortunate institution.)
Either way, it seems that the people in Ukraine are as tough as Russians. And seemingly-few in this country knew that, in advance.
Posted by: Ron O | January 29, 2023 at 12:13 PM
Pass laws that hold gun/ammo manufacturers liable for mass killings with their guns. We hold the manufacturers of oxycontin liable for mass death, why not gun manufacturers. And cigarette manufacturers liable for poisoning people.
And Keith, we regulate automobiles and hold manufacturers liable for falsifying data about emissions (which kill people) see VW. We regulate lots of industries, particularly if they manufacture stuff that hurts the public. For instance, the chemical industry. Why not gun manufacturers? They seem to operate with little impunity. We put Juelle out of the business of selling vaping products to kids so why not do the same for the gun manufacturer that makes the JR-15 and markets it to kids (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/01/29/jr-15-rifle-ar-15-kids/)
Posted by: Robert Canning | January 29, 2023 at 08:57 PM
And Robert, knives are used to kill people too. For example the recent stabbings in Idaho. Should we regulate knife making companies?
Posted by: Keith | January 29, 2023 at 09:36 PM
Keith, for some portions of our population knives are regulated. People on parole/probation have restrictions on what they are allowed to carry.
As I said, we (i.e. the government) regulate all kinds of things and processes that are dangerous to the public. For instance, fossil fuels - emissions from coal-fired power plants. And just because we regulate one kind of harm does not mean we regulate all kinds of things that can do harm. We don't regulate hot dogs because kids sometimes choke on them - we provide warnings. The regulations should be commensurate with the harm.
Posted by: Robert D Canning | January 30, 2023 at 02:01 PM
Robert: Guns are already regulated, but perhaps not sufficiently. That's not necessarily the same issue as passing laws to "increase" responsibility regarding the damage from a product.
Perhaps you could find an example where laws were changed so that a specific manufacturer of a product was (then) responsible for damage caused by use of that product.
Or, were those laws already in existence? Are they in existence now?
I believe the example of alcohol use was brought-up, earlier. And yet, last time I checked - there were quite a few vineyards in Napa county, for example.
Posted by: Ron O | January 30, 2023 at 03:13 PM
Ron: how about cigarettes or oxycontin?
Posted by: Robert D Canning | January 30, 2023 at 08:08 PM
Robert: I briefly searched for information regarding cigarettes, and found some legal actions regarding "not disclosing" health impacts.
But that's different than changing the law to allow someone to hold a manufacturer responsible for acknowledged impacts.
I don't think anyone can argue that they "didn't know" that guns are dangerous, simply because the manufacturer "didn't disclose" this.
I didn't look into oxycontin.
Might you consider writing an article regarding the subject, for the Davisite?
Posted by: Ron O | January 31, 2023 at 10:43 AM