(This is a conversation whose time has come. We would be remiss not to front page it. – promoted by Sue Prent)
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. And we all have blood on our hands.
When will we have the courage to stand up to the ‘gun’ lobby? When will we have an honest conversation about the limits to ‘freedom’ when it comes to personal firepower?
In a country where it is legal to buy thousands of rounds of ammunition online, (just wait for Amazon’s sameday delivery!), order up near(ly) assault weapons at will, couple them with large magazines, and Fed Ex deliver enough explosives and gear to outfit a small security detail, why are we shocked that these events happen over and over again?
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All of those things dear to any patriot were stolen from those killed and injured in Colorado.
When will we work to guarantee those three things for all? And in that order?
I firmly believe that an individual should be allowed to hunt, target shoot, etc. I can understand, however, that a person would take a position that certain firearms present a greater risk to the public than any benefit (if any) that would be derived from that firearm.
What isn’t right is for people to ban firearms and then high-five each other in celebration of ending this problem.
You don’t need a gun to kill lots of people. There are other ways. (Remember the Tokyo Subway gassing or the Oklahoma bombing?) What this tragedy really points out is that prevention should not be ignored. I suspect that this individual had some major mental health problems. There may have been other catalysts as well. Who is calling for better treatment in these areas? Shouldn’t we try to help sick individuals whether or not they have a gun in their hands?
Calling a firearm ban a “solution” is entirely myopic.
Which would you rather have? 1) A million assault rifles and nobody who intends to use them in a harmful manner; or 2) No assault rifles and a number of people who are intent to think of another way to hurt innocents.
To be fair, I’m not saying that the solution is all or nothing. No doubt a blend of responses would be best. But that message isn’t coming through.
As a person opposed to a gun control program that would ‘outlaw’ the citizen’s right to keep and bear (sane and sensible) arms–not an Arsenal of automatic weapons; but your rifle, shotgun, and ‘utilitarian’ handgun–I am still continually appalled at the NRA over the years. It’s like a frigging Wall Street consumerism mantra: “Hey, keep up with the Jones. They’ve got Real Firepower!”
There is almost a salaciousness about the debate that pops up after these atrocities. You can almost hear each side drooling. But it would be a helpful thing if the NRA recognized that a firearm is a very powerful thing. It is, first and foremost, A WEAPON designed to KILL (animals or people), not just a toy to knock down tin cans. When we were ten in NJ, we used rocks to knock down tin cans. When we got our first .22s at age twelve, well, we knew those cans were more than knocked down–they were DEAD. So, those of us opposed to gun control should not advocate ‘gun proliferation’ because–this has to be said–there are people out there who simply should not be in the possession of a deadly weapon, a weapon deadlier than their car, fer Chrissake. It’s like giving the pedophile a crossing guard job at the elementary school. It is harder, overall in this country, to get a driving license than a handgun. Somehow, some sane and sensible national EDUCATION and DISCUSSION about firearms as part of this country’s psyche, and what is necessary and what is unnecessary, or excessive, on both sides of the fence, must happen.
There is also something salacious in our response to Columbines and Colorados. It’s like–well…the Serial Killer cut up 25 women in a year with a hunting knife. And he has yet to be caught. But, be composed. Don’t talk about it, they’ll think you’re an obsessed pre-vert. Yawn. BUT–the nitwit with the gun killed 25 people! Holy Shit! And they caught him. And he looks just like the guy on American Idol! And look at the gun he used! Man, that’s…
That’s what? The gun they use on CSIs? In Afghanistan? In the old Westerns? In the possibly 3 out of 5 current Hollywood movies? The gun you just now gotta go out and buy? It’s funny (or NOT) how we react to a gun massacre here at home. Either we go out and buy a gun, or we call for their complete abolition, which is like calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons instead of the abolition of war. I guess a lot of us just don’t want to get shot down for no reason, and some of us, no matter how we control or restrict firearms, are just going to have the guns to do it.
I wish to Hell one thing. This country would be a lot better off without an NRA. I wish the survivors of the dead in Colorado and the survivors of gun massacres here past, present and future would Sue the Shit out of the NRA. Make them pay. Make them BE RESPONSIBLE Americans. Guns and bullets don’t have brains. What’s their excuse? Enough. I’m rambling. Cause it’s a goddamn hard one.
To say that existing gun laws could be better enforced is probably true; but to take the position that this guy would have killed twelve people and injured 59 others, within minutes, whether or not he had legal access to the weaponry he used, is patently absurd.
I think it is time to acknowledge that we have allowed legal access to firearms to escalate far beyond the rational parameters of the Second Amendment, and that it is not good enough to simply throw our hands up in the air and say “there’s no closing Pandora’s box.” I heard one guy saying that if other people had come to the theater armed, one of them could have taken out the shooter. That’s quite an assumption, given that it was dark and the theater quickly filled with tear gas.
Is the answer really that every man, woman and child in America should go about their daily lives armed for a shoot-out? That doesn’t sound much like freedom to me.
In fact, that suspiciously reminds me of the 1960’s Cold War theory about ensuring a “mutual threat of annihilation.”
I would like to think that we are better than this.
Ya know, a LOT of MONEY is involved here. Guns have become an American Consumer Product, like cars, Ipods, what have you.
And the NRA is spending a LOT of Money to prevent ANY KIND OF REGULATORY OVERSIGHT to impede the sale of this Product, and the sale of all the accessories for this product.
Think of guns in America as you would think of MONSANTO GE FOODS. Hell, we don’t want Monsanto shit in our kiddies’ foods. We don’t want Monsanto violating the rights of the family farmer. Monsanto is CORPORATE OLIGARCHY. Right? We protest. We boycott. Corporatism puts junk in our children’s food, takes away their school lunches, lowers the bar on their educational needs, thus depriving them of “pursuit of happiness.” EVIL CORPORATIONS! Right? So why the F is the gun industry and lobby any more ‘American’ than all these other fucko Corporations who we do not want defined as ‘people’ because they use it to DESTROY everything we hold dear? Is the Gun Industry and the NRA going to ask that guns be declared PEOPLE next? (Maybe they should. As the tired cliche goes: PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE)
This is part of the fight about UNRESTRAINED and UNREGULATED CAPITALISM. There needs to be some tightening-up of the unregulated and, in many cases, UNLAWFUL flow of this PRODUCT into the hearts and minds of future generations. What will we be looking at years from now? The NRA saying a child should get his/her first gun when she/he is 6? 5?
Yeah, guns for kiddies instead of lunch, instead of books. All because the f’in’ gun is so friggin’ sacred. Why not get rid of that Bald Eagle (shoot it) and make the GUN our National Symbol? Guns kill people. Radiation (as Sue has frequently pointed out) kills people. CORPORATIONS KILL PEOPLE FOR PROFIT! HELLO? It’s all about BUSINESS and MONEY. I love how the Second Amendment is being so staunchly defended by THE CORPORATE GUN INDUSTRY AND LOBBY. Would that they do the same for the rest of the Constitution.
As I said before in a previous comment, I’m a ‘gun person’ and am wary of any Crusade for GUN CONTROL. I Will Not Stand For any law that restricts my right to purchase and own a handgun, shotgun, or rifle. (Hunting laws should be adjusted across the country allowing ONLY the use of non-automatic bolt or lever action rifles) So, I also WILL NOT STAND FOR the PROFIT MOTIVE controlling the gun debate, and when we debate, we all need to recognize that PROFIT KILLS PEOPLE. And, of course, it kills little children.
As a gun person, I am more in sync with Sue’s positions and proposals than the arguments AGAINST HER POSITIONS AND PROPOSALS, because a LOT of these arguments seem like the same old oppressive hammer of CORPORATE CONTROL AND MARKETING. Yeah, I guess ‘gun as tool’ could be used as a hammer. PLEASE, everyone: THINK. This should be a no-brainer. When you fight for the right of a lunatic, a criminal, a racist, a serial killer to keep and bear arms, you erode OUR RIGHTS TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. AND–I can see it now–you give the Boys In The Boardroom the bright ideas about UNLIMITED UNRESTRICTED SALES, which of course will lead to Corporate By-Outs and Corporate Consolidations in the Gun Industry–and, God Knows, maybe a future ‘Bail-Out’ for the Gun Company that’s TOO BIG TO FAIL.
It pisses me off what the Gun Industry and the NRA have done to our country, our communities, our psyches, and OUR CHILDREN. It makes me say to myself: “Where’s my gun?” SEE?
that Holmes could have used other methods for his theatre attack, which is certainly true, but doesn’t change the fact that Holmes chose an AR-15 to do most of his damage.
(We don’t need Freud and Jung to know that guns are a unique expression/extension/adjustment to personal power. Their purpose is to change the equations in interactions between their owners and the world around them.)
Holmes is evidently a genius, IQ-wise (probably around a 60 in any measure of emotional IQ though). So why didn’t he choose to build a bomb – fly an airplane into the theatre, poison gas, anthrax, or attack the crowd with a Samurai sword and some death stars? Other than the last one, he is certainly intelligent enough to have chosen another angle.
Well, gun attacks in the USA are just way way easier. Mr. Holmes, thanks to the OCD portion of his mental illness, the internets and the NRA was able to put a nice arsenal together in a matter of weeks. Genius or not, all it takes to do what Holmes did is have a credit card (do you think he’s going to be making his payments?) and a clean background check.
Guns are way fun to the gun fetishist, too, and thanks to his underlying mental illness, the internets, and the NRA’s lobbying for lax and no gun restrictions, Mr. Holmes was able to become a full-blown gun fetishist in 6 weeks or so.
Poor Tim McVeigh – probably had his back turned to the explosion as he was driving away – none of the excitement of victims and by-standers screaming, no getting to lord your power over them as they beg for their lives, no standing there in your body armor – none of it!
No, the OKC bombing was all over by the time the concrete hit the ground. Months and months of planning, plotting, and testing getting the ingredient mixture right – the project is over in seconds! And that GOSHDARN GUMMINT NOW RESTRICTS MANY OF THE INGREDIENTS IN TIM’S BOMB! Where is the National Fertilizer Bomb Association when you need them?
Fly an airplane into a theatre? A Cessna ain’t gonna do much, unless you load it with fuel or explosives – and you are the first one to die Where is the fun in that? You could hijack a commercial jet, and have the fun of terrorizing the passengers, but good luck with that nowadays – THE GOSHDARN GUMMINT MAKES US TAKE OFF OUR SHOES TO GET ON AN AIRPLANE FOR GAWD’S SAKE – where is Mel Gibson hollering FREEDOM about that??
Nowadays, even a genius is going to have a hard time getting through, and you’re likely just to be a page 24 item about the TSA stopping you from getting on the flight, or at best a page 4 on how the other passengers subdued you…
Poison gas – not so much fun watching people suffocate. Anthrax? Takes too long, dangerous to play with even if you know what you’re doing.
No, guns are by far and away the best method. A semi-automatic AR-15 is an excellent choice to use from the stage of a crowded theater. Smaller bullet, but you can get a whole lot of them out there in a big hurry.
So for 4-5 minutes you can listen to people scream, watch them try to run and writhe on the floor, and listen to the BLAM-BLAM-BLAM-BLAM (add another 100 or so more BLAMs here)-BLAM in your ear, feel the bump-bump-bump-(add another 100 or so more bumps here) – bump of the recoil, the 100 or so clinks of the shells on the floor, and the sirens, the door alarms, and still the screaming, and now the crying – oh! oh! oh!!
Who’s your daddy, now? Isn’t that what this is really about for Mr. Holmes? He’s not the only one.
(I notice the usual gun fetishist distraction/nit-picking about the distinction between auto and semi-auto. Mr. Holmes had to pull the trigger for every single shot he took, true. It is possible to wiggle your index finger more than once a second. Try it!
Perhaps a restriction on large magazines will interfere with gun fetishists’ Red Dawn-tyoe fantasies, but, think about it, if you do decide to “go rogue”, as another famous gun fetishist puts it, you better use your bullets sparingly, in the war of all against all, Walmart might not be open. Semi-auto is probably not the way to go…)
After reading hundreds of these gun control discussions online I have come to the conclusion that people inherit their opinions on the subject. We each have an opinion fixed in our DNA and rationalize back to it.
That said, a couple of ideas. First, reimagine the Aurora shooting with James Holmes armed with a bolt action hunting rifle with a five round internal magazine. That is, he would have to pull the trigger and work the bolt (taking a second or so) for each shot. After five shots he would have to open the bolt and load five bullets individually, taking ten or fifteen seconds to do so. It’s not hard to see a remarkably different outcome. My point is that the type of weapons we allow in common use affects the outcomes of violent outbursts.
Another thought is that the firearms industry has a market saturation problem. Firearms are durable goods. They can last for a century or more if properly cared for. The percentage of households in this country that possess firearms has been dropping. It used to be 50%, but now it is more like 20%. (Go to a gun show and try to find people under 40 – it’s mostly middle-aged and older men) Either they have to develop new customers or get rid of existing firearms.
That’s where crime comes in. I was reading some FBI stats and found the startling item that 15% of newly purchased firearms end up on a crime scene within 8 years. What a blessing for manufacturers! Criminals would tend to abuse and neglect firearms, and eventually the guns would get discarded or confiscated. There’s 1 in 7 firearms going down the toilet.
Law abiding gun owners, carefully maintaining and storing their firearms, are a stagnating market. Crime and war are what chew up the product and create demand. Puts a new perspective on industry opposition to controls.
One more thought. About 70% of shootings are committed by people with prior criminal records – which means that 30% are committed by previously law-abiding citizens. “Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals” leaves a third of the problem unsolved.
I believe guns should be regulated by population density. The more people living in any given square mile, the more regulation there should be.
At minimum: all gun owners should have to have proof of holding a $5M liability policy in order to purchase either guns or ammunition, have taken a gun safety course in order to have a license to own a firearm.
Owning an assault rifle should require a $25M liability policy, an extra training session and that endorsement on their license.
Anyone caught with a firearm or bullets without the license of if their insurance policy has lapsed shall have all their firearms confiscated instantly and be banned from relicensing for 5 years.
Handguns and assault rifles have only ONE purpose: Killing humans. Why should a product whose sole function is murder, be less regulated that automobiles?
You know what you need? We need some bullet control. l think all bullets should cost 5000 dollars. You know why? ‘Cause if a bullet costs 5000 dollars, there’d be no more innocent bystanders.
And people would think before they killed somebody, if a bullet cost 5000 dollars. “Man, l would blow your [expletive deleted] head off, if l could afford it. l’m gonna get me another job, l’m gonna start saving some money… and you’re a dead man. You better hope l can’t get no bullets on layaway.”
So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you won’t have to go to no doctor to get it taken out: whoever shot you would take their bullet back. “l believe you got my property?!”
as long as we have a Kenyan Muslim president, there will be no additional restriction to our rights to procure weaponry that we can use to kill large rooms full of people.
a murder-suicide pact.
Death by cop/black helicopters/Nancy Pelosi/Barack Hussein Obama/Cuban invaders/the Tri-lateral Commission/BATF/Hillary Clinton/Barney Frank/Feminazis/the NEA/the Illuminati/marauding Negros and/or Mexicans/IRS agents/libruls/Emily’s List/Planned Parenthood- lots of bogeymen and women, this list is by no means complete.
Let us dialogue with these folks.
I should apologize for being somewhat snarky in some of my comments. I freely admit that I was, and I should have refrained from doing so.
My point is merely that NOBODY seems to be talking about the underlying disease that makes a person want to commit mass murder. I’m trying to point out that there is a lot of misinformation when it comes to firearms and our ability to remove the millions already on the streets from the hands of criminals.
I hope that we remember to focus on trying to fix what makes people resort to criminal activity in the first place. Just looking at a a symptom is never going to fix the underlying problem. Giving medicine to stop a headache is of little utility if you still have the underlying brain cancer. (And that example isn’t even a good one since a gun, just like alcohol, can be used safely.)
If progressives focus on wanting to help people, surely a progressive should want to help someone who grabs a gun before they do so. If we can do that, we would never have to worry about the guns that are out there.
I understand that this is a somewhat fantasized view of the world, which is why I understand that a mixed response is completely valid. But that mixed response needs to be based on facts, and not solely emotion. Emotion can be a good thing, but in its proper place.