Your title is Let’s Unite Against Killers and who can argue with that. Certainly we all agree with the twin goals of preventing the occurrence of multiple homicides and limiting their damage. But I disagree with your conclusion that uniting against extended magazines would materially contribute either of those goals. Mass shootings are actually so rare, with so little in common as to method, motive, and result, that they require study and analysis as discrete events. In the Arizona tragedy, as far as I am aware, there is no empirical evidence to support the proposition, that this shooting was more deadly because an extended magazine was used. Or that restrictions (actually more restrictions) would have changed the tragic events of that day.

Besides, it’s not like we haven’t already tried this. Indeed, from Sept 13, 1994 through September 13, 2004 federal law limited magazines to 10 rounds throughout the US, except for law enforcement. In that decade long experiment no data emerged to show the ban saved even one life, or prevented one mass shooting. There was absolute nothing to conclude on either side of the equation. Private citizens bent on criminal mayhem were not rendered less efficient, nor were law enforcement agents, exempt from the restriction, measurably more so.

The Columbine shootings, in the 6th year of the ban, were done with 10 round magazines. The Fort Hood shooting was perpetrated without extended magazines, although they were again available. If there is a common thread running through mass shootings it is the deranged mania of the perpetrators, and their preference for crowded “gun free zones” like workplaces with firearm restrictions, schools, shopping malls, and ironically military assembly halls.

Magazine changes take seconds, around 3 for almost anyone familiar with firearms, under 2 seconds for someone who is moderately trained or proficient. Competition shooters change magazines in less than one.

It would be just as easy for me to speculate that the extended magazine, and the false sense of lethality and competence it gave the shooter, were contributing factors in his being overpowered, and limited his murder and mayhem, but I prefer not to do so. Instead, I believe the responsible and most effective thing to do, is wait until the days events are fully understood, and then determining if there is material action that can be taken to prevent or limit a like occurrence. That would much better honor the memory of the victims than making a hasty, largely symbolic gesture. Which, while it may make some feel better, is unlikely to have any positive results at all.

By zooming in on inconsequential detail, you miss the big picture.

Sarah Palin has worked hard to promote herself as rough and tumble, tough, a big hunter, likes guns, not much on educating her kids on contraception, but generally an aggressive politician. Whether there is a link between her site, her rhetoric, and Loughner is really not the point.

Palin has made herself a target by saying things like, “Don’t retreat, Instead – RELOAD” leaving her open to judgments that she is violent, and that she never learned basic grammar in school. When a politician goes to the lengths she has to promote a certain image (have you seen her “outdoor sportsman” show about her life in Alaska?), s/he should expect that people WILL paint them with a “broad brush.” Come on, Blair. You know she fashions herself a “tough cookie” who favors guns and would kill reasonable gun control legislation. She deserved the bashing she got, whether there is a link between her and Loughner or not. Should a politician be working to promote an image as someone who is “tough,” conservative, and aggressive (I’m being kind here) or should s/he focus on trying to promote an image of someone who is reasonable, thoughtful and considers each issue regardless of its polarity? You seem to be a fairly good writer and fairly educated, just a bit defensive and a tad unrealistic.

And speaking of not to being able to help yourself, comparing the Hassan incident to Loughner, and the subsequent focus on Palin is comparing apples to oranges. I’m SURE that if there were a U.S. politician promoting the benefits of religious jihad, the Hassan incident would’ve been linked to it faster than lightning.

Palin and her handlers immediately cleaned up her website because her party pressured her to do so. Gina is right – even Palin’s own party recognizes that in the wake of such a tragedy (that seems to be a random act of violence) the fact that people on the internet are tying her to the incident, along with the media, is politically dangerous. The left will take advantage of it, as well they should. Palin WANTS the image she is struggling to portray: extreme, conservative, and might just advocate violence if it suits her purposes.

It’s good that you’re your “own man” who doesn’t “require anyone to lead or even agree with you.” In 1942 I’m sure that Germany was filled with people who felt the same way you do and didn’t really see the problem with Hitler.

~*~

P.S. Oh, and “every authority” believed the world was flat because they didn’t have any information to the contrary. We do.

However I wouldn’t put much stock in those arguments even though they apparently make you feel better. After all, at one time every authority believed wholeheartedly the world was flat, didn’t they?

/b

What sets a person like that off is beyond reason, seldom external and therefore cannot be prevented. If its not one thing it’s another, or nothing at all.

When you claim: “What matters is Ms. Palin, and many others are promoting the rhetoric of violence, and we are now seeing the fruits of that rhetoric.”

You’ve arrived at a wholly insupportable conclusion. There is nothing I’ve read, excluding the left’s wild partisan speculation, to support the remotest causal link between any of Sara Palin’s words and Loughner’s actions.

Zilch.

So since there is no empirical evidence or logic behind your theory whatsoever, I can only assume it’s a product of your personal politics, subjective prejudice, or both.

/b

I would not conclude that Major Nidal Hasan was not motivated by the violent rhetoric, just because he acted alone and was observed to be deranged.

After all, I am not that concerned that normal citizens are going to run out and assassinate people based on the violent words of a politician or campaign slogan. It is the unstable that worry me. Weather a person is shot by a deranged individual or an organized movement, they are just as dead.

If you can put down your broad brush long enough for a rational moment you might read this.

http://tiny.cc/9ppcf

Please note it was also “taken down” after the tragedy, is that inculpatory too?

/b

I believe Congressmen on both sides were “targeted” for defeat in this last cycle, and not for assassination. Targeted is certainly a common enough phrase.

And No, the Second Amendment does not protect the right to commit or attempt murder, any more than a drivers license allows you to run people over, or the First allows you to shout fire in a crowded theater.

I think we should at least wait until the facts are known, before making a political football out of a dreadful human tragedy.

I’m still praying for Congressman Giffords and her family. I hope you’ll find the time to do so too.

/b