Update at the end of the post
It is easier for a crazy person to get an automatic weapon than healthcare in America.
- Shannyn Moore, Moore Up North
So, America, here we are yet again.
Another mass killing.
Another hellish scene of smoke and blood and murder.
Another day of death and pain, panic and terror.
Another dozen people shot dead. Children. Young people. Sixty more wounded, gut shot, shot in the head, shot through the lungs, bones shattered, flesh torn. Bleeding, hurting, crying, some will die, some will live. People we knew gone in a second, torn apart, destroyed, changed forever.
Another hundred American families grieving with loss and concern, a nation left shaking with fear, left wondering why? How?
Another murderous bastard with a bag full of semi-automatic weapons and a score to settle.
Yet another bloody horror.
It’s a horror that has become all too common here in America.
It’s a horror that while it still shocks and appalls us, it is no longer a surprise.
What’s that? Oh yes, another grinning nut with a stupid haircut and a personal arsenal of automatic weapons killed some people? Tsk tsk terrible isn’t it? Oh and they caught him? People say he was a nice guy, quiet, kept to himself, kind of odd but, man, didn’t see this coming, no Sir. Here’s a picture of him smiling like a crazy guy, look at those eyes, they’re crazy eyes, anybody could tell he was going to snap. He probably tortured small animals and has his grandmother’s head in the freezer. It’s the parents’ fault you know, for not raising him right, for taking Jesus out of the schools. It’s the doctors, why don’t they get crazy people off the street? It’s the goddamned police, they’re never around when you need them. It’s the government. He’s probably a veteran, you know, those guys are all on the edge. Oops, gotta go, Dancing with the Stars is on…
Day before yesterday, James Holmes walked into to a packed Colorado theater, apparently through an unlocked emergency entrance, and started shooting. Reportedly he was dressed in ballistic armor and carried several weapons, including a semi-automatic pistol (or maybe two), a rifle, and a shotgun. He apparently set off a smoke or gas bomb and then got down to the grisly business of killing random strangers. He was caught a couple minutes later in the parking lot behind the theater and surrendered without a struggle to the police.
And now? Well, now we Americans will go through the same old oh so utterly predictable dance.
Stage One, Confusion:
Mass killings are still big news. I have no idea how much longer this will be so, Americans quickly grow bored with sequels. Unless the next act of mass murder is done by a guy in a Bruce Willis costume shooting a chain-gun from the back of a crashing stealth fighter in the middle of Times Square, I suspect that eventually we’ll just stop watching. Some guy went bonkers and killed a bunch of people? Yawn, I’ve seen worse. That’s just so suicide bomber. Ho hum.
However, for now, mass murder is still the number one news show money maker, guaranteed to pull in a Forty-share.
Problem is, there’s just not enough actual information about the event to fill up the airwaves.
Nobody really knows anything.
But Americans aren’t interested in facts and they’re for damned sure not interested in waiting. So, over the next few days, until America loses interest, the news outlets will each issue at least three versions of the story, all different, all mutually contradictory. Accuracy doesn’t matter, being first is what matters.
You’ll get interviews with at least four witnesses who didn’t actually see anything, including at least one middle-aged hypochondriac who wasn’t actually there that night but saw a movie in the same theater two days before and had to be hospitalized because she was traumatized by the close call.
You’ll get interviews with at last three former victims who weren’t there but were near similar events and whose stories are now somehow relevant.
You’ll get earnest opinions from two experts in fields completely unrelated to anything that transpired in Colorado, and CNN will interview at least one former Air Force Major who was stationed in Qatar during the Iraq invasion and now teaches law at a small Woman’s college on the East Coast.
Eventually, each news outlet will trot out their one remaining gray haired genuine distinguished Newsman, and he’ll opine on the miserable state of journalism in this modern age – then he’ll condemn all the other stations for getting it wrong.
Stage Two, Speculation:
Since there isn’t any real information and by the time there actually is America will have completely lost interest, the important thing is to fill up the media channels with something. News anchors, talk shows, bloggers, pundits, and the endless ill-informed mouth-breathing Yahoo commenter will each and all put forward their opinion:
The shooter is a liberal. It’s all part of a plot by the America-hating tree-hugging, New World Order to make peaceful, patriotic gun owners look bad, then Obama will send Interpol in their sissy blue UN uniforms to take away our guns. Oh noes! To the bunkers!
The shooter is a Muslim. Of course he is. You just can’t trust those people. They hate America. He probably thinks he’ll get forty virgins in Paradise for every American he killed. We should kill all the Muslims.
The shooter is a member of the NRA. He’s a gun nut. Those guys are all crazy with their gun shows and gun magazines and gun clubs and guns. We should outlaw the NRA.
The shooter is a member of the Tea Party. Sure. They hate anybody having fun. They hate young people. He probably figured the theater was packed with liberals.
The shooter was just fed up. He was an Illegal alien. Probably Eric Holder’s brother in law. He was probably abused as a child, born again, a member of the Occupy movement, gay.
By the time the sad truth comes out, if it ever does, that he was just another nut listening to the voices only he could hear, nobody will care. The only thing Americans will remember, is that James Holmes is yet another sterling example of whatever political point they’re trying to make at that particular moment.
Stage Three, Comparison:
Speaking of using this sorry event to further particular agendas,
The conservative channels will start running footage of Columbine, Fort Hood, and Waco. The liberal channels will start running footage of the Giffords shooting. None of those things really has much to do with the current horror, but they are images of bodies and blood and bullets and that’s what counts when you’re explaining how this event is what happens when the End Times are nigh or civilization is on the brink of collapse. It’s important to associate this mass murder with other horrible events in order to shape public perception in the proper manner.
All channels will talk about Bath Salts and Reefer Madness and that face-eater guy. There’s no indication as yet that Holmes was high, but then again there isn’t any indication that he wasn’t either.
And, of course, there’s the PTSD and, you know, we should expect more of this kind of thing as veterans start to come unscrewed. Especially if they were bullied as children. Or abused. Or into comic books. or Video games or Porn.
The simple truth of the matter is that you don’t walk into a theater and start shooting people unless you’re, at least to some degree, nuts. But that’s just not enough for us, is it?
Homes can’t just be nuts, it has to mean something. Somehow.
However, all of this, Steps One through Three are just the warm up act. Next we get to the main event:
Stage Four, Blame:
It’s Batman. Violent movies and violent video games and rock and roll music. That’s what it is.
It’s bad parenting, this guy’s folks should have their asses kicked for raising a psychopath. But since we can’t do that, we'll punish his family by having every single news agency in the world camp out on his mother’s front porch, and we’ll ask her important questions such as “what are you feeling right now?”
It’s the Liberals with their liberalism, their political correctness, their socialist agenda, their coddling of criminals. Sure.
It’s the Conservatives with their conservatism, their guns and their bibles and their callous disregard of the human condition. Of course it is.
It’s the Me Generation, these selfish little bastards, always with their hands out, me me me. It’s social media, it’s Twitter and Facebook and those self centered bloggers looking for attention. It’s the video games and the Atheists and Fast & Furious and bad teachers and Obama.
The politicians and their supporters will all, each and every one, gleefully make hay. Oh they’ll all, each and every one, wax poetic over the dead (with the exception of certain predictable pundits who’ll insinuate that the dead had it coming for being unprepared and unarmed and ungodly), and they’ll even wipe away sorrowful bitter tears and pause for a moment in patriotic remembrance with the flags waving and crackling the cold breeze at just the right camera angle, and they’ll condemn the other guy for politicizing the tragedy, and then they will make just as much political hay out of this as they can because somebody is damned well to blame for this mess. And it sure isn’t going to be them, no sir, it’s the other guy and his un-American agenda.
Somebody is responsible.
Oh sure, James Holmes might have pulled the trigger, he might have planned it all and bought the guns and built the bombs and put on the body armor, but somebody else is to blame.
Stage Five, Bang Bang Crazy:
And so we’re finally down to the perennial American argument:
Guns don’t kill people, crazy people with guns kill people who don’t have guns.
So, we should ban all guns!
No, wait, if we ban all guns then only people with guns will have guns so they’ll kill the people who don’t have the guns and then there will only be people with guns left and then they’ll kill each other because if you ban guns only people with guns will be criminals and when the government comes to get our guns only the criminals will be free because liberty equals guns. Also what about bears?
OK, then we should give everybody guns!
But if everybody has guns then even criminals will have guns and brown people and yellow people and illegal people and people who don’t love Jesus will have guns and they will break into our houses to steal our guns and rape our women and eat our babies and take our liberty so then police and the military will need bigger guns to keep us safe from those people but then we’ll need even bigger guns because otherwise we won’t be safe from the cops who will use their guns to take our freedom.
OK, well then how about a reasonable common sense compromise?
We all agree that as Americans it’s our basic right to keep and own firearms. But also, some people really, really shouldn’t be allowed to own even a Nerf slingshot, let alone a machine that can punch five hundred fist sized holes in a room full of people in under a minute. How about some background checks, waiting periods, and some kind of reasonable way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, and crazy people?
What! Communist! Nazi! How dare you? Second Amendment! Second Amendment! Every red-bloodied true blue American has the God given right to own a fully automatic meat-grinding bone-shattering blood-spattering high capacity killing machine if they want to, the Founding Fathers said so! USA! USA! Dead kids? Mass murder? That’s the price you pay for freeeeeeeeedom! Besides if there had only been one, just one, god fearing patriot with his own concealed meat-grinding bone-shattering blood-spattering high-capacity peacemaker in that theater, why he’d have stood up and donned his genuine American made night vision goggles and fired up his laser-sight and he would have put that animal down right goddarned there! To Hell with Batman, give me a Glock Nine and an extended mag any day.
Also, we need more Jesus.
Stage Six, Acceptance:
By the time it’s determined that the shooter was just plain nuts, most Americans will have long since changed the channel and forgotten about it.
Meanwhile Congress, ever eager to do something, will ban super-hero masks and squirt guns in movie theaters and require Marvel to put warning labels on comic books.
Nothing will be done about the real problem because nothing can be done.
But the Second Amendment will be safe and that’s what counts! That’s the price you pay for freeeeeeeeeeedom: crazy people with guns.
If the Government comes to shoot you down in a movie theater, well, boy, you’ll be ready.
Besides, it probably won’t happen again.
Stage Seven: Déjà Vu:
And so it goes.
Update:
Nothing, and I mean nothing not even religion or abortion, generates the hate mail that any article on guns does.
Based on the frothy mess clogging my inbox, some of which I’ll publish in the next post, the NRA should spend some time teaching classes in reading comprehension, writing, logic, and basic punctuation, but I digress.
As I’ve said here many, many, many times, and will obviously have to say many, many, many more times: I’ve spent my entire life around weapons, all kinds of weapons – some of which you can’t even imagine. I helped design, field, and test weapons. I likely know more about weapons and their use than any other ten people you’re likely to come across. I wrote US military war fighting doctrine regarding certain weapon systems. I own guns, all kinds. I”m rated an expert shot with either hand. I teach guns. I’ve taught guns for nearly 30 years now. I used to shoot professionally. I spent my entire life in the military, in warzones around the world. I have a Concealed Carry Permit and an FFL. I know something about guns.
I’ll tell you something: the ignorant, illiterate, and cognitively challenged gun-nuts who trolled this site or spammed my inbox over the last two days are the very last people I would allow on my range or allow to handle weapons anywhere near me or mine. Seriously. These Rambos are fucking insane.
These people have taken the Second Amendment and perverted it all out of recognition.
Here’s a sample from some “Patriot” on a forum that linked to this post:
“Horrible events such as the one last week, last year in Tuscon, or 13 years ago at Columbine, are part of the price that comes with the individual right to keep and bear arms and the inability of our government to disarm the populace which is essential to ensuring that the people of this union will never again be returned to being the subjects of, or subjugated to, a despotic and tyrannical government.”
I’ve got a hundred emails here and comments that I deleted from this post that say exactly the same thing, i.e. the kids shot dead in Aurora last week are the price of liberty, of freedom, so that these lunatics can carry guns.
Seriously, you’ve got to be shitting me.
Who the hell thinks like that?
I know a little something about the Constitution too, including the Second Amendment. I’ve read every word of the Federalist Papers. I’ve got a pretty good idea of what the Framers intended and I’m pretty sure that they would be appalled by that quote above. They certainly didn’t mean that we had to risk our our kids getting their brains blown out every time they want to see a movie, or go to school, or meet their congressman. In fact, the idea was that we could live in a country where we didn’t have to worry about getting our brains blown out all the time.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I’ve been to Somalia, I’ve been to Iraq, I don’t want to live there.
However, for the record, the post above does not, repeat does not, advocate for or against any additional laws, regulations, bans, or any other form of gun control.
What I actually said was that all the arguments were oh so tediously predictable.
What I said was the usual folks would call for gun control.
And in response the usual folks would scream about Nazis and fascism and explain why nothing ever can work and how dead kids are just the price you pay.
And that is exactly what is happening, because that’s what always happens.
Both sides are perfectly convinced that they are right. That’s it and that’s all. Period. No compromise. No no no. End of discussion and fuck you, Liberals. No, fuck you, Conservatives.
You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
People called me a cynic, but as I predicted, exactly as I predicted, here we are, in the same place that we always are. Yes, I’m a cynic on this subject, because for thirty years, since the lobbyists and the the Neocons took over the NRA, it is just the same old thing. Nothing changes. More dead, more blood, same old thing.
We can’t even have the conversation.
And nothing will change.
And so it goes.
"The reasons for the terrible events in Colorado are clear - theaters, seeking profits over safety, have installed seats too small for people to sit comfortably while carrying the handguns that are their constitutional right. We call on the American people to demand wider theater seats, so that families can enjoy feature films while fully armed and protected by ballistic vests and gas masks. It is the only possible response to this terrible tragedy."
ReplyDelete- the NRA, any minute now
That's ridiculous. The seats are fine. I have plenty of room for my concealed-carry weapon(s). They're very comfortable.
DeleteYes, it was only ridiculous because the seats are fine. It wasn't a ridiculous comment for any other reason. Good catch.
DeleteYes... It's ridiculous only because the seats are fine. It wasn't a totally ridiculous premise in the first place. Good catch sparky.
DeleteAs usual. Spot on
ReplyDeleteI'm taking down my Facebook post and sharing yours instead, because you just said it so much better.
ReplyDeleteI'm taking down my Facebook post and sharing yours instead, because you just said it so much better.
ReplyDeleteAs I've said before, please, Dear Grue, unless you have actual combat shooter training, don't attempt to shoot the bastard because more than likely you'll end up shooting me in the ass as I run away screaming like a little girl.
ReplyDeleteThis deserves, no, requires sharing everywhere. I'm posting on Facebook. Thanks in advance for permission.
ReplyDeleteThis was spot on!
Have at it. All of my posted are typically posted via links from my facebook and twitter accounts, you're more than welcome to friend and follow if you like, makes it easier to share.
DeleteAppreciate it! Thanks!
Delete>James Holmes walked into to a packed Colorado theater, apparently through an unlocked emergency entrance
ReplyDeleteFYI, according to one media account I read (so, no guarantee of accuracy), he bought his ticket, walked into the theatre, left through the emergency exit but somehow chocked* it, went to car, geared up, then re-entered through the exit he had left through and chocked (* method unspecified.)
And coddling has two D's.
That said,
Jesus, Jim.
Well written, Chief Warrant.
Codling: A baby cod. Liberals and their codlings. That's totally what I meant.
DeleteIt's fixed
Ooh, beer-batterd, fried codling, with proper fresh made tartar sauce, and chips with malt vinegar.....
DeleteFan-boy. That's what Holmes is. A copycat. Told cops (I read earlier) that he was The Joker from the earlier Batman movie, and that his apartment was booby-trapped. Copied the film's weapons and style.
ReplyDeleteNow many fans do eccentric things like dress like stormtroopers or Manga girls or whatever. Some fans like Civil War re-enactment. They have guns, too, unlike Star Wars fans. But they're not loaded to kill.
Something went very wrong with this particular fan-boy, to want to re-enact a Batman scene, and to start shooting during a bang-bang scene of the film, so that people were slow to react. A very intelligent person planned all this to the last detail. But he isn't speaking for anyone but himself.
Without a criminal or psychiatric record (I'm guessing here) there would have been no viable way to stop him from buying weapons. So that leaves this question: How can we stop this without stepping on the rights of a great many other citizens?
How can we stop this without stepping on the rights of a great many other citizens?
DeleteAnd that is a very good question indeed.
The problem is that we can't even have a rational discussion how we might answer that question.
The NRA and the gun lobby are already geared up and ready for a fight and there isn't going to be any, repeat any, encroachment on gun rights, period.
Americans are bang bang crazy when it comes to guns.
Understand something here, I'm a gun owner. I've had extensive training and experience with guns of all kinds, from small arms right on up to US Navy Main Guns. I've taught small arms for more than twenty years. I've used guns against other human beings. Likely I have more direct experience with guns than anybody you're likely to meet, I'm a strong advocate for the 2nd Amendment - and I firmly believe that we need some kind of rational gun control in this country. But guns and rational aren't concepts that go together in America. Period. And, as I said in the article, so it goes. Cynical? Perhaps, but please show me where I'm wrong.
1) A fully-funded and widely available mental healthcare system that can identify, evaluate and treat people like this before their cheese slides completely off their cracker.
Delete2) Firearms codes that require checks and safeties and provide for the prosecution of gun sellers who can't be arsed to use them before supplying a nutbag with his own private arsenal.
3) A national training and licensing system similar to the way we train and license people to drive motor vehicles (and for the same reasons).
4) A return to the use of reason, science and common sense in the handling of such issues instead of allowing the paranoid to control the discussion.
What can I say? I grew up in Texas. I'm a liberal. I'm a gun owner. Crazy people with unfettered access to guns and ammo scare the piss out of me.
Andra, In reference to 1): I wish it could be possible to catch 'em all before they get to this point. I have a lot of wishes, and like most of them, I'm afraid we do not yet have the technology.
DeleteEven fully funded, we don't know enough about the mind. I'm not saying we should just give up, but don't expect it any time soon.
The rest of your list, I think we do have the technology, if only we had the infrastructure, (if that's the right word.) I'd vote for it if possible, just need to get it on the ballot. I agree with Jim, too many people are just too crazy when it comes to guns. But I agree that I'd like to be able to have a rational discussion about it.
We do have gun control in the US, but most people for some odd reason don't know that we do. My husband is a licensed gunsmith and firearms dealer, and before we sell a gun to somebody we have to do background checks. Every state is different, but even here in gun-loving Montana we have laws to prevent somebody from walking in and buying an entire arsenal. If we even think somebody is a little weird, we don't have to sell them a gun. If the ATF finds out we've sold a gun to someone that failed a background check or bought more than 2 guns in a week, we can get in some seriously deep doo-doo. We also have to keep records of every single gun that comes in. There's not much more you can do until some sort of mental health database is created, and even then, this guy was 24. The likelihood he'd been hospitalized or even received psychiatric medication is low, given that most serious mental illness doesn't manifest until your 20's. Sometimes bad things happen. Making more laws won't protect you.
DeleteAndra Barrow.. . Right on!
DeleteTiffany... people buy guns at gun shows, and on the internet, people can sell privately and don't have background checks. Isn't it only gun shops that require some sort of background check, and how long does that take, how long before they can buy a gun to take home? There is NO reason for people to have automatic combat style guns, large magazines, or massive amounts of ammo. Stop those guns that are clearly designed to kill people and do so quickly, hunting guns are a different matter. I suspect that unless someone has committed a crime due to their MI's, then there medical records are confidential. It isn't only people with diagnostically significant MI's that are mass shooting or committing any crime. Yes, they will stick a label on him, but post crime labels, don't stop them buying guns in the first place.
Kimm,
DeleteYour questions are impossible to answer as laws change state to state. In Montana, you cannot sell a gun through the mail except to a licenced gun dealer. Period. Even guns sold at shows have to have paperwork filled out.
My question to you is.. What guns are "clearly designed to kill people and do so quickly"? Since you have to be specially licenced to own an automatic weapon (and this kid did NOT use an automatic weapon), that arguments is moot. Is my SKS a weapon you would ban (I hope not since that is the only rifle I own that my wife can use for hunting)? Is my Remington 724 semi auto 30-06 a weapon you would ban? Fact is, my Remington "hunting rifle" holds just as many rounds as my SKS and my Remington can reach out and touch someone from quite a lot farther than my SKS...
This is the trouble with knee jerk reactions. The emotion overrides the logic or reality of the situation. Does something have to be done? Probably. What shouldn't occur is a responce based on emotion. That kind of thinking gave us the Patriot Act.
Except that any real fanboy would know the Joker's hair is green.
DeleteThank you for knowing the the Joker has green hair. My teeth have been clenching every time.
DeleteRational discussions? No, no, no, that's the old America. Rational is history dude, long gone down the Dixie highway and hiding under a church pew.
ReplyDelete::sighs::
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately... yes.
Maybe it is me, but I remember this happening a lot in the U.S. Why doesn't anyone else?
Here is Canada, we flip out on the RARE occasions this happens. And yes, we have our gun-toting kookoos as well. But our kookoos don't get guns easily.
It seems to me that since all the shooters have been men, and most of them have been men under the age of 30, we should enact legislation so that they can't purchase certain types of guns and ammunition. Would love to say all guns but I'm somewhat a realist.
ReplyDeleteIf the powers that be can enact legislation that singles out women, it seems to me fair play that men of a certain age can be singled out as well.
Jane, all the shooters have NOT been men: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/flashbacks-mall-massacre-1985
DeleteWe could start with internal medical examinations - absolutely unwanted and unnecessary as a prerequisite to purchase a gun. Might even work - given your age suggestion - as most legislators are over 30. Folks don't like this type of legislation if they are impacted - but it's quite OK to impose their will on others.
DeleteWhile I hate guns, and would happily see them all banned! I know that is not reasonable! BUT the NRA and other Gun nuts insist that ANY regulation is an infringment on the sacred 2nd Amendment (which I think is very misinterpreted by the gun rights people and does NOT say you havea right to won guns! It says we have a right to a well regulated malitia....) BUT anyway, my point is, IF the two sides would be reasonable and see that no one realy needs to own guns that have NO purpose except to kill other people and that checks and regualtions might stop even a FEW of these nuts who go on killing sprees, everyone would be safer and better off! But that will never happen, since you have people like the head of the NRA who has publically said that President Obama is secretly planning to take all the guns away (even though there is NO evedence he has any intention of doing do and could not if he wanted to) so whenb the head of such an organization makes statments like that, you know he and his followers will NEVER except any rules! We are all doomed :(
ReplyDeleteClearly you have never read the 2nd Amendment. It does NOT say we have a right to a well regulated militia. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
DeleteAlso I'm DYING to know what regulations you think would have prevented this massacre.
Funny thing about that, we actually have laws that make it illegal to drink and drive.
DeleteNow, most certainly those laws do not prevent drunken driving, just as laws against underage drinking don't keep kids from getting their hands on booze. But those laws do significantly reduce the incidents, and they empower us to check ID's before selling alcohol, and make bars and bartenders liable for serving drinks to intoxicated people and kids, and we do prosecute people for the crime. And law enforcement is actively looking for it.
Further more, we can discuss drinking and driving without people going all frothy and insane and that National Party-down Association and Booze Lobby don't start screaming that we let everybody drink and drive, nor does MADD go insane and demand that cars and booze be completely outlawed for everybody except police and the military, and maybe even them.
Your comment is a false comparison, Anonymous. Try again.
While I agree with your answer, Jim, it still doesn't answer the question asked by Mr. Second Amendment. Given what we know now about the shooter, I, too wonder if any of the regulations (short of a complete ban on certain weapon types) would have had any effect in this case. The shooter purchased the weapons over a period of months (so obviously a waiting period wasn't an issue), he had no criminal record other than a speeding ticket, he was enrolled in an advanced medical program at a respected college and - at least at this point - there appears to be no history what so ever of any kind of mental issue prior to this incident. His crime was methodically planned and executed.
DeleteWhich brings me to my point. If someone is determined to break the law - even to the extent that this individual went to - they are going to find a way to do it. Bans on weapons, waiting periods, questionaires etc will only effect those that are willing to follow the rules. Individuals like this are - by definition - willing to break the rules with impunity. Nothing about this instance gives any credence one way or the other to the issue of gun control even though both sides of the equation will try to make it about that issue.
Which is precisely the reason I ended this post with "And so it goes."
DeletePerhaps there are things we can do, perhaps there are not, but we can't even have this conversation because neither side is rational about it. And the only time we can even come close to having this conversation is when we're wading through the blood of yet another group of slaughtered innocents. I've heard all the arguments, in nauseating detail, from both sides. I spent my entire life swimming in it.
A number of folks have written to point out just how cynical this post is. They're right. I am extremely cynical when it comes to the issue of guns in America.
Frankly I'm getting tired of tilting a windmills.
And here I thought you said, "And so it goes" because you liked referencing Vonnegut.
DeleteHowever, you did mention that the NRA is already crafting their response, which will unsurprisingly dovetail with their established political agenda. I, like you, am a veteran (although Army, not Navy) and have extensive training in the care, handling and use of weapons even though it was not my primary duty when I served (I was MI, not combat arms). I strongly support the necessity and logic of the 2nd Amendment. The problem I have with the NRA and groups like them is that they have lost their way. They claim to be supporting 2nd Amendment rights but in practice they no longer do so, largely because they have forgotten why the 2nd Amendment is there in the first place, if indeed they ever knew.
The express purpose of the 2nd Amendment is twofold: to more easily give the populace the ability to defend the nation when invaded by an established foreign power and to be the "final check" on the unconstitutional excesses of our own government. Neither of these situations are applicable regarding what happened in Aurora and if the NRA was in reality a pro-2nd Amendment organization they would know that instinctively. What the NRA has become has nothing to do with defending the nation from invasion or even checking the excesses of our own government. If it were they would have been screaming mad most every day from 2001-2006. What they've become is a well organized group in support of vigilante "justice" and instead of opposing the overreaching power of big-government they're instead supported becoming the auxiliaries of a big-government where they believe they will be in political favor.
So, yes, the NRA is indeed part of the problem but not because they support the 2nd Amendment. They're part of the problem because they don't support it. Their excessive political influence needs to be broken and replaced by a genuine pro-2nd Amendment organization that is competent and actually dedicated to the mission of defending our constitutional rights in practice...all of them. The NRA, it its current form, can never be this.
Damnit. My first comment on this thread up above was supposed to be in reply to a comment further downstream, the anonymous commenter replying to Ephena. I was tired apparently and it ended up in the wrong place. Since my comment sparked the several comments below it in this thread, I'll leave it in place.
DeleteGreat post and I hope you do take up writing full time.
ReplyDeleteThe carrion-eating talking head on NBC tonight was interviewing the doctor who treated the victims. She was obviously exhausted and upset. She was asked what would she say to Holmes if she had the chance. The Doc was taken aback by the absolute stupidity and insensitivity of the question but rallied and mumbled something as a response.
This guy obviously had some kind of psychotic break, what a stupid bloody question to ask anybody, especially a doctor.
They were chasing his father at the airport as well, probably asking him how he felt. He was dodging them and beetling out of there.
Makes me sick.
I have no comment today, but thank you, yet again, Mr. Wright.
ReplyDeletebd
ps I wish there were more people who think like you in the world, and in power.
As a crazy person, I can verify that it indeed would be a hell of a lot easier for me to get a gun than it is for me to get health care. After all, I don't have a criminal record (although, for as much as I tend to write my various political representatives, I may possibly have an FBI file somewhere that says "Angry Liberal" somewhere. I'm OK with that.) I don't particularly want a gun & only ever considered getting one when I was briefly being stalked by a known sex offender. Still, hunting has always been a big thing in PA (to the point where the first day of deer season is a holiday)so I understand that & as someone who likes to shoot archery, I can understand the fun of target shooting. Guns used to make me incredibly nervous until I worked in a leather shop where the owner was both a black powder enthusiast & general gun nut as well. When you can open up any random tool drawer & find a .45 in with the decorative stamps, you kinda get used to having the things around everywhere.
ReplyDeleteSomething in both this incident (doesn't that sound like a gross understatement?) & the Arizona shooting has struck me, though-- in both cases the shooters had bought extra-extra-massive capacity clips & super-insane amounts of ammunition in a very short period of time. Shouldn't *that* have set off a warning bell somewhere?. Clearly, the extra-huge magazines/clips should be flat-out illegal since those clearly are designed simply to make it easier to kill a shit-ton of people as quickly as possible but they should probably tracking ammo sales even more closely, with the focus being on where things are being delivered & who to so as to prevent someone from ordering from multiple sources to cover what they're doing. Of course, that'll all be next to impossible to get by the Fuck-Yeah-Guns! crowd because you're absolutely correct about our complete inability to have a rational discussion on gun ownership in this country. But then again, we can't seem to have rational conversations on much of anything in this country these days.
As Chris Rock said, "We don't need Gun Control, we need Bullet Control!"
DeleteI shoot in a target club, shooting 100-300 rounds per match, with weekly matches, add in some practice sessions, and range time with the family and friends, and 6000 rounds of ammo is less than a full year's supply. And you do buy in bulk, partly for the price break, partly for the same reason you buy all the paint for a room at the same time, you want the same lot numbers, so things are consistent. It is starting to sound like his "extra-extra-massive capacity clips" actually saved lives, those things are notorious for jamming up, and his did. I'm not a fan of big clips, I think they induce a spray-and-pray mentality in a shooter.
DeleteStuart. You shoot in a target club, and probably you've been doing it for a while. Holmes apparently was a newbie. So why did HE need over 6,000 rounds, and why didn't this accumulation light up any alarms anyplace?
DeleteIf he was buying it on the internet, he was using a credit card to pay for it. Last summer, my bank called me to ask about some unusual purchases on my debit card. Were they mine? Five hundred bucks' worth of flowers? Not hardly. Perfume? Even less likely. I had to sign an affidavit to that effect, so they could be prosecuted.
But when Holmes started buying expensive guns and ammunition, why didn't anyone notice? If I withdraw or deposit over ten grand in my banking account, the feds get notified. If someone other than a shooting range or police academy starts buying thousands of rounds of ammunition, perhaps someone ought to get a heads-up, too.
I'm a Canadian, so read whatever bias you want into that. I'm also fully mentally ill, again rev up your stereotype machines.
ReplyDeleteIf you have essentially unfettered access to high powered assault-style weapons, you will have mass shootings like this. There is no way around it. According to some statistics I have seen on various news sites (take with the appropriate grain of salt) there are approximately 20 large-scale attacks like this every year in the US.
It's not like we don't have gun violence in Canada. This weekend Toronto had the worst one-time gun violence we have ever seen - 2 dead, dozens injured. That's one, and it's the worst we've ever seen.
I would say to gun enthusiasts, and the wingnuts who oppose any restrictions at all:
If you want the guns, then you have to be willing to accept the consequences.
I don't want to take away everyone's guns. It would be nice if you would give up your obsession with weaponry, but I'm crazy, not stupid, and most of the time I'm not delusional. All I'm saying is this, think about the outcomes you are choosing. If you want to keep going on the same path, at least be honest about it.
Admit that you are choosing to live with policy that leaves thousands dead each year. I might be a bit judgmental, feel free to slag me for that, but if you are looking clear-headed at the numbers and can, without hyperbole and resorting to misquoting the 2nd Amendment, say that you are ok with this then I can't argue with you. Stop wrapping yourself in your righteous rhetoric and just come out with it: You are ok with the level of gun violence if it means you can own any gun you want.
I'm sure that wouldn't go over well, but if someone want to make that argument without over the top batsh** craziness, then really, who can dispute it.
Are you ok with the level of alcohol related vehicle deaths? Admit that by driving a car you are choosing to live with policy that leaves tens of thousands dead each year.
DeleteBunch of crap.
DeleteFor clarification, my reply was to Anon 6:44 directly above me. Certainly not to you ephena! You, I agree with completely!
DeleteAnon@06:44 - Funny thing about that, we actually have laws that make it illegal to drink and drive.
DeleteNow, most certainly those laws do not prevent drunken driving, just as laws against underage drinking don't keep kids from getting their hands on booze. But those laws do significantly reduce the incidents, and they empower us to check ID's before selling alcohol, and make bars and bartenders liable for serving drinks to intoxicated people and kids, and we do prosecute people for the crime. And law enforcement is actively looking for it.
Further more, we can discuss drinking and driving without people going all frothy and insane and that National Party-down Association and Booze Lobby don't start screaming that we let everybody drink and drive, nor does MADD go insane and demand that cars and booze be completely outlawed for everybody except police and the military, and maybe even them.
Your comment is a false comparison, Anonymous. Try again.
Amazingly, the self-described crazy guy can make articulate and logical arguments far better than most.
DeleteKnowing a bit about your background, Jim, I was curious to see how you would react to this story. As I expected, your training and experience gives you a practical perspective and a respect for the potential danger of weapons that many people having a knee-jerk reaction to the shooting clearly do not have.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am not a gun owner and don't personally like the things, I recognize their purpose in many situations. I have family members who are hunters and others who live in parts of the country where the coyotes and cougars outnumber the human neighbors. I have shot both rifles and handguns myself and even a laser-equipped shotgun (although I couldn't bring myself to shoot at an animal even though it was a picture on a screen!).
I believe that most reasonable people on the left, including myself, don't want to ban all guns, contrary to the popular conservative claims. However, I simply cannot understand the objection to banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines. There is simply no reason for anyone not in law enforcement or the military to possess these types of weapons, beyond making themselves feel like Manly Men.
While making them illegal would certainly not prevent anyone determined to kill from doing so, it would make the sheer volume of carnage that much less when someone does go off the rails.
I also cringe at the many comments I've read from people (including a US Representative) claiming that someone in the audience with a gun could have stopped the shooter. I find it hard to believe that anyone could shoot accurately in a crowded theater, blinded by smoke, at a black target, jostled by people desperate to escape and, oh yeah, penetrate full body protective gear. The ONLY thing they would do is increase the body count.
The ONLY thing they would do is increase the body count.
DeletePerhaps, despite the claims of infallible accuracy under fire by the gun people. They dream about it, about being heroes, saving the day, gunning down the bad guy in a hail of lead. Funny thing, in all the shootings, none of these heroes ever seem to be about - well, unless it's an unarmed black kid on his way home from the store, but I digress. However, when it finally does come to pass, you can sleep easy knowing that those killed and maimed by the patriotic citizens who returned fire went to heaven in righteous defense of freeeeeeeedom (say it with a Mel Gibson Scottish brogue). Think of them as casualties in the War of Independence.
There is simply no reason for anyone not in law enforcement or the military to possess these types of weapons, beyond making themselves feel like Manly Men.
Well, there's the whole manly man thing true, but the real reason is that a true patriot needs those high capacity magazines and the automatic assault rifles for when the Liberals come to take away freeeeeeeeedom. You're right, the only thing those weapons are good for is killing people, and that is just exactly what they intend to do with them, kill people, just as many as they can, just as soon as the revolution they're all waiting for comes.
You know, that would be funnier if it wasn't true.
DeleteLet's hope Blogger doesn't hijack my post this time! I am thinking, Jim and Thorvaldr, that this scenario may just play out. If the Occupy movement really thinks about what it is doing, and what the logical extrapolation of their occupation is, they will come to a point at which they will either embrace violence or give up. If it goes that way, it will prolly take years and years. But look, already there is a Black Bloc associated with them. The right may get their fight. The haves will not give up their goods without a bonny brawl. And contrary to what Gil Scott-Heron said, the revolution probably will be televised. Or you-tubed.
Delete"Funny thing, in all the shootings, none of these heroes ever seem to be about - well, unless it's an unarmed black kid on his way home from the store, but I digress."
Delete...or a senior citizen in a cybercafe in Florida.
Someone tried to use the "I'd shoot back to distract the guy and give people time to get out" on my Facebook page. My response:
Delete"The flaw in the logic is that possession of a firearm by someone in the crowd would have somehow given them some extra level of control over the situation. The reality is that creating a crossfire would have probably just gotten more people killed. When panic kicks in, most humans become nervous reactionary apes. While Americans like their myth that anyone can be an Action Hero under pressure, the sad fact is that unless the person in the crowd with a gun was a highly trained and skilled professional of some kind (you know, the kinds of people who specifically learn techniques for controlling and channeling their adrenaline-fueled stress reactions), there's a decent chance that the second firearm would have been discharged in a blind panic, at other people, in an effort to clear their own way out.
Furthermore... I want you to think of the circumstances, dude. Fucking Batman movie premier. People in various costumes literally EVERYWHERE. You're seriously telling me that the idea of someone dressing up as a movie character in full mask and costume, and then choosing to bring a REAL WEAPON and LIVE ROUNDS doesn't give you pause? Take the shooting out of the equation; the thought of someone dressing in costume for a night out and packing real heat isn't alarming all by itself?
It's easy to say "I would have done this", but Mr. Adrenaline listens to your shoulda-coulda-woulda and says "LULZ it's cute how you think I'll let you think that clearly"."
I've a high school classmate who insists he could have dropped the gun man before the second shot.
DeleteWon't even discuss it with him. We are now both in mid 60s, I don't have the reactions and accuracy and in high school I was the better shot.
I read and write voraciously, dissecting constantly the grammar the pace the content ... that was one of the most amazing pieces I've read in some time. I salute you Sir ...
ReplyDeleteThankfully I fixed all those damned typos before you showed up, Catherine :)
DeleteThis was enjoyable. A friend linked to your site so I came and read about you, read your rules, liked most of it so in I wandered. When the news of the shooter broke, I was sitting there, confused in Connecticut, asking my housemate why they were making it about the movie. What did it have to do with the movie? And if his mamma said, "You've got the right guy," right off the bat, why the hell didn't anyone but her know the dude was going to be go all wobbly?
ReplyDeleteGuilty, as charged, with steps 1 through 7. Perhaps I'll learn... I'm told I'm educable. Thanks for a well written lesson.
ReplyDeleteI have a simple solution: Tax guns and ammunition like the other killers in the U.S: tobacco and alcohol. End of story.
ReplyDeleteRight on, Jim.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you re: reasonable checks on gun ownership, as in background checks, waiting times, and gun safety classes. Not that I think those things go far enough, but they're such obvious basic 'stupidity prevention measures' that any argument against them referencing 'Freeeeedom!!1!' will only get me pointing and laughing.
I doubt such measures would have prevented this latest outrage, but then, that's not what they're for. I see them as reminders to the 'Freeeeedom!!1!' types that gun ownership may be their 'right', but that doesn't mean they get to be soppy, sentimental assholes about it.
As an American who lives in Canada, I've seen both systems -- and seriously, folks, the per capita gun ownership is *higher* in Canada, with something like one-tenth the death toll, adjusting for population. That isn't because of registries or wait times or the RCMP: that's because Canadians aren't soppy, sentimental assholes about their guns. Gun ownership here isn't a right, it's a privilege -- one that a great many people take advantage of (see per capita gun ownership, above.) However, it is also seen as a responsibility. It isn't part of some mythologized Canadian manhood thing (see the movie Gunless for an amusing take on mythologized Canadian-ness). And it sure as hell isn't some flag-wrapped, patriot-flavored (or flavoured) means of entry into the great game of Swing The Dick.
I don't know why Holmes went bugfuck on that theater. He knows, and my namby-pamby soft-headed death penalty-hating liberal self hopes that he spends many, many years behind bars explaining in excruciating detail to interested law enforcement and psychiatric persons just exactly what, why, and how. I hope that he gets sick of explaining himself, so sick that he regrets doing it. Somewhat. At all. But mostly, I hope that those interested law enforcement and psychiatric persons learn from him, so that they might, maybe once, spot one of these blockheads before they blow. I'd really like that Holmes' ultimate legacy is that because he blew, this phenomenon got rarer.
No, I ain't holdin' my breath. I look good in blue, but not in that particular shade.
"...the great game of Swing The Dick."
DeleteRenee, you couldn't be more 100% correct there. Every damned gun nut I've ever talked to has gone on and on about how powerful their guns are and how no one better break into their house or start any shit with them, because they think they're the God Damned Man With No Name or something.
I own about half a dozen guns, none of which hold more than 6 rounds, and that's plenty good enough for me. I don't brag on them (except for a 1917 Enfield 30-.06 from WWI, which I just really like as a historical piece, but, much like Jim, I tend to digress), and I don't consider that they make me more powerful or potent than I would be without them. But then, I know the difference between masculinity and machismo. The Republican Party and NRA's flat fucking loaded with machismo. They need to recognize when it's time to put their dicks away for a second and start thinking with the right head.
Also, Jim, great post. Once again, you say what I mean to better than I do myself. Well done sir.
An American living in Canada???? Canadians are Americans also.
DeleteExcellent post, Jim. (Especially since your views on this are 100% congruent with mine.) But I do disagree with your characterization of yourself as "cynical." You're not so much that as realistic on where we are as a nation when discussing guns. And yes, so it goes and will go.
ReplyDeleteWhile I still think the (interpretation of the) Second Amendment is the basis of most gun-caused deaths, since the 22nd of July 2011 (note the year) I am convinced that you don't *need* a similar amendment to your (whoever) constitution to have a massacre where most victims will die of firearm-induced wounds.
ReplyDeleteWow! Jim, as a "Columbine parent" (daughter was shot and paralyzed), your logic, your realistic perspective is something I've been trying to sound for a very long time now. WELL WRITTEN! I tried in a couple local message board forums to do what you are talking about (i.e., rationally discuss the issue of guns), and got lambasted to the max, mostly by pro-gun advocates. I'm also a Navy vet. I grew up with guns. I don't even have a problem with the wording or interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I do, however, have a problem with extremists on both sides of this very divisive issue. How to address that? As you stated so well, "And so it goes".
ReplyDeleteYou want a resonable restriction on Guns?
ReplyDeleteTry this on for size:
All rules apply to non-law enforcement persons, in the course of their daily lives. This includes those persons who are currently actively serving in the Military. These rules do not apply to firearms and weapons used for display or collections that have been rendered unuseable by a serving military arms specialist.
1. No technology or materials whose advent was after 1915.
2. No caliber firearm of greater than .50
3. No area denial or anti-personnel devices
4. No fully automatic weapons
5. No bullet magazine of more than 5 rounds
6. No shell capable of penetrating currently used law-enforcement body armour
This will not prevent some nut from showing up at a movie dressed as the villian, pulling out a couple of guns and shooting a few people. But it will dial down the damage.
Welcome to the real world.
The book "Glock" has an good presentation about gun control. Glock, the company, made a ton of money because of the ban on large capacity weapons and magazines. The gave police depts new weapons - large capacity - in exchange for the current police large capacity equipment. Since that equipment was grandfathered Glock has a big supply of large capacity equipment they could sell to the public. I am not dinging Glock for doing this but am dinging the legislation that leads to unintended consequences.
ReplyDeleteThe book also notes that Glock attempted to setup a more rational counterpart to the NRA and a number of weapons companies supported the effort. Of course it failed.
Ya know what, Rud? You're right.
DeleteIf you try to solve all problems with a series of laws, you will undoubtedly include some very serious unintended consequences.
With this in mind, I've redone my suggested laws:
1. No civilian firearm shall have a magazine capacity of greater than 5. Active law enforcement persons shall be exempted from this rule.
It's not enough, but its a start.
As always, love your logic and your overview and your perspective.
ReplyDeleteGraham Linehan posted this on his blog Why That's Delightful when there was a school shooting in Britain. I think it holds relevance now. http://youtube/l8rMYyegT5Y
ReplyDeleteI feel horrible for his parents. Everyone is going to blame them for this. When the police came to his mother's door, she knew he had done. I have a feeling that he has a history of mental health problems. But this is the problem, the system is designed to do something AFTER something happens. Doctors won't do anything until you have a major break. You can't just say "I think he's going to crack and do something bad." The mental health system doesn't work that way. The justice system doesn't work that way either.
I may be reading something into it, because I'm stepmother to someone who has severe mental problems. I had to hospitalize him at nine because he just lost it. He takes a raft of medication. We've got him in therapy, and he sees his psychiatrist on a regular basis. His therapist and I are convinced that he's going to crack soon, but convincing his psychiatrist is hard. He's in the realms of normal behavior, but he's having a hard time keeping it up. Getting him hospitilized before he actually cracks is almost impossible. And it's not all their fault. There are very few places that treat things like this, and getting space in them is very difficult. We're doing what we can, but it may not be enough. And I live in fear of a news crew or police knocking on my door someday. That I tried and did my best, but it wasn't enough.
Clearly you don't understand the aesthetics of how much better a gun looks with a high capacity mag sticking out underneath.
ReplyDeleteDr. Phil
Yup Jim, all the above and then some. As noted, one of the common refrains from the parent's basement dwelling, mouth breathing, "24" and FNC watching righty crowd is the "If everyone were armed, then this would not happen!" dream sequence. As if most gun toting fools are trained or experienced in the effective use of firearms under duress.
ReplyDeleteOK, imagine this then - You are in a darkened theater with 200 other folks, watching some fast action, shoot em up with a loud booming soundtrack. All attention is on the screen and all senses overloaded. Some guy enters, tosses a smoke/gas device in the screen lit room and starts shooting a carbine at a rapid clip. Screams and shouts, smoke, bodies hurling everywhere, poor visibility.
And you, good concealed carrying citizen pull your piece of choice, quickly locate and track the perp, find your stance, safety off, front sight, center of mass, sight alignment, settle, sqeeeeeze....double tap in the chest to be sure. Perps wearing kevlar, still moving, double tap. Close with the perp and double tap again until your target stops moving. Secure the perp's weapons, ensure that he is down and not able to continue shooting.
All that in the darkened, smokey room full of mayhem and screaming, hurt and dying people. You are the calm center of the well prepared citizen doing his duty. Good for you. Until the rent-a-cop from the lobby responds to the gunfire, sidles along the theater wall, counter flow to the exiting crowd, locates the source of shots, finds a clear sight picture and puts two rounds into your own chest or head. Oops. That's not supposed to happen in your fevered dreams of the public avenger rising to defend freedom.
When Gabby Giffords was shot along with her constituents in Tucson, there was an armed bystander who responded to the gunfire. But, he might have shot an innocent man and hero holding a gun, who had just disarmed the real murderer, Jared Loughner. A fortunate decision, backed by familiarity with weapons, stopped concealed carry guy from compounding the tragedy by mistake. And this occurred outside, in daylight in a parking lot.
Imagine establishing any sort of valid situational awareness in that Aurora theater that would have permitted a concealed carry hero to act correctly or quickly enough to limit the carnage. In addition to the cops storming in looking for ANY threat. Are you the shooters partner? Are you another cop? Do you know how to identify yourself and your intent to the police before they neutralize another guy in the dark theater holding a gun. Or maybe a concealed carrier exiting with the crowds who decides to take out his weapon and look for threats as he is leaving?
The concept that a "well regulated militia" of armed civilians would ensure our freedom from occasional crazy people taking sudden charge of our fate is laughable. Except for an imaginary scene of unlikely circumstances permitting you to be the hero and "do the right thing" (and not get subsequently shot by the police afterward), you Mr. Concealed Carry Good Shooter Citizen would piss your pants with the rest of the targets.
You may as well remain in the basement listening to Rush, Michelle and Glen, playing your shoot-em-up games, dream your dreams and remain in charge of your own fate. S/F - Tommy D
Well said, as usual. We need better mental health laws and treatment. Jared Loughner who shot Gabby Giffords had long-recognized issues, but was allowed to refuse treatment that any rational person could see he badly needed.
ReplyDeleteWe all have to submit to eye exams in order to get a driver's license. Why not a psych eval before being licensed to own guns, renewable every few years?
I think in any discussion of NRA reaction to these (and other) events, it's important to remember that the NRA is, first and foremost, an industry lobbying organization. The reaction from this group is designed to sell guns. Nothing less, nothing more. 2nd Amendment & Patriotism-my ass.
The NRA's priority is lobbying for gun manufacturers???? Oh, pshaw!
DeleteYou mean the same organization that nearly wet their collective corporate pants after President Obama was elected and they managed, without any proof whatsoever, to convince thousands of gun owners that their weapons and 2nd Amendment rights were going to be taken away at any moment?
You mean the same organization that continues trying to convince said gun owners that, despite all evidence to the contrary, President Obama, if reelected, WILL take away their guns in a super-secret, nefarious, librul plot that he's been planning since he was an infant in Kenya?
You mean the same organization that threatens politicians that not supporting nearly limitless private access to assault weapons designed for military use and high capacity magazines will result in millions of dollars going to defeat them in the next election?
THAT organization???
Yeah, clearly the money and the power are far more important to them than the lives of a 6-year-old in a movie theater or a 9-year-old meeting her Congresswoman in a Safeway parking lot.
I live in rural IL. The day Obama was elected, 2 of my neighbors were literally getting ready to dig holes in their yards to hide their guns because "Obama is comin' to git our guns". Their wives started laughing when I couldn't stop myself from saying "Obama isn't coming for your f----g guns. He doesn't even know you exist and hasn't ever heard of the 2 square block village we live in". And these were 2 older gentlemen retired from Caterpillar and union members.
DeleteRight now, there is some NRA infomercial running on all the channels around here about "foreign tyrants coming, guns will be taken away, save yourself" hysteria. When it first came on, I wondered what the hell the hysterical rant was. After the first 45-60 seconds of mind-bending rant, it says something about brought to you by the NRA. It got switched immediately. But since last week, it has popped up on various channels. And this was before the tragedy in Colorado. I would say the NRA is in full swing.
After reading your ranting I don't know who is crazier you or the Guy who killed all those innocent people!!!! Sheeeeesh
ReplyDeleteYou're the special kind of troll, aren't you?
DeletePlease feel free to fuck right off back to wherever it is that you came from.
Jim is also that special kind of crazy. The type who's prone to basing his opinions on facts, evidence, and experience, using critical thinking and cynical realism. The kind of dangerous, unbalanced individual who just called out both sides of the Gun Debate on their cycle of political bullshit and apparent lack of ability to decipher the conundrum of Gun Freedom vs. Gun Control in order to live sanely and reasonably with each other and our guns without worrying about getting our heads blown off on a trip to the mall.
DeleteClearly Jim is unbalanced and out of his mind with Reasonableness. I'm going to go make sure the logic traps around my property are still set and oiled, just in case he decided to come for me.
Just a bunch of gibberish you bounced around more than my old supper ball I used to play with!!!! Could have been a good read if it wasn't so slanted towards your anti-gun stance. You might wanna redo your piece to include both sides of the issue and let your readers make an informed decision with the facts and not your opinion!!!!!!!!! Try again maybe!!!! Thanks,Barry
ReplyDeleteNeeds moar exclamation marks.
DeleteAh yes, my well known "anti-gun" stance.
DeleteI'm not anti-gun, I'm anti gun nut. I'm anti-gun violence. I'm anti-crazy people with guns. See the difference?
And the next time I need advice on how to write, I'll be sure to look you up, Punctuation Boy.
>"I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti gun nut. I'm anti-gun violence. I'm anti-crazy people with guns. See the difference?"
DeleteJim, I am SO stealing this.
I'm here for the opinion.
DeleteHe must have missed that part where Stonekettle Station is a blog and not a News outlet. I'm sure the rest of his observations are just as sharp and spot on.
DeleteWell written and well reasoned. Good work.
ReplyDeleteYou always write well, and I appreciate the gist, however, I am disappointed that you not only failed to debunk the "automatic weapons" canard, but actually repeated it. I will also note that since the tragedy, the Brady bunch has sent me 2 e-mails, the NRA, none. More than the gun lobby is trying to twist this tragedy to their own profit. This guy had the chemistry background and access to build something like a phosgene or sarin bomb, his guns may have cut the possible death toll by a pretty big margin. I'm very surprised the exit doors are un-monitored, that opens up not only a security hole, but potential loss of revenues from people sneaking friends in.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, my heart bleeds for all those people and their families...and for the family of J. Holmes; what a special hell they must be in.
ReplyDeleteSecond, thank you for your article -the usual bite of sarcasm to wake us up and make us think is always welcome.
My rusty head gears are lurching and I remember when (harkening back to high school) all debates, essays, etc were being marked -I HAD to fact check to prove accuracy, I had to make sense, I had to lay out my argument in a fashion the teacher felt was acceptable. If not it was FAIL FAIL FAIL. Sadly, post school life doesn't do this, so we get NRA and politician sophistry and (more accurately) bullsh*t.
A lot of comments are gleefully pointing out how the above groups and the public are going to fail all the logic and fact litmus tests. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but it not enough.
The challenge therefore, becomes this: go out and hold them to the standards a simple high school teacher would expect. Repeatedly. Loudly. Publicly. And make sure everyone else does it, too. This is long-term stuff I'm talking here, a conscious, sustained effort. It will make you tired, trust me.
Sometimes you have to be just as loud as the vocal, idiotic minority and if it isn't your usual style, remember this: it is your DUTY. Yes, being a citizen means you have responsibilities so snap off the TV, nut up and be the change you want to see in the world (thank you Gandhi). Is it risky? Any time you raise your head from the herd, absolutely. Until the whole herd does it. SO JUST DO IT.
I'll do my part for my corner of the globe. God knows Jim, you're doing yours! Blessings and keep posting.
~Jessica
You are my new favorite blogger in the whole world. Excellent post, and so very, very accurate!
ReplyDeleteFor the education of the commenters, above, who do not seem to remember the entire second amendment:
ReplyDeleteAmendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That's it, the whole thing. It's not very long, so why do you guys always leave out the first half? I suspect it is because you don't want to admit it exists and has any relevance. It sure cuts a truck-sized hole into the argument against any gun regulation whatsoever (NRA position). A reasonable argument can be made that the meaning of the word "regulated" has changed- I heard it once meant "trained". So why are the gun strokers so against even the basics like gun safety classes?
In addition, the founders of our country and writers of our Constitution were conscious of the needs of society. This amendment and many others were based on keeping society safe, not just the individual. Gun regulation protects society in a way that the concealed-carry fantasy does not.
The founders also knew what they wrote was not perfect and needed to change with the times. They did it themselves 10 times. All of the nonsense about having to interpret the Constitution as intended by the founders and no one else misses this essential point.
Furthermore, in the late 1700's, not everyone could afford a gun. Not everyone who could afford a gun would have been sold a gun, because the gun-smith knew Olde Crazy George, knew he couldn't be trusted to tie his own shoes, never mind own a dangerous weapon. With a bigger society, not everyone knows all of their neighbors, so we need laws.
No one could possibly walk into a gun shop in 1800 and buy 100 weapons. There was no mass production, so the idea of regulating mass purchases was not even a theoretical concept. With a society using mass production, we need to limit gun sales to what an individual would reasonably need, not 25 AR-15's in one buy (99.9% of whom are selling them illegally to criminals in the next state with real gun laws). Who "needs" to buy more than 1 gun per week, or even 1 per month? Who except for the manufacturers and criminals has a reasonable objection? What, "only" owning 12 or 26 or 52 guns after a year is somehow restrictive? If you own that many in a lifetime, never mind a year, you're either a serious collector or you have "issues". My avid hunter friends have 6 or fewer. And I'm not even talking about ownership limits, just limits on one buy. No, your convenience does not override the safety of society. Try again.
Objecting to laws (not bans, not "takin' away yer guns" nightmares) but reasonable laws based on safety is just plain stupid. I can kill people with misused alcohol, with misused automobiles, and with misused guns, and only guns are designed to kill people. Why do I need to need to show ID to buy alcohol, need a license to drive, but can get away with neither one (gun show loophole) only with guns?
Yes, I have read the poorly written rebuttals above. I have read the well-written but poorly argued comments (no facts, just 'you're wrong') as well. There is plenty of space to type. Let's see a comment based on facts that can argue against reasonable gun laws and for the NRA position. Let me be clear- I know how to shoot, so I'm not scared of guns. I'm a veteran, not a pacifist. I'm not arguing against gun ownership, nor against self-defense, nor against hunting, so no strawman nonsense as well. Make your case.
The comment above isn't the second amendment, it's the NRA motto. Literally.
DeleteHi Jim,
DeleteI was replying to Anonymous, far above, who thinks he knows the Constitution by heart.
"AnonymousJuly 21, 2012 6:50 PM
Clearly you have never read the 2nd Amendment. It does NOT say we have a right to a well regulated militia. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"."
I get pissed off at people who pride themselves on avoiding reality. Anonymous seems to be one of 'em. As far as the NRA motto, I think they must do a complete manure for brains transplant when they sign up for life membership.
That's the one. He's actually quoting the NRA motto, not the 2nd Amendment. Though he apparently doesn't realize it. The motto is the second part of the amendment without reference to the militia. Easy to see where he became an "expert" on the Constitution, isn't it?
DeleteHoly crap, Jerry. That's *exactly* what I've been saying for quite awhile now. "To keep a well-regulated militia" has always suggested that the right to bear arms also includes the obligation to be responsible with them.
DeleteI had to repost that comment on my Facebook, in order to incite more discussion (strange how otherwise mostly-reasonable people can be entirely psychotic on certain issues, innit?). With attribution to you, of course. :P
Good article.
ReplyDeleteThis is my response to the "If there was one good-guy there with a gun..." comments.
When's the last time you took training on a weapon? Have you been exposed to tear gas? Are you trained in handling a weapon in a chaotic scene, in the dark?
Now look around you. Of the people around you, how many would you want in that theater with a gun? Because what would happen is that some portion of them would incorrectly identify the SECOND shooter as the problem. Then we're back to an untrained gunfight in a crowded movie theater, with casualties caused by incorrect and inaccurate gunfire. Unless you're an FBI agent trained in high threat response, and frequent Hogan's Alley more than Quake III, you're not going to be trained to the mission.
That's why I question the validity of the premise that having a gun beats not having a gun.
From Wikipedia on the Second Amendment to the US Constitution
ReplyDeleteThere are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5]
One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.
As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]
The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.
Your update is out-fucking-standing. *cheers!!!!*
ReplyDeleteAnd you're officially pimped, for whatever little that's worth, on my own public pages.
The update is spot on, as was the original post.
ReplyDeleteYou've been scooped by The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/articles/sadly-nation-knows-exactly-how-colorado-shootings,28857/?ref=auto
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't think the "well-regulated militia" clause is even necessary for a proper gun control argument. As I see it, "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" talks about having some arms, not having any arms. (I'm sure you guys don't want to hear me ramble on about existential versus universal quantification.)
The inability to have a rational discussion about this subject makes me crazy too. I realize emotions run high, with the liberals shrieking "but think about the children" and the conservatives worried that any minute Obama and Hillary are going to charge in and take their guns personally. "If only there were more armed people in the theater," has been repeated ad nauseum, ignoring the fact that no one with any sense whatsoever believes that a bunch of amateurs opening fire in a dark, smoky theater against a gunman in body armor would have ended well. I stopped debating the subject because everyone on both sides made me want to scream. Yes, I believe in the 2nd Amendment, and no, I don't think most people need a 100 round magazine.
ReplyDeleteI find the lack of rational discussion difficult as well. Here's how I encounter it (though I understand that many on the other side can write similar dialog):
ReplyDeleteME: Wow! That was terrible! We should take steps to make sure that things like this don't happen again.
THEM: Yes we should!
ME: Really?
THEM: Yes! And the only way to do it is to arm everyone!
ME: Um, I was thinking maybe we could tighten up some laws, get better enforcement, and maybe
THEM: YOU ARE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS!
ME: No, I just think that maybe...
THEM: YOU ARE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS!
ME: ... that some better enforcement of existing laws...
THEM: YOU ARE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS!
ME: ...coupled with closing some loopholes...
THEM: YOU ARE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS!
ME: ... and some more consistent gun laws might...
THEM: YOU ARE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS!
ME: ... GODDAMN IT, THAT'S NOT WHAT I AM SAYING!!!
(I'm sure you can substitute a conversation talking about the freedom to own firearms, with the other side screaming "GUNS ARE EVIL!" over and over just as easily)
Yep. As I said, you can not reason with unreasonable people. And frankly I've just stopped trying. Their comments get removed from this blog immediately. I'm not going to argue with crazy people, here or in real life.
Delete@Gumby: A lot of times it feels like banging yer head against the wall repeatedly. Except the wall is armed, paranoid, and looking for a reason to open fire.
DeleteI feel gun permits should be like driver licenses with tests, classes (ie hunting, pistol, assault rifle) and practical demonstrations that have to be regularly renewed.
ReplyDeleteNazi! Communist!
DeleteSorry, couldn't help myself. Joking aside, I feel exactly the same way. Odd that, we must have spent time on similar ranges.
Actually, I believe we do have those kinds of tests and classes, as well as levels of certification. Too bad they're only mandatory for Law Enforcement (Maybe military too, not sure about that one, but I would hope/assume so).
Delete=) Well to be honest, although we share a branch of service, most of my extra range time was on an Air Force range.
DeleteMan...I just had this exact conversation on FB with a friend (I guess). You can hardly get the word "gun" out of your mouth/down in pixels before someone is coming along to froth about the 2nd A. I don't even want to take them away, just rationalize the preventative framework. As you have repeatedly pointed out, you can't even have the discussion any more.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I live in VA, I work closely with folks at Buckley AFB in Aurora. I was there last week when the shooting occurred and I'll be there next week for another TDY (business trip). One of the dead was a sailor stationed at Buckley; not so weird when you consider the work they do. My counterparts there lost a shipmate and friend. Another of the murdered citizens was well known to folks at Buckley. They are deeply affected by the murders.
ReplyDeleteAs Jim will know, the military can be a small community. Many of us knew a DIRSUP flier, Recon Marine or SF soldier killed on duty. But, how FUCKED UP is it to lose your life to a miserable fucking worm who has a beef with the world cause they were picked on, or not loved enough or rejected by Suzie Crotchrot?
Maybe after he got rolled up by the cops, perhaps this idiot thought "Maybe that theater thing was a little extreme", but I'll act all crazy and get through this. OK, Mr. Holmes is an asshole. But, here's the idea I've bounced around since the Murrah Building. If you know you have the perp in custody, and you absolutely know that he pulled the trigger or planted the bomb, then just cut to the chase and execute him right away. Call it expedited due process. Think of the cost savings.
But the twist is, offer the execution up to the victim's families. And the perp must die in the manner that his/her victims suffered. Tim McVeigh died of lethal injection, laughing at all of us 6 years after his terror attack. I am sure that enough pre-shooler parents who lost their children would have been happy to apply blow-torch, cheese graters, razors and cinder blocks to Mr. McVeigh so that he fully understood what it was like to be roasted, shredded and crushed alive....for as long as possible, until he died screaming and screaming.
That may be an effective deterrent to knuckleheads who think they can buy a bunch of guns and shoot-em-up, only to get off on the "insanity" plea. Stupid yes, insane no. James Holmes and Jarod Loughner should be dispatched by having one piece at a time shot off of their bodies. As long as possible until we get to something really vital, and then hold off awhile to let the feeling sink in. They will definitely regret their actions then.
If you televise a couple of lengthy executions immediately after these atrocities, then maybe these idiots will just stay home and eat a bullet to solve their burning issues, instead of taking a bunch of other people with them. Oh right, that's "cruel and unusual" isn't it. How do you think that theater seemed when the shooting was going on? Give cruelty it a chance; many of our friends and allies swear by it. Tommy D
I saw that the Sailor was a CT, I wondered if I'd ever met him or knew him in some way. But I didn't recognize the name. Still, like you said, it's a damned small community.
DeleteAnonymous/Tommy D,
DeleteI sympathize with your feelings on the Aurora killings. The murderer is one twisted SOB and the world would be much better off without him. That said, there is a huge difference between vengeance and justice. America is better than that. We may not be better every minute of every day, but we have to try. Our country has a long sad history of vigilante justice, of lynch mobs hanging the outsider or cops nabbing the obvious but wrong guy instead of calm investigations and deliberate arrests by police, and prosecutions according to the law. Think of it this way: it's hard to draw the line between 100 witnesses and 99 witnesses. How about between 10 witnesses and 5; or between 2 eyewitnesses and 1? But somewhere in that range, there are many examples of the obvious being just plain wrong, examples of the wrong person being executed or jailed for 20 years. (See http://www.innocenceproject.org/) When you try to have a country of laws and justice over feelings of vengeance, sometimes the deliberate process feels like a waste of time. Sometimes the criminal even goes free (which is not going to happen here) in the hope that the process doesn't catch innocents. That's one of the costs of aspiring to have a continental or global civilization instead of a hundred thousand howling tribes. I don't remember who said that we're not gods fallen to earth, we're rising apes. I get angry, too, but I want to work at rising, not falling.
This is one of the reasons why I don't want the U.S. to go back to the Wild West mythology, with every citizen carrying a concealed weapon. An armed society isn't a polite society (what a stupid expression- that's not politeness, that's terror). An armed society has blood running in the streets- just look at Bosnia or Somalia. There's a reason why Western movies end with gunfights. That reason looks out of my mirror every morning... and yours. Pretty soon it's not a society at all, unless it tames itself. Is it the gunslinger we really admire, or the sheriff who makes angry people put away their guns? Personally, I've always rooted for the lawman.
Jerry
You cut me Jerry. You cut me hard. You pulled the "humanity" card. The randomness of life versus the irregularities of legal process, leading to the undeniable but occasionally inevitable miscarriage of "justice". Yep. It is a fact that sometimes they put the wrong guy away. (Usually in Texas.)
DeleteBut, we know that Holmes shot the people in the theater, and rigged his apartment to potentially injure or kill police responders. We know that Jared Loughner killed and wounded people in Tucson last year. Open and shut.
Security is everything. Security permits us to walk our neighborhoods in peace. Drive to and from work or the market staying within the traffic laws. And security occasionally lets our teenage children go to a late night movie premier, with the absolute knowledge that they will come home again. Usually.
I agree that my idea of public and painful execution is a bit extreme for America. You say this country is better than that. But if we made examples of known criminals in very graphic and physical ways, then perhaps prospective perps would take pause and think "That could be me up on those gallows. That looks very painful. Maybe I won't shoot up that 7-11." And society becomes more secure because one erratic or hateful individual becomes fearful of the personal consequences of what he may do; rather than all of society becoming edgy and wary and scared. It is unlikely that my idea of expedited death sentence will ever be evaluated in the US, but it bears some consideration.
Justice is funny. Some people get it. Some people don't. When justice doesn't quite do it, then vengeance can bridge that gap.
To get off topic, Saudi Arabia attacked us on 9/11. After letting OBL go at Tora Bora, the Cheney/Bush boys convinced us to invade Iraq. We did not get justice, but we got plenty of vengeance. You would have thought America was better than that, too.
To get off topic again, do we know who exactly on Wall Street permitted the 1% to nuke our economy in the last decade? Not really. But, what if we allowed some wrongfully ruined, foreclosed and homeless people to randomly grab a number of bankers and traders from their offices. Pull them out to the financial district curbside and put a bullet through their skulls. That is cruel, unusual and perhaps not even gratifying. But, I guarantee that every single "too big to fail" CEO or trader will think twice about fucking over the nation again. Justice no; effective yes.
There has to be some control applied to keep the broader public from becoming the general recipient of increasingly stringent security, surveillance and punishment measures based solely on indeterminate fear. Who am I kidding? That would never happen here. Tommy D
TommyD,
DeleteI might be persuaded to agree to the death penalty for open and shut mass murder cases, but not 'summary justice' a.k.a. vigilante killing, a.k.a. lynching, and never random terror killings. That makes one no better than the guy who opened fire in Aurora. I think mass murderers and the "too big to fail" CEOs are sociopath criminals who should be prosecuted- but randomly executed? Financial regulation enforced by terror? No. Just no.
Okay, so the civilization argument does not move you. How about utility? It might sound good to you. It might feel good emotionally. Even leave aside the thought that the murderers in Aurora (and Columbine and Arizona and VA/MD/Washington DC) were so twisted that they were beyond rational arguments like "you will be executed if you do this". (Only for the sake of argument.)
You have the burden of proving that it will or has ever worked. According to statistics on the homicide rates in death penalty vs. non-death penalty states, the death penalty does not work as a deterrent to murder. See http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout
Since the ultimate penalty, death, is not a sufficient deterrent, then why should graphically violent death be any better? Most if not all industrialized countries no longer have the death penalty. Almost all of those countries have lower homicide rates than the U.S.A. The only countries which still have death penalties, especially graphic ones such as beheadings, are not ones we would wish to emulate (most are not even developed nations), and their murder rates are worse or at least no better than the countries without any death penalty at all. It is not emotionally appealing to many people in the U.S. (even called barbaric) *and* it does not work.
Jerry
You are correct Jerry in that my proposal for public executions with maximum effect is unworkable here in the states (for now). The problem of course is establishing and maintaining control on the "special" judicial sentences. Once those in charge realize that they can instill general societal fear and control through the threat of 'extra bad death', well then where does it end? Historically, that sort of regime eventually falls like a house of cards.
ReplyDeleteRecent examples of the demise of autocratic (nasty) leaders may be somewhat quick like Gaddafi, or Ceausescu or they may fritter away like Idi Amin. Stalin stroked out and died for a long time in his own piss, puking blood and in agony. But, like many of his counterparts he did have a pretty good run of ruling his country through application of fear.
Public execution by hanging, drawing and quartering (to include disembowelment, decapitation, burning and vivisection) was ended officially in Britain only in the 19th century. Our good friend and ally Saudi Arabia (of 9/11 attack fame) continues to lop off hands and heads per Allah's blessing. The Taliban made a spectacle of public executions, permitting aggrieved family members to empty an AK-47 into the chest of the condemned and so forth. (A tip taken up by our recent Islamist/Jihadist hostage takers in their execution videos.)
So, no I do not see this sort of justice being meted out in the US. We used to have the stomach for it, but then we were burning witches and massacring native Americans. We have become more enlightened since those days. Not any smarter though, apparently.
The US likes to think of itself as a nation ruled by consensus and a living social compact of being excellent to each other, respecting the individual as a member of the whole and assuming that when you lose an election your are fucking beat! So stay off the goddamn TV and go back into your hole......sorry, got off track thinking about Sarah and that old man from AZ.
Anyway, consensus.....the rule of law....the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.....all that jazz informs us that our security is sustained by the weight of all of us doing the right thing for the safety of all. But that warm embrace of security can be torn apart by an individual or small group. One person can shoot your child and dozens of people in a couple minutes using only his ingenuity and legally available stuff. Or, one drunk or texting driver can ensure that you spend your days alone, gazing at family pictures of spouse and children taken away by bad luck.
The range of legal definition of what constitutes a horrific murder to a "merely" foolish, but lethal act cannot reduce the pain of those left behind. The anguish is the same when family or friends are killed, no matter the circumstance. Would we feel better by applying brutal justice in those crimes that truly deserve it? Maybe. But, the door would be opened to introduce abuse and eventual tyranny.
And we are uncomfortably close to opening that door without making snuff films out of our criminal justice system.
At this point I am feeling like Belushi in the old SNL skit "The thing that wouldn't leave." We have drunk all of Jim's '98 Barossa Valley Shiraz, run up his VISA card on bad pizza and wrecked his truck. He is tapping his foot, staring at his watch and rolling his eyes. All signs that he is spastic. But, also done with this thread. See you on the other side. And watch your six and flanks. Tommy D
Thanks for the discussion, Tommy. Yes, life is unfair and we lose people close to us for may reasons. Most of the reasons suck, whether we're talking disease, accident, or someone being evil. All you can do is take care of the people you can help in your own way. Don't forget that you can make "family" mean more than what is in the dictionary. And don't forget to take care of yourself. regards, Jerry
DeleteSimply stated, you cannot add even one drop to a cup that is already overflowing. (I believe this is a Buddhist principle but I admit I could be wrong.) Before Americans can accept new ideas, they must first be willing to empty themselves of former indoctrination (and all the bullshit that's been shoveled into us masquerading as 'Truth' and 'The one true way') - and very few will make this sacrifice for the sake of higher learning. Cognitive dissonance is a painful process and it often makes us face great holes in our persons but filling our lives with fact rather than truth is necessary to evolve. Fact is fact and it requires no belief to support it, lies however, can easily become truth if only enough people 'believe' it. Many could benefit by checking their 'beliefs' at the door, emptying their closets of anything they've been told that doesn't have substantial data to back it up and requiring a factual basis for entry into the brain.
ReplyDeleteI found your blog through occupyMARINES and I enjoy it immensely. Thank you for your support and logical thoughts, from a military family's kid/wife. jenifer.a.brooks@facebook.com
I have a short anecdote that I think illustrates some of what's wrong with our current system of gun purchase monitoring and checks.
ReplyDeleteA few years ago, I was getting deeper into my hobby of gunsmithing, with a particular focus on checkering, engraving and restoration of antique weapons. I was interested in doing work for a few friends and acquaintances and was informed that I needed to have an FFL in order to work on other peoples' firearms and keep everything legal and above-board.
So I applied for an FFL. When I received the paperwork, along with it came a letter that informed me that if I was approved for an FFL my name, address and phone number would be published and I would be *required* to facilitate firearm transfers for anyone who asked and could pass the requisite (minimal) checks. This service was not optional and was a condition of being an FFL holder. I made some further inquiries and it was explained to me that not only would I be required to participate in firearm transfers for anyone who asked, legally I couldn't refuse if the person could pass the checks, regardless of what my better judgement might tell me.
This was a hobby thing for me, and was about learning to be a better craftsman, not being a gun dealer. I also had (have) NO desire to hang around with the black-plastic-ninja-gun, anger-mananagement-issues or born-to-lose types. Further, the idea of having anyone who wanted to lay hands on the odd firearm or two know where I live gave me the willies.
In the end, I opted to find a different hobby instead.
The experience, however, stands out to me as an example of how a system intended in concept to enable rational and reasonable firearm activities and prevent the more sketchy ones is in fact skewed exactly opposite.
-- Mack
you're right. nothing has changed. sadly.
ReplyDeleteAnd here we are again. Newton massacre 2012.
ReplyDeleteDead schoolchildren, no make that dead kindergarten kids. And the shooter's own mum who was a teacher at that kindergarten and the sack of shit shooter.
Fuck.
Same shit, nothing changes. Too right, Jim Wright. I wish you weren't but you are. Just so fucking awful.
Is there any hope?
How many more of these will there be? No end to them?
Jim, Fact of the matter is that the 2nd Amendment was created only for the purpose of protecting white slave owners [back in the early 1700's] from their slaves. Read up on the STONO RIVER REBELLION 1737. [Thom Hartmann has even proposed that this "protection" of the slave owners by this "militia" eventually morphed into the KKK]:
ReplyDeleteTHOM HARTMANN
Thom Hartmann is a New York Times bestselling Project Censored Award winning author and host of a nationally syndicated progressive radio talk show. You can learn more about Thom Hartmann at his website and find out what stations broadcast his radio program. He also now has a daily independent television program, The Big Picture, syndicated by FreeSpeech TV, RT TV, and 2oo community TV stations. You can also listen or watch Thom over the Internet.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
Here’s the event that led to the writing of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and why there was the need for a “militia” . . . at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stono_Rebellion
Compilation of “The STONO REBELLION” 1739:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=1&gs_ri=hp&gs_mss=the%20stono%20riv&cp=30&gs_id=3e&xhr=t&q=the+stono+river+rebellion+1737&es_nrs=true&pf=p&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&oq=the+stono+river+rebellion+1737&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41248874,d.cGE&fp=35aa3d940bc48dd8&biw=1440&bih=715
Gary H