ERICOPOLY

The mass shooting is the only purpose for the invention of the assault weapon! The military trained soldiers just couldn't kill fast enough with bolt action weapons, so they come up with these things. Should we, uh, take away weapons that were expressly designed for mass shootings? Well, gee, I dunno... (sarcasm). You seem to be arguing that even if we eliminate mass shootings then we're not getting anything accomplished so long as homicides still occur, or if they even go up. Yet homicides can go up or go down without mass shootings. You just get an even-higher number of homicides if you add the mass shootings to the total. But without the mass shootings, you obviously have less than otherwise.

Another wards with single shots the perp isn't accurate enough so potential victim can run away? Did total yearly average murders go down? I don't understand the confusion. Are you asking if 100 round magazines affixed to AR-15 assault rifles are more dangerous in the hands of a crazy person, relative to say a bolt-action rifle?

Interesting about Australia: In 1996, after 35 people were killed with semi-automatic weapons in Tasmania, Australia got tougher on the weapons, banning semi-automatics and buying back some 500,000 from citizens. There were 18 mass shootings in Australia in the 10 years before. Since, there have been none. Zero. http://houston.cbslocal.com/2012/12/15/a-clear-correlation-keep-semi-automatic-weapons-legal-keep-seeing-children-die/

This is a specious argument. The fact is that gasoline is more readily available than guns, yet lunatics don't throw Molotov cocktails into crowded rooms. It just doesn't happen. There is something different about guns. The perpetrator is confronting his targets directly and can be the superman. (I'm just guessing that some type of power-play is the basic reason why guns are the weapon of choice. I'm sure someone has looked into this carefully so if anyone knows more I'd love to hear.) The thought of involuntary custodial care for people who are diagnosed as psychotic but have yet to act violently or break the law is absolutely terrifying to me. You cannot prove someone is psychotic or "potentially" violent. I would completely agree with you if there was some way of actually making that call, but I don't believe there is. Yeah you can to the extent of getting guardianship of an older child, even an adult child who is psychotic or non compos mentos. There are established court procedures for doing this without violating civil rights, One Flew Over The Coo Coo's Nest notwithstanding. The problem is that a guardian can't get permanent custodial care in a secure place for a crazy family member. Here is an essay from a mother with a child in danger of being the next killer: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html When I asked my son’s social worker about my options, he said that the only thing I could do was to get Michael charged with a crime. “If he’s back in the system, they’ll create a paper trail,” he said. “That’s the only way you’re ever going to get anything done. No one will pay attention to you unless you’ve got charges.” I don’t believe my son belongs in jail. The chaotic environment exacerbates Michael’s sensitivity to sensory stimuli and doesn’t deal with the underlying pathology. But it seems like the United States is using prison as the solution of choice for mentally ill people. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of mentally ill inmates in U.S. prisons quadrupled from 2000 to 2006, and it continues to rise -- in fact, the rate of inmate mental illness is five times greater (56 percent) than in the non-incarcerated population. With state-run treatment centers and hospitals shuttered, prison is now the last resort for the mentally ill -- Rikers Island, the LA County Jail and Cook County Jail in Illinois housed the nation’s largest treatment centers in 2011.

There is something to be said about what type of rifle is necessary to suppress the government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle Bolt-action.

I have a third trick in the bag... My father was born in London. I can get a UK-issued passport. I started this process already but I'm not quite finished yet. Legally though I can claim it as I have UK citizenship by descent -- just a matter of getting through the paperwork at this point.

But anyways, I'm one of the Americans who has several firearms. Four pistols and a shotgun. I even have a Washington State concealed carry license! Sport shooting only, not self-defense. They are out in the garage, in a safe, and when I die somebody is going to have to hire a pro to forcibly open the safe to extract the guns because the combination to the lock is known only to me and not written down anywhere. I don't live in a ghetto like the Tenderloin -- if I did I'd probably keep the shotgun loaded in the house with a few of those beanbag shells followed by buckshot. Should the government ever need to be overthrown, I'll be in Australia on the beach somewhere.

I'm not sure what the point being made here is, but people are more than willing to treat the homeless/and/or/addicted in SF. We have some amazing organizations to work with all these issues, including Glide (glide.org), the charity that receives the proceeds from Warren Buffett's lunch auctions. It's located in the Tenderloin, the area I'm talking about. However, drug addicts still do *lots* of crimes in the area. "Crackheads" are unfortunately very real here. I was speaking about the country as a whole, not specifically about a neighborhood in San Francisco. We either just love to shoot other people so much that even the deterrent of armed civilians doesn't stop us... or... We have social problems perhaps that other countries aren't having? By this question I am being generous to the right to bear arms crowd by offering an explanation other than the guns themselves for why we have so many shootings. Thus, I was looking at how we treat our potentially violent people. Drug users for example -- the can be sent to jail which is less productive than sending them to treatment programs. That's what I was referencing when I was thinking of the unwillingness to treat the addiction as a disease rather than a crime.

I live in San Francisco and spend a lot of time in (but do not live in, thankfully) the Tenderloin area, where there are a *lot* of sketchy people wandering the street. Ditto with Oakland. I wasn't just talking in hypotheticals. I know that while there are a lot of places in the US (and Canada, of course) where the "crackhead" argument *is* "bullshit", there are a lot of other places, such as the Tenderloin or Oakland, where it does apply. We do seem to have more social problems perhaps. Unwillingness to treat the homeless/and/or/addicted. Our prisons are an issue. Plus we've had a lot of racial related social problems that perhaps some Western countries suffer less from. The social issues could make our society more violent to begin with.

I don't know. Most public places in most Western countries guarantee you a building full of unarmed victims. It seems fairly uncommon though to have these types of shootings -- less common than in the US. Let's say we adopted their gun laws and (suspend your disbelief) people actually turned in their guns. What is it about our society that would make public places relatively less safe than in other Western countries, where they are already safer than ours in the first place? The deterrent theory should hold that public places are safer in a country like the US. There should be less usage of guns by criminals who don't want to be shot by citizens like yourself.

Well there are plenty of Western countries with far more restrictive gun laws. Do people there just put up curtains around their beds so they can have some privacy while the perps are going in and out the windows all night long? Shouldn't be too hard for the NRA to prove that the rest of the Western world is besieged by crackheads invading homes. Unless... the argument is bullshit.

Don't you think you should use a bow and arrow to give the burglar a sporting chance? That would also allow more time to determine if the burglar is in fact a family member returning late or coming back inside after sleepwalking. :) Shotguns are perfect for that. Your first shell is a beanbag. Should the guy get back on his feet and persist with the attack, the second one is the buckshot. They have all kinds of non-lethal ammo for shotguns. For example: http://www.mkballistics.com/specs/MKB12%20GAUGE%20Ammo.htm EDIT: well, they can be lethal (just like punching somebody can be fatal). So "less lethal" is the better term.

As far as hunting game goes... Anything that flies is best addressed with a shotgun. Several things on the ground (squirrels / turkeys) are best addressed with a shotgun. Big game are best/adequately addressed with bolt action (single shot) rifles The high magazine capacity is best for: plinking/sport (I agree, they are a lot of fun) Problems with handguns/rifles for home defense: Bullets travel through walls (unless you are using Glasers or other fragmenting ammo). Shotguns are at the same time safer for you (drop the intruder on first shot) and for your neighbors (diffusion of power as pellets don't travel through your walls) Your neighbor has a right to not be shot too.

I also saw a comment that the shooter suffered from a form of autism (according to a family member). One idea (hopefully) is that this tragedy can be used to advocated for more public dollars directed towards autism diagnosis/therapy for children at a young age.

Eric, that's a really hard question if not an impossible one because it's counterfactual. You may be able to count home invasions which were thwarted - if you dig enough you might be able to compile data. You will never be able to count home invasions which never occurred at all because of general deterrence (i.e. would-be burglars/crazies/rapists who know a lot of residents in certain areas are packing and want none of it). Now about high-capacity magazines vs shotguns, I don't know. Note also that that is only one possible scenario. Really that isn't the point I was trying to make. The point was to get some actual perspective on the actual risks. Putting actual numbers to actual risks at least helps us get beyond the emotional reaction. Which is why I chose to focus on the side I could quantify. Rational people can disagree on the magnitude of the benefits - I think those probably defy tangible counting. Yes but there are effectively two issues here: 1) hobbyists/collectors 2) serious self-defense folks The people in the first category will never budge on allowing any restrictions to their love of their hobby. The people in the second category can be reasoned with. For example, for personal defense they will agree that we can have shotguns to defend our homes and a low-capacity sidearm for personal defense outside of the home. The right to bear arms was granted before the first semi-automatic firearm was built. And the words "well regulated militia" are in there.

Now, what is the probability of ever needing your concealed firearm to defend your life from a man on the street? Weigh that against the chance of being killed in a car crash. Then, what is the probability of needing a gun to defend your life from an intruder in your home? Weigh that against the chance of being killed in a car crash. My point is that rather than using automobile statistics to refute the benefits of curbing gun access, instead ask whether automobile statistics show that we need guns at all. Then, of all the incidents where guns were necessary to protect life from attacker, ask whether single shot capacity firearm would have done the trick. Or two shot or three shot.

I agree on the shotgun for home defense. But this latest shooting took place in someone's home? Why should you lose the right to defend yourself the moment you walk out of your door? Maybe some of the dead adults in CT today have guns at home that they are not allowed by law to take to work inside the school building. You are most at risk outside of your home, around other people. My point was that most people who have handguns don't need them. Few people open carry or concealed carry their handguns. Those that do don't need to have high magazine capacity weapons to take down an assailant. I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

He said that two years ago -- unless there has been a more recent affirmation. Last year he told Consuelo Mack that BAC was the best bet. This year? I don't know what he has said lately.

Australia tightened it's gun control laws after it's big shooting massacre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

The best weapon for home defense is a shotgun. Also the best for bird hunting. You don't even need to get it licenced in California. I don't buy the home defense argument for handguns -- informed gun people will always reach for the shotgun if there's an intruder. It's also more difficult for your child to shoot himself in the face, although not impossible.

And this tidbit is for Moore... hyper-deflation... is it here? Ahh, just a little jesting on this sad day. Gasoline prices dropped 7.4% in November, the largest decrease in nearly four years. Retail fuel prices have fallen in eight of the past nine weeks, according to a different government measure. Overall energy costs fell 4.1% in November. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323297104578179062246168382.html?mod=us_news_newsreel

He views his insider knowledge regarding Berkshire as making it a different situation as compared to when he buys shares in public companies.

All other things being equal... Why are interest rates on 10 yr bonds backed by gold being compared to 10 yr bonds backed by ???

$6B total. Just between now and April there is a fair chance that at least $6B of additional capital will pile up -- 2 quarters worth of earnings generation.

And the ultimate irony is yet to come. Our billionaire champion of higher taxes is going to be paying less taxes overall when the corporate rate is lowered. 99% in Berkshire. 1% in other. I wonder which tax change will trump the other? ;)