It occurs to me that there is another interesting comparison. Larry and others on that thread are writing about how we experience this tragedy and how we sympathize with the Iraqis and their tragedy.

But it is also interesting to consider how we as a society deal with the threat of random gun rampages that occur once every few years, and how we deal with the threat of terrorism. Presuming we can draw a distinction between the two.

I submit that our societal response to random gun rampages is psychologically much healthier than our response to terrorism. There are many similarities in the two, but striking differences in how we deal with them. Neither of them can be completely eliminated, but we recognize and accept that in the case of random gun violence. Both of them can be addressed through security measures. But in the case of random gun violence, we accept that there are other competing societal concerns, such as the second amendment protections. Whereas in the case of terrorism, reasonable people become unreasonable and want to throw away the bill of rights.

But the real difference, I think, is psychological instead of strictly political. It is taboo to suggest that a certain level of terrorism is inevitable, but in fact, terrorist acts will happen in the future, in the USA. What harm do we do ourselves as a society to pretend that they won't happen, or that if they do happen, it is because we didn't do enough to stop them, and that some politician or party has got to pay the price? Whereas with random gun violence, we know it's going to happen again, and we know that when it does, we will deal with it. We will do our best to stop it, but we know that sometimes our best will not be enough, and we forgive ourselves.

What Larry said exemplifies the very worst of the liberal point of view, because it dehumanizes everyone within the scope of his analysis. It is at the very center of understanding human actions as such that the intentions of the actors make all the difference. So in Virginia we had one actor whose intention was to kill those who - with the possible exception of his girlfriend if such she was - had no intentions towards him whatsoever. In Iraq we have two populations whose intentions towards each other are genocidal, and between them American troops whose intentions - whatever the idiocy of their Commander in Chief - are largely humane.

Yet Larry proposes that we bracket out the intentions and focus solely on the equivalence between one act killing 30-odd people here and multiple acts in that range there, which is absurd. This can be shown by considering that there quite likely will and must be, when Iraq returns to peace, a general amnesty for those who participated in its civil war. People of good will and judgment will accept such an amnesty as just. But nobody - nobody - would ever claim that a mass amnesty for killers of the category seen in Virginia yesterday would have any justice at all to it.

Why is this? Is it just a pragmatic surrender? Or is it a recognition that killing in a context of civil war is in a very different intentional category than killing - even of an equivalent number of people in a particular act - in a context of peace? It is the essence of our humanity to recognize the central significance of such differences of intentionality and context. So where is Larry's humanity?

whit,

Larry's comment was about the experience of the "people of Iraq". He claimed that they were "living in hell" because mass killings on the scale of what happened in Virginia happen every day in Iraq.

He made no comments, as far as I can see, about the moral equivalalence, or lack of equivalence, between the perpetrator of yesterday's murders in Virginia and the perpetrators of truck bombings or other ethnic and sectarian slaughters in Iraq. His point was about the experiences of the victims, and the relative quality of their lives. It was not a point about the moral characteristics of the perpetrators.

I fail to see how it makes any difference, from the point of view of an ordinary non-combattant citizen victim, whether he is at risk of being blown up along with dozens of innocent people in an ethnically, politically or religiously motivated assault on non-combattants in a civil war, or if he and the others are only at risk of being shot to death by mad loner gunmen at a comparable rate. The difference between the two might have something to do with how we evaluate the perpetrators, but it should have little to do with how we evaluate the qualitative effect on innocent victims, and the overall quality of their lives.

And I think that one cannot escape the conclusion that if one population sees dozens of innocent people killed en masse on a daily basis, while a second population only sees dozens killed at once on a very sporadic basis, then other things being equal, the first population has it much, much worse than the second.

Of course, things aren't equal, because Iraqis have it worse than Americans in hundreds of other ways as well.

Do you think that a person whose child is blown up by a truck bomber is any less "in hell" than the person whose child is shot to death by a lone gunman, simply because the motivations of the truck bomber differ from those of the lone gunman?

Don't say, what the heck is wrong with you when people are dying every day in Baghdad. Say that this is a good time to reflect on what life would be like for you if events like this happened every day, and then imagine what that means in Iraq.

John, the latter is what Larry said:

Okay. Big deep breath. This is horrible and this is tragic and this gives us an idea of what it is like to live just one day in Iraq. Consider the following:

In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of office. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

I am admittedly analogizing when talking about a psychological response by an entire society, when it is more proper to speak of psychological responses in individuals. So I certainly agree and share your experience that some people react with anger, disbelief and a refusal to accept what has happened. I would be bothered, for instance, if a SWAT cop took the attitude that, oh well, these things happen.

But first of all, I don't think the attitude I described in my first post was one of resignation at all, just realism -- a recognition that, in our culture, there is only so much we can do.

Secondly, please understand that my comment was much more about the insanity of our reaction to terrorism than it was about the sanity of our reaction to gun violence. Every year, gun related deaths exceed by several multiples the deaths on 9/11. But look at our reaction to the latter.

Thirdly, I spent several years living in Muslim North Africa (in the Peace Corps). We made note of an in-s'h'allah way of thinking there: what God wills to happen will happen. I am not a religious person, and we were critical of this attitude, but some of it rubbed off on me because it represents accurately my relationship to a complex world -- there is very little I can control, there is very little as a society that we can control.

I lived in Oakland CA during the 1999 Loma Prieta earthquake. A horrible tragedy, especially for the people who died on the Cypress Structure of the I-880 freeway. Our governor was overseas when this happened (as I recall he was in China on a trade junket), but when he returned, he announced that heads would roll in the Dept of Transportation over the freeway's structural failure.

But it was a freaking earthquake! We design highways with certain assumptions about the magnitude of the quake they will be able to withstand. We can't replace them all right away just because a quake happened that exceeded their tolerances.

Bad things will happen. We can try to prevent them, but we will not always succeed. And I think it is healthier to realize that than to bang our heads against the wall.

Do you think that a person whose child is blown up by a truck bomber is any less "in hell" than the person whose child is shot to death by a lone gunman, simply because the motivations of the truck bomber differ from those of the lone gunman?

Your question reminded me of Road Work from last night's Operation Homecoming episode of America at a Crossroads on PBS.  To read it is sad enough but to hear it read while viewing pictures of it is heartbreaking. 

I cried during almost all of Operation Homecoming and even woke up early this morning still haunted by it.

The gunman in the Virginia Tech massacre was a sullen loner who alarmed professors and classmates with his twisted, blood-drenched creative writing and left a rambling note in his dorm room raging against women and rich kids.

I realize we cannot arrest people usually before they commit a crime but surely we can pick up obvious signals and do something?

After Columbine I heard the phrase "we need mental detectors –not metal detectors"

So true but, alas, again in tragic retrospect.

WHEN ARE WE FINALLY GOING TO LEARN FROM PAST MISTAKES?

Please spare me responses fron second amendment "right to bear arms zealots"

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa

Dr.Rick Lippin

Associated Press

"Apr. 17, 2007 01:42 PM

RICHMOND, Va. - Virginia Tech senior Cho Seung-Hui walked into a Roanoke gun shop five weeks ago, put down a credit card and walked out with a Glock 19 handgun and a box of ammunition. He paid $571.

The Glock was one of two guns found with Cho's fingerprints after he fatally shot 32 people...

Because he killed and injured so many victims in a short span of time, some people speculated that Cho used high-capacity magazines containing as many as 33 rounds in each clip.

Under the federal assault-weapons ban enacted in 1994, magazines were limited to 10 rounds. But that ban was allowed to expire in 2004."

Also, thanks to the gun nuts:

Under Virginia law, state police keep records of gun purchases from licensed dealers for only 30 days. After that, police destroy the records.

The police found the Glock receipt in his room.

Glock gun dealers even refer to the 'Clinton Era' (under 10 rounds) magazine sizes, and the 'pre-ban' 'standard' jumbo magazines of up to 33 rounds. It's so great not to have to reload!  link

Larry Johnson a 'liberal' ? Why would you even dream such a thing ? You don't get Intel agencies populated by other than those who are observant and loyal. The problem is, after some experience in the field, illusions are shattered.
Decrying lack of imagination on the part of those responsible for overseeing the intelligent allocation of resources - including the lives of those who trustingly follow instructions regardless of how horrific or insane they are - calls for a viewpoint somewhat removed from blind faith.
Which is how an appeal to project your response to this outrage to another ongoing travesty is only "Let's get real, here !"

I have very mixed feelings about this.  The event is tragic for the families of the victims, perhaps even for the family of the perpetrator.  Is it senseless?  Sometimes the term is used as a synonym for mindless, and it is certainly that.

I both detest the rapid exploitation for use in public policy debate and participate in that debate.  Usually I can make a decision.

It is heartless of us, isn't it, to be debating this even while the dead were still dying for godsake!

On the other hand, What will get us to change our behavior?  People want to attribute this attack on the drugs, on the missed opportunities for counseling, on this and that.  For anyone who isn't deliberately blind, the easy access to guns is obvious.

We should post on our boarders, "Armed and Dangerous!"  Every maternity ward should have the same message, not that the poor little babes could read it or do anything about their fate if they could.

Perhaps a Democratic Congress can put liability onto the munitions manufacturers, distributors, and sellers.  Make the penalties triple, like with RICO.  Maybe that would get their attention and drive them out of business.

One of the most sickening parts of this event was the "oh me oh my" story from the gun dealer who sold the Glock 9.  I imagine he would be singing a very DIFFERENT tune if he found himself liable for 32 deaths and 15 wounded people.  These gun dealers are despicable.  

One of the most sickening parts of this event was the "oh me oh my" story from the gun dealer who sold the Glock 9. I imagine he would be singing a very DIFFERENT tune if he found himself liable for 32 deaths and 15 wounded people. These gun dealers are despicable.

I had a similar reponse to that story. The fellow was supposedly distraught over the deaths cause by the gun he sold. But the guy sells handguns! Every day, he sells devices whose very design and purpose is to injure and kill human beings. Assuming he has been in business for a number of years, then by this time he has probably sold a large number of guns that have been used in violent crimes. So he can spare us his tears.

On the other hand, there is no way of holding a gun dealer liable for deaths resulting from a legal gun sale. It's not like a bar, where we might hold the bartender or proprietor responsible for selling alcohol to someone who has clearly "had enough". Gun purchases don't present any analogous situation. The Commonwealth of Virginia requires gun dealers to run certain checks, and the dealer ran the checks. The permissive laws themselves are the problem.

I hope that information comes out which confirms that a thorough enough background check, with purchase records maintained for a sufficient time, would have tagged Cho as someone who posed an identifiable risk.

Are you proposing background checks comparable to a full field investigation for an upper-level security clearance? That, I suspect, would be the only thing that would pick up clues such as his writing. Such investigations do explore rumors and gossip, but, if the process is well managed, puts them in context.

While rolling my eyes at the heavens, I will say I had opportunity to explain certain "questionable" things in my background, such as being expelled from kindergarten. No, I am not joking; that was a 9 page explanation to the Naval Investigative Service. I had asked for a typewriter rather than going through another hour of interview on the topic.

Yes, I bit the principal, and am not especially apologetic about it. If necessary, I suppose I'm well qualified to bite enemies of the United States, who stick me into the kneewell of their desks to get me out of the way for a visitor. ;-)

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I think stronger gun control laws can help law enforcement and reduce the number of accidental deaths. I favor these laws, and I don't think the 2nd amendment bars regulation. It's not just the "militia" participial clause that those on my side usually lean on either. We've freedom of speech, without any parallel qualifying clause whatsoever, so clearly an absolute. Yet there's plenty of regulation of speech, such as copyright and libel laws, so I don't see why we interpret a right to bear arms as a right to bear whatever arms we wish.

That said, I can't envision a law that would have kept guns out of this young man's hands.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

I watched the clip of him on cnn.com. Even more sickening than you described. The dealer's take on this is that Cho couldn't have bought the gun with the intention of killing all those people. He must have bought the gun, had the idea, and then bought the extra magazine and ammo. It's not the gun dealer's fault, it's the fault of the other dealer who sold Cho the second magazine. What a crock of shit.

How can we de-fang the NRA's core argument: that any regulation of firearms is tantamount to a ban? I am tempted to suggest that we preface any new legislation regulating guns with a statement that this legislation is not intended to repeal the second amendment.

But if we said such a thing, I fear the NRA would simply accuse us of pushing a hidden agenda. The onus is not on us to make such a preface. It is time for the NRA to acknowledge that more must be done to prevent gun violence. It is time for *them* to acknowledge that they have a broader social obligation than simply upholding the second amendment.

I think you're probably right. I imagine the astronaut Lisa Nowak was thoroughly background-checked, but no one knew what she might do in the heat of her love for William Oefelein; given the current state of knowledge in psychological profiling, it can't be done.

But if you legislate that
1) the background check must be complete within 24 hours, or else the buyer gets his gun, and,
2) In certain venues, such as gun shows, background checks aren't required, and
3) All records of background checks must be destroyed after 30 days;
then it's going to be much more difficult to even judge the efficacy of the most minimal criminal background check, and it's going to be easy for people who oppose any roadblock at all to weapons purchases to argue that background checks can't be shown to work.

In this case, maybe interviews with Cho's family and friends would have revealed something; I don't know.

Each state has laws regulating drivers licenses as well as tests to demonstrate the petitioner's proficiency in driving a vehicle. People are allowed to have a drivers license in only one state and each state has the ability to check the records of other states to enforce that provision.

Voters are allowed to register in one precinct in one state and may not vote in any other precinct or state, even if the voter owns property elsewhere.

And isn't there some kind of law that limits how much of a certain kind of cold medicine can be bought in any one store, and people have to ask for it at a pharmacy counter and give their names and addresses before they are allowed to buy it?

When a drug manufacturer develops and sells a drug that later is found to cause deaths, the manufacturer is not exempt from lawsuits and is prohibited from selling that drug anymore. Vioxx, sold by Merck, is an example.

Yet in a country that is 4th in numbers of murders with firearms, we regulate over the counter cold medicines much more than gun sales.

Rank Countries Amount
#1 South Africa: 31,918
#2 Colombia: 21,898
#3 Thailand: 20,032
#4 United States: 8,259

In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of office. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Part of the problem is that a significant amount of the violence comes from people who illegally own guns.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Beneath me? That seems awfully ad hominem. Now, I've just checked CDC statistics on deaths from firearms and motor vehicles, and they don't break out deaths from legal and illegal guns. That statistic would seem fairly basic in the discussion; I'll try the FBI next but it may not be easily available.

If, hypothetically, the preponderance is from illegal guns, the question would be what the source of the guns may be. I work with electronic prescribing, which, for controlled substances, is under the DEA Office of Diversion Control. It would seem a relevant point in the discussion to know if diversion of legal guns is indeed the major source of guns used in crime, and your point may be valid.

If, however, there is major recirculation of guns in a criminal underground, such that the legal ownership (if any) is in the distant past, it is unclear how your suggestion would help. Another possibility is that illegally imported guns are part of the problem.

Suggesting it is "beneath me" to suggest that we have some actual data, on which to base policy, could be considered beneath you. There are serious questions about the enforcement of laws on the books. I fail to see how asking relevant statistical questions, to clarify the discussion, is surrendering to a gun lobby.

In another thread, a suggestion was made that clinicians, in order to provide a better database for gun background checks, be required to do much greater reporting of even consultations for emotional disorders. That might well increase the incidence of suicide, if people are uncomfortable in seeking treatment for depression. Some cures, not thought through, are worse than the disease.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Cliches are contagious.:-)

It's not a simple problem. I'm not opposed to responsible gun ownership, "gun" having reasonable definitions that doesn't put major military weapons in individual hands. The idea that an unorganized militia, with sporting arms, could seriously deter a first-world military has been dead for at least 50, and perhaps 100, years. I could be a far greater risk to a military with a computer than a rifle.

At the same time, I understand the motivation of a friend, confined to a motorized wheelchair, who does carry a handgun for self-defense. She does worry me in that she doesn't practice constantly.

It's too easy to legislate things that fix the wrong problem, or, with the horrible example of the no-fly list, create things out of Kafka. There is a danger to giving too much authority to insurance companies.

Before putting on more regulation, which might or might not be enforced, we need to know we are fixing the right problem, rather than posturing about it. I literally don't know if diversion and legal gun owners are principally responsible for gun violence. Let's get some data.

If neither the FBI nor CDC have broken out violence by legal or illegal guns, that information is needed. It probably would need to be done by the FBI, and it would be perfectly reasonable for legislators to ask to have such statistics calculated, if they don't exist.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

That is a good question because the NRA uses 'many more 'illegal gun deaths than legal ones' as a selling point for no regulations on guns, but has anyone ever checked for the accuracy of that selling point? And if the statistics are not broken down, how can the NRA verify it's statement?

In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of office. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Would you try that in English, please? This reads as hostile, whether you intend it to be or not.

Other than humor, I do not "make up" any post other than in the sense of composing prose. My second post expanded on the first.

It is a given that a significant number of crimes are committed with illegal guns, if for no other reason that a significant number of firearms crimes are committed by juveniles who could not legally buy one. I am attempting to find more definitive statistics, but, in the absence of numbers, I will not immediately support more legislation and regulation that may or may not have an effect on the problem. If cause and effect are reasonable, yes, I would support an insurance or similar proposal.

The CDC statistics do not usefully break out the nature of gun violence. I have one unconfirmed report that current statistics on accidental shootings do include juvenile assaults, on the grounds that juveniles are, by definition, not responsible. It is my hope that I can find some decent statistical breakouts at the FBI or possibly ATF sites, and, if there are numbers, then it becomes easier to form policy recommendations. My initial reaction to Jan's post was that she wanted recommendations for insurance without statistics supporting it, and that doesn't seem to be the case.

If you have a problem with me, please be honest enough to be specific.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

In this post, you say that a significant amount of violence is committed with illegally owned guns.  However, in this post, you say you have no information on that.  Then, finally, in this post, you try to reconcile these statements by saying that gun crimes by juveniles are de facto illegally owned. (I hope the links work, I had a computer problem.)  

When I posted (before the third), I interpreted, quite reasonably (not hostilely) the second post as contradicting the first.  I still do.  I interpret the third as rationalizing the first considering the second.  I am under the impression that some states DO allow some juveniles to own certain hunting weapons.  In addition, I do not know that possession of a weapon constitutes ownership. 

Now, subtracting these two away and focusing on gun violence by 15-17 year olds, I agree that there are probably some illegally owned guns in use in violence. You, however, used the phrase "significant amount of violence."  Since you admit you don't have the statistics, I am wondering whether you are doing what my father and one of my former bosses used to do...

When faced with no information, bluster through.

Sorry if that seems hostile, but you did set up the contradiction yourself.  By the way, I still like my father. 

Howard, I am not trying to pick a fight.  I wasn't being hostile.  Further, I wasn't using the technical statistical term "significant" which applies only when there is a sample and other conditions are met.

I was pointing out that you claimed something in one post and contradicted it (or made a contrary statement), by way of denying that you had any information on the topic, in the next.  Finally, you have rationalized these contrary statements by citing some anecdotal information that doesn't actually settle the matter.

The justified claim that you could have made in the first place is that it is your impression that there are a substantial number of crimes made with illegally possessed guns. 

If you had said that, I would never have had a reason to ask you about making things up.  It is my impression that it is a lot of people's impression that this is true.  But, according to your SECOND post, actual data are scant.

When public opinion is not based on actual data, I wonder why.  Is it because of collective anecdotal experience?  Is it because of television?  Is it because of propaganda?

It is my impression that there is propaganda on this topic and that it points in the same direction as your impression.  That leads me to more suspicion.  No conclusions here. 

Having had no time today to research this further, I suspect the definition of "accident" is very key. I've had fairly good luck, if I can find the right person at CDC, at getting phone or email answers, but finding a person is the challenge.

Even from an NRA member housemate, I get some admissions that the NRA doesn't especially like to have extensive statistics available, regardless of what they may show. Whether this is knee-jerk, or concern that a skilled statistician (I'm sort of semiskilled) could tease out nuances, I don't know. I can fairly easily go to CDC or the Consumer Product Safety Commission to get accident statistics on stepladders and five-gallon drywall compound pails, but it's much harder to find firearm numbers. Speaking as someone who does not believe in taking away legal firearms, and indeed, while never an NRA member, did have a fair number of NRA-sponsored marksmanship medals while a Scout, I get suspicious. Let's put it this way...around here, it's probably appropriate that I read the NRA magazine only in the smallest room in the house, on the porcelain library seat.

Usually, there's at least one issue each year of the Journal of the American Medical Association that does some quite detailed analyses of mortality and morbidity by firearms. Unfortunately, I don't have access to them where I am at present. Perhaps someone out there has ready access to a medical library?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Regarding: "wording could have been better."

I grew up in a rough neighborhood.  If I wanted to draw blood, wording could have been a lot worse. 

Back in the 1890s, when you grew up, Newark was a fine place. :)

As much as your data supports the view I hold, I must point out that the data must be normalized by calculating per capita rates.  The US is the 3rd largest country in the world, so it will have a large number (conditional on there being guns available at all).  In one of these firearm posts I showed the US is about 10th in per capita deaths by firearm, with no other developed country ahead of us. 

The most telling fact is that we exceed Canada by a factor of 11.  I have looked for the number of Canadian/US dual citizens.  The information is difficult to come by.  There may be 700k in the US as well as 200K in Canada.  However, neither the US nor Canada counts dual citizens whose first citizenship is the country of their current residence, so it is likely the actual number is higher.  The point is, we share a lot of culture with Canada, but in much of Canada (most of the Canadian population is concentrated in cities, so just think about where the cities are), there are strong gun control laws.

Some of the top ranked countries appear to have some political violence in process, although I do not see Iraq or Somalia at the very top, so apparently there is some effort to exclude war death.

CIA world fact book is a viable source of data.  JAMA undoubtedly provides much more complex analysis, which is what Howard was asking about.  

Ah, you must have later data.  We are, as you show 4 times more murderous as our Canadian neighbors, but 6 times more murderous with firearms.

The entire country of Canada (pop 30 million) had just a few more murders than the state of Tennessee(pop 6 million).

If my memory serves, last we met on the field of battle, it was inferential statistics or even analysis we were discussing.  I have a considerable advantage there.  Here in simple descriptives, it is a matter of who knows how to find the best reference sources.

But, it is lovely to talk with you. 

Ah yes, the inadequacy of the Chi Square test. 

So sorry about that.  I sure wish they had done a better job.  Anecdotal evidence continues to pile up. 

The design I suggested is still the appropriate one, however.  The more one examines it, the more one fears that they exhibit a fallacy known as the post hoc fallacy, (Post hoc ergo propter hoc, for all of you Latin scholars).

As I said above, in this case I hold no advantage because it is all a matter of knowing (or finding out) where to look for data. 

I don’t really want to change the topic but sometimes it seems the time to ask a question is when it comes up.

As you are a self-described weapons expert with personal experience in almost everything, perhaps you could explain this to me. If a firearm, a rifle for instance, is zeroed in correctly for a certain distance by an adult, how would you change the sights to make it fit a person of different size?

I've never claimed to be an expert in everything. Nevertheless, there are three main kinds of sights on firearms.

What I'm going to describe is much easier to understand with pictures, which you may want to look up.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I didn't know you were personally involved in stealing from the Indians.  I guess you are older than I thought.  I was estimating 1890 for all you areas of expertise....

That old?  Did Papa da Vinci invent the internet, too?  You have claims against Verizon and Gore.

hcb and g4a,

OK, I looked for awhile in JAMA and didn't find what what you two say is there. So how about you searching the JAMA archives and then letting me know what you find and I'll go get the articles?

I did find Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths—United States, 1992-1999, which is available in its entirety at the link.

In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of office. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Howard

You should update your weapons expertise by looking at a rifle sometime. Virtually everything you said about the first type of sight, the type that is most common by far, is wrong.

Every single rifle I have ever seen that has open sights has adjustable sights, even Daisy BB guns. The rear sight has a slot parallel to the barrel which has a notched wedge which goes forward or back to adjust the elevation of the barrel relative to the sight line. The font sight is usually mounted in a dovetail slot on the front of the barrel and can be tapped right or left to get it in perfect alignment with the barrel.

More significantly, your understanding of how any sight works seems to be flawed. When I asked how sights could be changed to suit a different person I did not mean to ask the mechanics of moving them, I wanted you to explain how they could be set differently for a large or small person and still be set correctly in both cases. . A rifle’s sight must be set correctly in relation to the rifle. If it is set correctly it cannot then be moved to a different setting just to be more comfortable for a different shooter and still be correct.

When the bullets strike the target at the spot seen through the sights the rifle is considered to be “zeroed in” and the sight settings would not be changed whether the rifle was to be fired by David or by Goliath.

Howard,

. The only reason I am responding here is because your assertions about adjusting sights are completely, irrefutably, and demonstrateably wrong. I see that you took eleven minutes to respond to my previous post. I suggest you take a bit longer this time if you want to make a credible statement.

I entered the conversation when you made this statement: “In my household, where we had firearms used exclusively for target shooting, I thought of certain rifles as "mine", but that was because the sights were adjusted to my body rather than my mother's”.

The part I questioned was: “….but that was because the sights were adjusted to my body rather than my mother's”. Since you describe yourself as an expert on weapons, among many other things, I thought you would want to correct the obvious error contained in this statement. Instead, you continued to assert the absurd. I will try one more time to demonstrate how ridiculous your stand is on this subject and then you can [probably] have the last word.

The sights on a rifle are used to accurately orientate the barrel of the rifle so that the bullet will be started on the correct path to the intended target. I will talk about open sights but everything applies to other types such as scopes. Among other mistakes in your post you said, “I will stand by the reality that the fit between stock and shooter can throw off any alignment of sights. If a shooter fires from the left shoulder, the zero points will also be changed, because the alignment of right eye, front sight, and rear sight will not be identical to the left eye position. Left-handed shooters may make the visual correction without changing the sights”.

Wrong. One of the few things in the real world that approaches perfection is the straightness of a line of sight. Anybody on the planet who looks across two fixed points will see that they align with the same exact third point.

Do this in your head as a thought experiment. Put a good target rifle in a vise so that it can be fired but the barrel remains in exactly the same position between rounds. Use high grade ammunition to make the variables as slight as possible. Do it on a windless day. Orient the rifle towards a target and fire three rounds. They should form a very tight group. Now, without moving the rifle, adjust the sights until a correct sight picture focuses on the center of that group. Now, take the rifle from the vice, do a little close order drill, spin around three times, yell hidy ho, and then put the rifle back into the vice and adjust it until you have the same sight picture on the center of the previous shot group. Then move to the other side of the rifle and use one eye and then the other to look through the sights. You will have the exact same sight picture. If you can stand on your head and look through the sights you will see that they still are centered on the exact same spot.

Now for the fun part. Fire three more shots. You will hit within the same group. You have just demonstrated that sights work when correctly set. Now, move either the front or the rear sight any amount in any direction as if you were adjusting them, as you claim you do/did, for a different person of a different size. Again look through the sights. You will see that they no longer point to the center of the shot group. If, for instance, you moved the rear sight to the right, the sight picture will now be to the left of the shot group. Now move the rifle until the sights once again point to the center of the shot group and fire three more rounds. Guess what, they will form a different group outside of the first. The good target rifle will have missed what the sights now say it is aimed at. The bullets will hit to the right of the original group. It will happen every time.

Once again, the sights are set to the rifle, not the shooter. The shooter must put his eye in the right position, not change the position of the sights.

Howard said:

So, if I read something you wrote that is obviously wrong, should I refrain from pointing it out for fear that you will call me “contentious?

Howard, pay attention to your own words. You are the one who told an anecdote [apparently contrived] to give weight to a statement and the anecdote was about rifles. I responded pointing out the idiocy of the anecdote you told by demonstrating how sights work on rifles. Seems fair to me.

Well, OK, I will lo, and I will behold too, if you explain how this has anything to do with the rifles you shot as a tot and how it proves that sights can be set correctly for the rifle but when a different person picks up the rifle the sights can be moved for the convenience of that person and still be correct for the rifle.

That is OK with me, but I will ask one more question anyway. What exactly was the topic on this “open thread”? It seems to me that it evolved into several sub-threads just like almost every beginning topic does. This particular little contentious sub-thread started with a request by me for you to explain what I thought was just a miss-statement. Your attempt to deflect my subsequent arguments are all obsfucatious BS.

Everything in the thought experiment I suggested was objective and so can be proven either right or wrong.

I am sure the list of the areas where you claim expertise is long but since you have now both said and demonstrated that it does not include weapons, and yet you talk about them all the time with an air of authority, I will continue to take everything you say on that subject, as well as all other subjects, with a giant grain of salt.

Cheers.