Yesterday's tragic shootings were a heartbreaking moment for all of us. My thoughts are certainly with the victims, and I hope all of yours are as well.
What makes this attack disgraceful as well as tragic is that it was thoroughly preventable. The gunman purchased his stockpile legally and carried his weapons legally. Only in America is the right of a madman to arm himself against the big, bad "gummint" more important than the right of the security of the residents of a free state. Can you imagine this happening... ANYWHERE else (with a functioning government)? Madmen like this one do not constitute a well-regulated militia, and certainly contribute nothing to the security of a free state. The ultra-tight background checks proposed by Senator Gillibrand are a good first step, but broader action is needed to keep guns out of criminal hands.
My thoughts are as follows-
rifles and shotguns, and other hunting weapons: I'm not a hunter, and it doesn't hold terribly much appeal for me. That said, my stepbrother, John, does hunt, and after living with him for eight years, I really see no great harm in them, however distasteful I find firearms of any type. Especially considering the volume of shootings conducted with handguns and assault weapons, I don't think we need to deal with these just yet.
Handguns- these are clearly designed for person-person use, and therefore deserve greater scrutiny than hunting weapons. I think monthly psych evaluation for hand-gun owners would be a good starting point, but I would like to see broader action moving towards their ban.
Assault weapons and military grade hardware- totally outlawed. The body count here would have been cut in half had the madman not had a 6000 round automatic weapon. For those nuts who insist that these weapons are for "hunting purposes only", I say that if you need a machine gun to hit something the size of a deer, you have no business holding a firearm of any kind! In short, anyone who wants one of these obviously anticipates having to kill a great many people, quickly. We have the Texas state government, and Obama's predator drones for that. The civilians who want these tend to be right-wing, sovereign citizen-types who pose more of a threat to our security than any foreign agent.
Obviously, criminals will try to acquire guns whatever the laws. But modern technology has reached the point at which we can have our self-defensive cake and eat it too, with non lethal dart-tasers, pepper spray, and so on. To all those who think they can beat the 40-1 odds and use a gun to apprehend or kill a criminal with no harm to themselves, I say to get a taser. As to criminals acquiring guns, no matter if they were bought illegally, at some point those guns were legal, and therefore, standards can be tightened. As a side note, if the government can spy on all of us by the locations of our cellphones, why not install similar tracking devices in the guns of the nutjobs who won't be happy until they get to lead a lynch mob?
This tragedy should leave us griefstricken, but more than that, it should inspire us to declare: Never Again. I hope you join me in calling your representatives, the White House switchboard, (at 202-456-1111), your senators, mayors, anyone at all in a position of power, to ask: what are their plans to control gun violence and get guns off the streets of America? Why should the safety of the citizenry be held hostage to the so-called "right" of a radical fringe to feel secure against the power of the community?
In solidarity
Genosse Graham
While I agree with you on rifles and shotguns, handguns are self-defensive weapons should be legal. A monthly psych evaluation is unreasonable. Maybe one in every 1 or 2 years? The Supreme Court has decided that handguns are legal. Assault weapons and military grade hardware are probably not needed for self-defense, but I could probably come up with one argument in favor of these weapons. Right-wing, sovereign citizen-types are not the only supporters of these weapons and there are gun-right advocates who are not right-wing who support these weapons.
ReplyDeleteAs for non lethal dart-tasers (who has that?) pepper spray and tasers don't have the range or ability to neutralize (kill) an intruder with a gun. If an intruder has a gun, I want a gun to defend myself. If I accidentally shoot my wife or daughter (not that I have either), then so be it. It is better than them getting raped.
BTW Feingold supports the right to own a handgun.
Politically, banning guns is not a winning strategy for Democrats because Democrats in rural areas could be in a lot of trouble and could cost the Democrats the Senate.
Data from the New England Journal of Medicine clearly show that guns kept for protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a home invader. While the right to self defense is a logical principle, handguns have not proven to be an effective means of self protection. There are 30000 self-injuries with guns each year, not counting accidental injuries of others. As a Depressive, with many family members who share my condition, I can say that we are much safer without guns in the house. The suicide risk goes up by a factor of 10 for houses that contain guns, according to the NEw England journal of Medicine, and an article by none other than former Bush speech writer David Frum acknowledges that one is at least 50% percent more likely to injure oneself with a gun than an assailant. These are just the reasons why it's inadvisable to own a gun- for reasons it should be illegal, look to the origins of illegally obtained guns used in crimes nationwide. According to the ATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the ten states with the weakest gun laws account for the origin of half of all illegally bought guns used in violent crimes. This puts to bed the notion of "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". Nearly every gun is purchased legally at some point, and states that make it easier to get them put us all at risk.
DeleteI know constant psych evaluations are onerous, but that's the point. If you want to be trusted with an instrument of exclusively violent nature, society had better have up-to-date assurance that you are relatively stable. After all, who in his right mind wants to own something that's 43 times as likely to kill him as anyone else?
The Supreme Court also decided that Bush won Florida: it's a solidly Republican Court, and will rule accordingly for at least the next twenty years.
Not being a woman, I can't say whether violation is worse than murder. I can say that you oughtn't make that decision for those who are affected by it- that's really patriarchal. If you want to take the patently unsafe step of owning a gun, give some say in the matter to those you're claiming to protect.
Yes, Feingold supports gun ownership. I don't. Your point?
I know it's unpopular as a concept, but several common-sense proposals win high support, even from NRA members, such as 5-day waiting periods, outlawing mail-order/online ammunition buys, banning assault weapons... Really, the list of small steps politically feasible goes on and on. What is more important than this, however, is the courage of convictions. If more Democrats were less afraid to speak up on important issues, and side with the welfare and security of the People, this would be a very different blog indeed. You can't scare me with promises of electoral defeat when there's no longer any such thing as the people's victory.
Mom, Mike, and Erin are out looking at kittens. I'll keep you all posted:) Rest assured that I will radicalize the cat in question in short order.
I doubt that either one of us will budge on the gun control issue. My major point is not politically feable to get gun control. It is easy if you are in the urban citys in California, Illinois, and New York, but it is much harder run on gun control in states that Democrats need to hold Senate. So nothing will be done.
ReplyDeleteSecond Amendment to the United States Constitution
ReplyDelete"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"
United States Declaration of Independence
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
United States Declaration of Independence and Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
Give permission to
1.Own Guns and weapons to keep the state safe
2. Overthrow the Government if there is a dictator
That was the Founding Fathers were thinking about Gun Control.
There will probably will never be dictator that we would never have to take down.
Should all weapons be legal? Of course not! Should self defensive guns be legal? Yes.
Here are three scenarios assumming I have a wife and 16 year daughter and there is a man with a gun who breaks into the my home
1. I don't have a gun. Man kills him and rapes and kills my wife and daughter.
2. I have a gun. I kill the man, but my wife and/or daughter was killed in process
3. I have a gun. I kill the man
Which scenario is the best. 3
Which scenario is the worst? 1
Huh, my old comment isn't here anymore. I'll restate my reaction as best as I can- We've been over all these points, but I find it disgusting that you would make a life or death decision for someone else because she is a woman.
ReplyDeleteAgain, you mischaracterized my comment. Maybe it wasn't an good example. What I was trying to say, I would make risk the life of my brother, wife, daughter in order to stop the home invader. It would be a better for me to not give up my gun and have them kill my family member or I kill my family member accidently
Delete