Posted by Ezra Klein on July 23, 2012 at 11:51 am, 2012
The aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado shootings has been thick with calls to avoid “politicizing” the tragedy. That is code, essentially, for “don’t talk about reforming our gun control laws.”
Let’s be clear: This is a form of politicization. When political actors construct a political argument that threatens political consequences if other political actors pursue a certain political outcome, that is, almost by definition, a politicization of the issue. It’s just a form of politicization favoring those who prefer the status quo to stricter gun control laws.
That said, it’s important to be clear about what Aurora is: A tragedy that may or may not tell us anything useful about the general trends in guns and violence in the United States. And so this post is about those trends, some of which may surprise you.
1. America is an unusually violent country. But we’re not as violent as we used to be.
America is far more violent than other developed nations, but the violence is declining.
As Healy writes, “The most striking features of the data are (1) how much more violent the U.S. is than other OECD countries (except possibly Estonia and Mexico, not shown here), and (2) the degree of change—and recently, decline—there has been in the U.S. time series considered by itself.”
2. The South is the most violent region in the United States.
The bottom line, Egan writes, is that “long-term trends suggest that we are in fact currently experiencing a waning culture of guns and violence in the United States. ”
4. More guns tend to mean more homicide.
The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different state., Citations here [ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html ].
5. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.
Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep [ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/ ] into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive:
“The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state,” explains Florida. “It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place – assault weapons’ bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).”
6. Gun control is not politically popular.
Since 1990, Gallup has been asking Americans whether they think gun control laws should be stricter. The answer, increasingly, is that they don’t. “The percentage in favor of making the laws governing the sale of firearms ‘more strict’ fell from 78% in 1990 to 62% in 1995, and 51% in 2007,” reports [ http://www.gallup.com/poll/145526/Gallup-Review-Public-Opinion-Context-Tucson-Shootings.aspx ] Gallup. “In the most recent reading, Gallup in 2010 found 44% in favor of stricter laws. In fact, in 2009 and again last year, the slight majority said gun laws should either remain the same or be made less strict.”
Ron Johnson: High-Capacity Magazines Are A Constitutional Right (VIDEO)
By Sam Stein Posted: 07/22/2012 9:58 am Updated: 07/22/2012 12:04 pm
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) drew a fairly strict line in the sand on Sunday with respect to the coming debate over gun control, suggesting that there is a constitutional right to buy high-capacity clips and magazines.
"Does something that would limit magazines that could carry 100 rounds, would that infringe on the constitutional right?" host Chris Wallace asked Johnson on "Fox News Sunday."
"I believe so," Johnson replied. "People will talk about unusually lethal weapons, that could be potentially a discussion you could have. But the fact of the matter is there are 30-round magazines that are just common all over the place. You simply can't keep these weapons out of the hands of sick, demented individuals who want to do harm. And when you try and do it, you restrict our freedom."
High-capacity magazines were banned under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1994 and which expired 10 years later. Since then, gun control advocates have focused their attention on them in their efforts to curb gun-related violence.
Opponents of restrictive gun laws have responded by arguing that incidents of violence involving high-capacity magazines are actually quite rare, and that shootings involving handguns are far more common.
When former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) was shot in Tucson, the topic finally received national attention. The man who has been charged with killing six people in the attack, along with wounding Giffords and 12 others, used a high-capacity magazine to fire off more than 30 shots before reloading.
Johnson is a conservative member of the Republican Party. But support for high-capacity magazines, even in the wake of the Aurora shooting, extends far beyond him. Former Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.), a moderate Republican who is running for Senate, said Friday he opposes [ http://ctsenate2012.nhregister.com/2012/07/20/chris-shays-opposes-assault-weapons-ban-despite-colorado-shootings/ ] a ban on these magazines, despite having voted for the assault weapons ban in 1993 and co-sponsoring a reauthorization bill in 2008.
McCain: No proof gun control prevents gun violence
By David Edwards Sunday, July 22, 2012 14:30 EDT
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) says there is no proof that gun control leads to less gun violence, but he is willing to “look at everything” following a massacre in Aurora, Colorado that left least 12 dead and 58 wounded.
“I don’t know, to tell you the truth, what we can do, and this immediately leads to the issue of gun control,” McCain told CNN’s Candy Crowley. “The killer in Norway, which is a country that has very strict gun control laws, and yet he was still able to acquire the necessary means to initiate and carry out a mass slaughter.”
“I think we need to look at everything, if that even should be looked at, but to think that somehow gun control is — or increased gun control — is the answer, in my view, that would have to be proved,” he added.
“You get to this point, you don’t want the government spying on what people are buying,” she explained. “On the other hand, what’s the price? The price is all these things we just read off.”
“Let’s remember it’s a constitutional right,” McCain replied. “Second of all, if you could prove the case that it, indeed, has a positive effect — we had a ban on assault weapons that expired some years ago, it didn’t change the situation at all in my view.”
“So, I think the strongest Second Amendment rights people would be glad to have an conversation, but the conclusion that this was somehow caused by the fact that we don’t have more gun control legislation, I don’t think has been proved.”
According to a 1997 study [ http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.full.pdf ] (PDF) published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, the U.S. had a firearm homicide rate 23 times higher than Norway, which McCain cited in his remarks.
Russell Pearce On Colorado Shootings: 'Had Someone Been Prepared And Armed, They Could Have Stopped This "Bad" Man'
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 24: Russell Pearce, sponsor of the controversial immigration law Arizona SB 1070, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill April 24, 2012 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
By Chris Gentilviso Posted: 07/22/2012 5:27 pm
Former Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce (R) weighed in on the horrific Colorado shootings on Saturday, focusing less on the suspected shooter, James Holmes, and more on the victims.
In a Facebook post timestamped just after 1 a.m. ET Saturday morning, Pearce appeared to point a finger at the Aurora, Colo. movie theatergoers' failure to stop the gunman, likening the situation to the 9-11 tragedies.
"Had someone been prepared and armed they could have stopped this "bad" man from most of this tragedy. He was two and three feet away from folks, I understand he had to stop and reload. Where were the men of flight 93????," Pearce wrote.
Shortly after the post went live, The Arizona Republic posted the Facebook statement, pointing to Pearce's record on gun control. The paper noted that as a member of the state legislature, he altered a law that allowed weapons owners to carry arms without a permit, while fighting for looser restrictions on guns in public settings.
In response to the Republic's piece, Pearce clarified his remarks, criticizing the paper in a Facebook follow-up over its attempt to "mischaracterize my earlier post as some sort of attack on the victims of the horrific attack in Colorado."
"Nothing could be further from the truth," Pearce added. "Our thoughts and prayers remain with the victims and their families as they should. All I did was lament that so many people should be left disarmed and vulnerable by anti-gun rules that try to create a sense of safety by posting a sign that says "No Guns", when the only real effect is to disarm everyone who could have saved lives.
"The madman had guns, but even those with the training to handle a firearm could not stop him because they had been disarmed," Pearce added. "Had they been prepared (and maybe that's the word that is throwing off the writers at the Republic) and been able to fire on their attacker, lives could have been saved. In Arizona we have passed laws to free our people so that they can defend themselves and their loved ones. You cannot predict where evil will raise its head, but you can be prepared for it."
As the architect of Arizona's controversial illegal immigration law, Pearce was removed from office in a November 2011 recall election. As recent as last Wednesday, speculation surfaced regarding a possible political comeback.
Jerry Newcombe, Evangelical Leader, Says Only Christian Victims Of Colorado Shooting Going To Heaven
Posted: 07/22/2012 10:40 am Updated: 07/23/2012 12:37 pm
An evangelical spokesperson for a religious group known as Truth In Action [ http://www.truthinaction.org/ ] has claimed that the tragedy in Colorado happened because America has lost its fear of hell.
I can't help but feel that to some extent, we're reaping what we've been sowing as a society. We said to God, "Get out of the public arena." Lawsuit after lawsuit, often by misguided "civil libertarians," have chased away any fear of God in the land -- at least in the hearts of millions.
Newcombe is not alone in reacting this way to the shooting in Aurora that claimed 12 lives and left dozens of people injured. On the day of the shooting Rep. Gohmert of Texas [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/louie-gohmert-aurora-shootings_n_1689099.html ] also insisted that the shootings are the result of "ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian Beliefs":
"People say ... where was God in all of this? We've threatened high school graduation participations, if they use God's name, they're going to be jailed ... I mean that kind of stuff. Where was God? What have we done with God? We don't want him around. I kind of like his protective hand being present."
Perhaps more disturbing were Newcombe’s comments on a segment on the American Family Association [ http://www.afa.net/Radio/show.aspx?id=2147490378&tab=video&video=2147524490 ] dedicated to understanding the shooting tragedy in Colorado. In taking about the deaths, Newcombe separated the afterlife fate of those who died as Christians and those who did not:
If a Christian dies early, if a Christian dies young, it seems tragic, but really it is not tragic because they are going to a wonderful place ... on the other hand, if a person doesn’t know Jesus Christ ... if they knowingly rejected Jesus Christ, then, basically, they are going to a terrible place.
Newcombe then turned the tragedy into an opportunity for people to convert to Christianity and avoid the fate of hell:
For those who are not ‘in Christ’ and see this incredible tragedy, this would be a good time for soul reflection and consider why have you not accepted Jesus Christ ... I would urge anyone who is not in Christ to repent of your sins.
Colorado Suspect Had Easy Access to Assault Rifle, Ammo
People hold candles as they visit a memorial for the victims in the shooting across the street from the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. James Eagen Holmes has been charged in the shooting at the Aurora theater early Friday that killed twelve people and injured more than 50. He is scheduled to appear in court Monday morning. (AP Photo/Ed Andrieski)
By Michael C. Bender, Jeff Bliss and Vincent Del Giudice - Jul 23, 2012 2:06 PM CT
James Holmes had a 100-round drum magazine clipped into the Smith & Wesson (SWHC) semi-automatic rifle police say he fired into a crowded Colorado theater.
Jared Lee Loughner was accused of killing six people last year and injuring more with help from a 33-round magazine, the bullet holder extending from the grip of his Glock 19.
High-capacity accessories like these would have been illegal a decade ago.
Today, there is little difficulty amassing a military-style arsenal since the 2004 lapse of the federal assault weapon ban. And tougher gun laws probably wouldn’t have prevented Holmes from killing, Colorado’s governor said yesterday.
“If there were no assault weapons available and no this or no that, this guy is going to find something, right?” Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “He’s going to know how to create a bomb.”
Debate over gun control in the U.S. regularly unfolds after high-profile shootings, such as the federal proposal to require background checks at gun shows after the Columbine High School shootings in Colorado in 1999 and when firearms lobbyists pushed state legislatures to allow concealed weapons on college campuses after the massacre at Virginia Tech University in 2007. Still, other than a law aimed at improving state reporting for federal background checks, there have been no major U.S. gun regulations since the 1994 assault weapon ban prohibited 19 military-style guns and magazines holding more than 10 bullets.
Federal Ban
President Barack Obama promised to reinstate the ban during his 2008 campaign and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney signed an assault weapon ban as Massachusetts governor. The federal ban had mixed results, leading to less use of assault weapons in crimes and greater utilization of other firearms, according to a 2004 Department of Justice report.
Existing checks and regulations failed to flag Holmes -- accused of killing 12 people and injuring 58 others in the Aurora, Colorado, theater -- for state or federal authorities because he avoided buying handguns within five days at the same store and never committed prior offenses that would have raised an alarm during required background checks, according to a federal official who asked for anonymity and wasn’t authorized to speak publicly.
‘Worst Case’
Use of high-capacity magazines and avoiding state and federal checks “is a worst-case scenario for gun-rights defenders,” said Richard Feldman, a former political organizer for the Fairfax, Virginia-based National Rifle Association, a 4- million member gun-rights organization.
“It’s not that the system didn’t work,” Feldman said. “He wasn’t in the system.” Elected officials including New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg and U.S. Representative Ed Perlmutter, a Colorado Democrat, said yesterday the ban should be re-instated.
“We spend all our time talking about tax returns and gaffes and things like that,” Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “This is one of those issues, along with a handful of others, that really matters to the American public.”
No Debate
Perlmutter, whose district includes Aurora, said reinstating the ban is a starting point.
“We ought to be taking a look at how this guy was able to accumulate so much ammunition,” Perlmutter said. “He had enough ammunition for a small army. There’s something wrong about that.”
Steve Schmidt, a Republican consultant who was chief strategist for John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008, said gun control is “an absolutely settled issue.”
“People absolutely will not take on the NRA,” Schmidt said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “It’s the most powerful interest group in Washington D.C.”
Senator Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, said America should “re-instill values in what we’re teaching our children.”
“This isn’t an issue about guns,” Johnson said on “Fox News Sunday.” “This is just really an issue about sick, demented individuals.”
Against Grandstanding
On July 20, the NRA said in a statement it wouldn’t comment “until all the facts are known.” A message left for the NRA’s public relations department yesterday wasn’t returned.
“It’s time for us to address and enforce the gun laws that we have,” New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a Republican, told reporters in Trenton today. “I am a little bit disturbed by politicians who in the immediate aftermath of this type of tragedy try to grandstand, and I’m not going to be one of those people.”
Holmes had more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition, Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates said at a news conference July 21.
He spent more than $15,000 the past several months buying ammunition, firearms and explosives, said a law-enforcement official who lacked authorization to speak publicly and asked for anonymity. Holmes had the 100-round magazine in a Smith & Wesson M&P .223 caliber rifle, the official said.
Surveillance Video
Surveillance video shows Holmes picking up 150 pounds of ammunition at a FedEx Corp. (FDX) outlet in Colorado, the official said. Investigators have interviewed a United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS) driver who says Holmes had 90 packages delivered to his workplace on the University of Colorado medical campus, the official said.
A shipping label from BulkAmmo.com, an Internet ammunition site, was found in the trash bins outside of Holmes’s apartment, the official said.
The retailer, which has a St. Louis mailing address on its website, was “actively assisting in the investigation,” Oliver D. Adams, an attorney the store, said in a statement.
Authorities also found that 30 aerial shells -- softball- sized black-plastic objects used in fireworks displays -- had been turned into hand grenades, the official said. Enough gunpowder and gasoline were discovered to engulf in flames two floors of his apartment building, the law-enforcement official said.
’Novelty Item’
A 100-round magazine is mostly a “novelty item” that has “no practical use,” said Cameron Hopkins, former editor-in- chief of American Handgunner, a San Diego-based magazine for firearms enthusiasts. Hopkins said the gun magazines are “too unreliable, too bulky and too cumbersome” for use by military or law enforcement.
“If zombies were coming over the horizon and I had to defend my house and I wanted to massacre thousands of zombies, I still would not use a 100-round magazine,” Hopkins said. “I would have a whole bunch of 30s.”
The 6,000 rounds of ammunition Holmes is said to have bought wouldn’t have set off alarm bells for most ammo dealers, said Jeremiah Johnson, owner of National Match Armorer, a Bairoil, Wyoming-based ammo retailer.
“It’s nothing that would raise eyebrows,” Johnson said in an interview yesterday at a gun show in Loveland, Colorado.
The gun show was held at the Loveland Outlet Mall, where outside the shopping center oversized U.S. and Colorado flags flew at half-staff. Inside, hundreds of firearms were on sale along with stun guns, pepper spray and clothing, including a black baseball hat printed with a blue dove and the words “Jesus Prince of Peace.”
“A lot of guys come in and they might buy 5,000 rounds of this, 5,000 rounds of that and 5,000 rounds of that,” Johnson said. “Not only does it not throw up red flags, they’ll probably get a discount.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Michael C. Bender in Tallahassee at mbender10@bloomberg.net; Jeff Bliss in Washington at jbliss@bloomberg.net; Vincent Del Giudice in Denver at vdelgiudice@bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephen Merelman at smerelman@bloomberg.net
James Holmes, Aurora Shooting Suspect, Used Internet For Arsenal
By NICHOLAS RICCARDI 07/23/12 11:02 AM ET
DENVER — In a world where Amazon can track your next book purchase and you must register to buy allergy medicine, James Holmes spent months stockpiling thousands of bullets and head-to-toe ballistic gear without raising any red flags with authorities.
The suspect in the mass theater shooting availed himself of an unregulated online marketplace that allows consumers to acquire some of the tools of modern warfare as if they were pieces of a new wardrobe. The Internet is awash in sites ranging from BulkAmmo.com, which this weekend listed a sale on a thousand rifle rounds for $335, to eBay, where bidding on one armored special forces helmet has risen to $799.
"We're different than other cultures," said Dudley Brown, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, which advocates for firearms owners' rights. "We do allow Americans to possess the accoutrements that our military generally has."
Gun rights activists like Brown celebrate that freedom, but even some involved in the trade are troubled by how easily Holmes stocked up for his alleged rampage.
Chad Weinman runs TacticalGear.com, which caters to police officers looking to augment their equipment, members of the military who don't want to wait on permission from the bureaucracy for new combat gear, and hobbyists like survivalists and paintballers. The site receives "thousands" of orders daily, sometimes from entire platoons that are about to deploy to war zones.
On July 2, Holmes placed a $306 order with the site for a combat vest, magazine holders and a knife, paying extra for expedited two-day shipping to his Aurora apartment. The order, Weinman said, didn't stand out.
"There's a whole range of consumers who have an appetite for these products, and 99.9 percent of them are law-abiding citizens," Weinman said. But he said that "it makes me sick" that Holmes bought material from him. He added that he doesn't sell guns or ammunition and that he was "shocked" at the amount of bullets that Holmes allegedly bought online.
Authorities say all of Holmes' purchases were legal -- and there is no official system to track whether people are stockpiling vast amounts of firepower.
There is no restriction on the sale of bullets in the United States, except for armor-piercing rounds, which can only be bought by law enforcement, said Ginger Colbrun, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Hence the proliferation of websites offering Amazon.com-style wish-lists for hollow-point rifle rounds or tracer bullets.
There is a federal law that bars selling body armor to violent felons -- which Holmes was not -- but it is rarely used because there are is no requirement to check whether purchasers of the material have criminal records, according to Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence.
Over four months, authorities said, Holmes received more than 50 packages at his Aurora apartment and the University of Colorado medical school, where he was studying neuroscience. As the boxes piled up, he began to shop for guns at sporting goods stores -- because of the need to pass a background check to buy a firearm, they are still generally bought at brick-and-mortar locations.
On May 22, law enforcement officials said Holmes bought a Glock pistol. Less than a week later, he upgraded to a shotgun. The following week he bought an AR-15 rifle, versions of which had been outlawed under the assault weapon ban in 1994. But that prohibition expired in 2004 and Congress, in a nod to the political clout of gun enthusiasts, did not renew it.
Holmes also acquired explosive materials and equipment to rig his entire apartment with a complex series of booby traps that took authorities days to dismantle. Officials have not said how he obtained the material for the devices.
Holmes capped off his gun purchases with another pistol on July 7. Authorities say that, 12 days later, Holmes bought a ticket to the midnight premiere of the Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises" and entered the theater with the crowd, then slipped out the side door and returned dressed for battle.
Oates said the shooter wore a ballistic helmet, gas mask, throat-protector, tactical vest and pants -- such complete protective gear that responding officers almost mistook him for a member of the SWAT team. He lobbed gas canisters at the crowd, then opened fire. By the time police arrived, 90 seconds later, Holmes had shot dozens of people because his rifle was modified with a high-powered drum magazine that allowed him to fire immense amounts of bullets without reloading. "It was a pretty rapid pace of fire in that theater," Oates said.
The high-capacity magazine had also been prohibited under the assault weapon ban, and even though the federal law expired a few states outlaw the devices. Colorado, which has relatively permissive gun laws, does not.
Colorado State Senator John Morse, a Democrat, said he wished the state barred large-capacity magazines and guns like the AR-15, but he does not expect the attack to make that likely. "The NRA has managed to convince the country that this has to happen to protect our Second Amendment rights," Morse said. "As long as we let people buy these guns, we will bury our children."
Rep Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), whose husband was killed in a mass shooting on the Long Island Railroad in 1993, has proposed a ban on high-capacity magazines in Congress but acknowledges it has little chance of passage. She said she was horrified by the shooting but most shocked by the other material that Holmes allegedly accumulated -- the bullets and combat gear.
"It befuddles me to think those things should be sold to the general public," she said.
Colorado State Rep. Mark Waller cautioned against trying to limit purchases of ammunition. He noted that Holmes reportedly bought 300 rounds for his shotgun. "My 13-year-old son and I go out to the shooting range all the time," said Waller, a Republican. "I buy more than 300 rounds of shotgun shells when I do that."
He said there may be discussion of limiting the sale of the sort of protective clothing that Holmes allegedly donned. "Is that what the right to bear arms means, that you can purchase tactical gear to stop law enforcement from preventing you from perpetrating a crime?" Waller asked. "In the days and weeks to come, this is going to be a significant conversation."
But gun enthusiasts caution against over-reacting to the massacre. Brown, of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said he thinks citizen's access to weaponry has made the United States "a stronger country." And he doesn't see anything unusual about many of Holmes' alleged purchases.
"If I only had 6,000 rounds for my AR-15s, I'd literally feel naked," Brown said. Then he totaled up Holmes' firearms purchases: "Two handguns, a shotgun and a rifle. That's the average male in Colorado."
U.S. actor Jason Alexander attends a news conference of the One Voice Movement in Jerusalem June 24, 2009. (Credit: Reuters/Baz Ratner)
The "Seinfeld" actor takes to Twitter to call for a ban on assault-style weapons
By Salon Staff Sunday, Jul 22, 2012 03:38 PM CDT
Jason Alexander, the actor famous for playing George on “Seinfeld,” posted a long argument for a ban on assault-style weapons on Twitter [sic - TwitLonger] [ http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht ] Sunday:
I’d like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday’s victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.
This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.
Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 [sic - about 30,000] Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence – these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.
Many of them cite patriotism as their reason – true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I’m no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:
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.”
So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution – if you’re in a well-regulated militia. Let’s see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:
“A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.”
Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary: Definition of MILITIA 1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service 2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment – are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority – the answer is no.
Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?
I’m hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let’s see – does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.
Then there are the tweets from the extreme right – these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn’t see it should… a. be labeled a moron b. shut the fuck up c. be removed
And amazingly, I have some minor agreement with these folks. I believe there are evil forces at play in our government. But I call them corporatists. I call them absolutists. I call them the kind of ideologues from both sides, but mostly from the far right who swear allegiance to unelected officials that regardless of national need or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. That they are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. That are to obstruct every possible act of governance, even the ones they support or initiate. Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.
These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats – no problem. But if they try it with anyone else – it’s going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a “militia”. They don’t. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That’s why they have to “take our country back”. From who? From anyone who doesn’t think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn’t believe that? Just asking.
Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning – I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.
Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn’t have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources – sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. “Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar – plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out.”
But that won’t happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.
I have been reading on and off as advocates for these weapons make their excuses all day long. Guns don’t kill – people do. Well if that’s correct, I go with @BrooklynAvi, let them kill with tomatoes. Let them bring baseball bats, knives, even machetes — a mob can deal with that.
There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.
These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don’t agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.
SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?
We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.
I’ll say it plainly – if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to “pry it from my cold, dead hand”, then they are probably planning on using them on people.
So, sorry those of you who tell me I’m an actor, or a has-been or an idiot or a commie or a liberal and that I should shut up. You can not watch my stuff, you can unfollow and you can call me all the names you like. I may even share some of them with my global audience so everyone can get a little taste of who you are.
But this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.
In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
