Blog powered by Typepad

« If you can, Boris, pick your moment carefully! | Main | Your Monday Funnies: 5.8.19 »

Sunday, 04 August 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"the witty, urbane and exceedingly honourable". That gives me an idea of what I might have chiseled on my grave stone. Some jackass would probably look at my grave and wonder if two men are buried there.

or three?

Ha Ha! AussieD!

Told you you'd enjoy that novel, David! Simply beautiful.

At the moment, America has no way to "get a grip" on a rotting culture. Neither does any other Judeo-Christian based culture. The sources of rot have a decades long head start.

The only way to get a grip would be to control the sales of guns and register them. Unfortunately, that would cut into the profits of weapons manufacturers who own, through "campaign contributions", many important government officials.

Yes, indeed, Malcolm, and you were spot on. I am just wondering whether his other book is anywhere near as good?

For once, Bob, I think you may be right!

The one in Texas surprises me the one in Ohio not so much.

Still the FBI's statistics (death by mass shootings) (death by blunt objects and fists) advise me the manufacturers of blunt objects and fists should be the first targets of any new legislative actions. So far as the gun-stuff is concerned (pending the investigations' resolution) my money's on there being several felonious actions preceding.


Who, in a normal environment, needs a sub-machine gun? They should be banned and any subsequent 'perps' illegally owning such a weapon should be sentenced to a minimum 30-years!

Unless one has class 3 fire arms license it is illegal to own a sub-machinegun. The cost of such a license, in addition to making one a regular host visits from the feds just checking to be sure you paper work is immaculate, would ruin your retirement income. Without a license, or less than perfect paperwork, it is a virtually automatic 10 years in jail.

Apples and oranges, JK. There are no mass killings by blunt objects or fists, and there are no possibilities for law enforcement to control either before misuse.

Okay Bob but just for my general amusement - which would you prefer, death by an apple or death by an orange?

But seriously, here's an example where blunt objects were probably, likely to have been the main "instrument of fatalities."

And what is that crap, "there are no possibilities for law enforcement to control either before misuse"?


Law can't control sales of fists or blunt objects. No crap. Did you even read the link? No blunt object was involved, except possibly for the wife:

"Kehoe murdered his wife Nellie sometime between May 16 and the morning of May 18, 1927; she had just been discharged from the hospital with an undefined illness. He then detonated various incendiary devices on his homestead on the morning of May 18 at about 8:45 a.m., causing the house and other farm buildings to be destroyed by the explosives' blasts and subsequent fires.

Almost simultaneously, an explosion devastated the north wing of the Bath Consolidated School building, killing 36 schoolchildren and two teachers. Kehoe had used a timed detonator to detonate hundreds of pounds of dynamite and incendiary pyrotol, which he had secretly planted inside the school over the course of many months. As rescuers began working at the school, Kehoe drove up, stopped, and used a rifle to detonate dynamite inside his shrapnel-filled truck, killing himself, the school superintendent, and several others nearby, as well as injuring more bystanders. During rescue efforts at the school, searchers discovered an additional 500 pounds (230 kg) of unexploded dynamite and pyrotol connected to a timing device set to detonate at the same time as the first explosions; the material was hidden throughout the basement of the south wing. Kehoe had apparently intended to blow up and destroy the entire school."

There are laws controlling the purchase of explosives. How many mass bombings have there been lately? I'd choose an orange.

Bob, as the Oklahoma bombing showed, you can successfully make explosives under the radar. Similarly the cities such as Chicago with very strict gun laws have the highest levels of shooting violence. London, where guns are banned, must be the stabby capital of the world.
Maybe we need to look at what is turning these young people into monsters.

I fear opportunistic pols much more than I do the random mass shooter. The shooter is calculating and in need of a few minutes of fame, especially if he can film his deed in real time. Where does the notion come from to pick up an inanimate object, a rifle or pistol, and willingly go commit mass murder? This is not a normal act. We didn't do this sort of thing until fairly recently in our history.

The politician will want to do the wrong thing while people are upset because he is a devious person with an agenda. A bad agenda. And bad motives too. Much is to be learned from these two tragedies and that is probably what "hurry up" politicians want to avoid.

Elijah Cummings represents one of hundreds of districts where government caused poverty has nearly wiped out the lives and lively hoods of the people. Still, they vote for the same Dem pol over and over.

Cummings lambasts the civil service and political class of Blighty in one breath, and then says in the next that Blighty should hand sole stewardship and governance over to said civil service and political class.

Go figure.


Loz, the so called investigation into the USA British Ambassador leak has gone quiet. Do you think the Ambassador may have had it leaked. After all he was no fan of Trump and Brexit. Hardly an impartial British bloke!


You probably coulda saved yourself some typing (arguing too) had you done a little studying what blast effect does to buildings when some sort of detonation occurs - makes the bricks start flying simply put. Notice too I type "some sort of detonation"?

Say a plane (a blunt object by the way) flies into a building. Say a tall building which, after some period, collapses into itself. And all the many materials (mostly blunt too) with which the building had been constructed falls onto its collective self.

Or maybe a truck (also blunt) hauling Minute Maid and a train (blunt too) hauling Gerber Apple close to some common point at velocity each collaterally sending closely packed (blunt again) cars willy nilly - hell for that matter traffic (itself essentially blunt) causes 102 fatality statistics daily.

No doubt a tall building's architect was (in the US) licensed and registered. The airplane driver probably - but not always as we two Bob you and I know - licensed and the plane itself even registered. Likewise for the train and the truck drivers. As well as the collectively affected car drivers. Most of those latter characterized also registered (DMV license plates).

The world is full of potentially lethal blunt objects Bob. What would you have done Bob, outlaw blunt objects too?

Jimmy, you are right to wonder about that ambassador. It went quiet fast. More to the story I suspect.

Timbo, since the OK bombing there have been several important changes to how the components of home made bombs are controlled. One is requirements to document sales and keeping closer watch. Micro tags and other chemical markers are added to fertilizers.

JK, you can be sure the bricks wouldn't have jumped off the building by themselves. Whatever force moves them is the cause, and it can be judged legal or not.

The excuses and diversionary arguments the NRA and other political lobbying groups have come up with over the years is amazing, and they all make about as much sense as JK's flying brick argument. Shucks, even David agrees with me on this one.

There Bob you'll find, in a very brief post, a mere four questions which, should you be able to meaningfully provide clearly effective legislative remedies then I will continue discussion.

Bear in mind murder already (and historically) is a capital offense. Attempting murder likewise. Indiscriminate targeting ditto.

Conceding the above to definitely not be "a brief post" nevertheless it should be studied by all - especially studied intensively by any who admit to "limited expertise" where firearms generally and perpetrators of mass casualty operations more specifically, are concerned.

That, in my opinion, lays out the fact of the matter.

Hardly amenable to legislation.


Your link is a fine example of fallacious argument:

"Would the proposed solution have stopped the shooters in either of these incidents from obtaining a weapon and/or ammunition? If so, how? Be specific and practical in your answer. If the proposed solution would only prevent the legal purchase of a firearm, but the perpetrator would still have been able to obtain one illegally (such as in the Sandy Hook school shooting, where the perpetrator stole the gun he used), then it will only be a minor inconvenience to him. It won't stop him."

The argument assumes that nothing can be done, and that arguments against unrestricted ownership of guns are invalid without answering the writer's assumptions and demands for specific details. This is pure sophistry. Changes to law enforcement have stopped major terrorist bombings in the US since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. So far this year there has been an average of more than one mass shooting in the US per day.

"Would the perpetrators have been able to obtain a different weapon, in some other way, that would still have allowed them to wreak havoc? If not a gun, what about gasoline to commit arson (as in the Happy Land attack), or knives to attack crowds (as, for example, in the 2017 London Bridge terrorist incident), or renting a heavy vehicle to ram it into a crowd (as in the Barcelona attacks of the same year)? If the proposed solution doesn't address those issues, then at best it answers only a small part of the problem."

More demands for speculation as well as unknowable specifics, along with vague wording such as "wreak havoc". The question also includes demands for solutions to violence unrelated to guns. The gist is that since all violence can't be stopped, guns have to be freely available to everyone; a basic non-sequitur.

"Would the proposed solution have prevented the shooters reaching their selected targets? If so, how? Be specific and practical in your answer."

Again, demands for speculation, unknowable specifics, and also "practicality" defined on the writer's own terms.

"Would the proposed solution have stopped the perpetrators firing on their victims? If so, how?"

More bait for speculative details.

"If half or more of the above questions cannot be answered affirmatively, then why should we take the proposed solution seriously?"

Who decides whether "half or more" can be answered? The writer assumes "we", whoever they might be.

I'm supposing Bob you're gonna be spending some time writing the law you have in mind.

Good luck with that.

Seeing as how Bob you're always figuring yourself superior to whatever, I can't hardly believe you ain't Governor of Indiana yet.

Write the law Bob. Allow us to judge?

JK, where did you get the idea I want to write a law? We elect people to do that, even if there aren't as many of them as there are corporate lawyers who have been writing laws lately.

Btw, I don't think I'm superior just because I don't reflexively believe bullshit. People have lots of other qualities.

Well then Bob we can safely go with the content of your first posting on this thread, "The only way to get a grip would be to control the sales of guns and register them"?

Okay the first part is done. And it does work pretty good where responsible firearms owners are concerned - however where the criminally minded are concerned, not so much.

You're aware Bob weapons manufacturers - I'm understanding you correctly that you're meaning 'licensed by the various states and the Federal government to operate a firearms manufacturing business'?

Well Bob that part is pretty well done too - every manufacturer I'm aware of stamps a serial number on each and every firearm they produce and then when that manufacturer goes to the next step - shipping to dealers - those serial numbers are first given to BATF for its' permission to do so. Then upon the dealers receiving the product[s] the law requires those dealers to confirm those serial numbers with both the manufacturer and and the BATF.

One of my friends that I was able to get in contact with (possessing a FFL) informs me the regs covering his legal obligations where his receiving product is concerned exceeds 70 pages. When he sells an item to, for instance me, my sales receipt is in triplicate bearing the serial number, with one copy going to the BATF, one copy retained on his business premises, and one copy given to me. The regs pertaining to my friend's transacting to me exceeds 450 pages.

According to my friend his business premises has never had a thievery issue but he tells me he's heard of some of his associates being 'criminally victimized' - and just speaking from my personal experience I have seen a few firearms which serial numbers have been obliterated. In all such instances I'm acquainted with, those firearms had been associated with people who didn't give a fuck about weapons related legalities. A goodly portion of them didn't heed 'do not text while driving' laws either. Or for that matter, laws generally.

I guess probably what we need to do Bob is instead of registering just firearms we ought pass some law registering criminals. Perhaps even Bob, registering people.

Oh wait ... people already are registered with Social Security. I know I had to give my Social Security number every time I purchased a firearm. You surely aren't suggesting Bob there's Social Security fraud going on too are you?

Hmmm ...

My first comment on the thread has me saying, "The one in Texas surprises me."

No longer.

"According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”

Personally, I've never seen such a sign at any of the stores I patronize - and whenever I have seen such a sign I return to my vehicle and seek out an alternate.

I ought mention that, even though I have the appropriate carry license where I live and, most businesses (98.5+%) I regularly patronize, very frequently I don't bother simply because my thinking goes, "What does it matter I'm not carrying when I'm figuring 75% or so are."

(Now were this a gun-blog and I typed that, I'd be in for some grief.)

I expect Bob wouldn't like shopping in northern Arkansas and southern Missouri very much.

Eh Bob?

Illinois gots itself some serious gun laws don't it?

Would you say "serious enforcement of gun laws" too?


Many NRA talking points are some version of making the perfect the enemy of the good. The way guns are handled in the US will probably depend on a generational change. We now have a generation that has gone through safety training for school shootings. The threat is more real and immediate to them, and they'll probably vote accordingly as the carnage continues.


"We now have a generation that has gone through safety training for school shootings."

I think for once your probably onto something there.

Remembering my childhood elementary education I recall my first through third elementary classes performing 'duck and cover' exercises and so I see now since my generation 'safety training for nuclear war' ensured no nuclear war really all we need do is wait til the training kicks in.

Any "generational change" is going to have to retake some lost territory. In my generation, which spent its childhood in the 50s and 60s, guns ownership was commonplace, and almost completely unregulated, yet somehow random mass slaughter was almost unheard of.

The comments to this entry are closed.