Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Dear America, Can We Talk About Gun Control and Personal Responsibility Yet?
It’s long past the time for Americans to have a hard conversation about gun control and personal responsibility. Some will say it’s too soon for me to write this, and perhaps it is. There is never a good time for hard conversations.
Twelve people are dead and at least 50 wounded after a gunman burst through an exit door of a suburban Denver movie theater 15 minutes into the midnight showing of “The Dark Knight Rises”, threw a canister into the crowd filling the theater with smoke and began shooting. The 24 year old alleged shooter was dressed in black with a gas mask and bulletproof vest. His name is James Holmes, and it appears right now that he acted alone; the dreaded “lone wolf” scenario.
The scene outside the movie theater was chaos, with wounded patrons stumbling outside.
There is, as if yet, no word regarding the suspect’s motive. FBI profiler Clint Van Zandt told MSNBC the question is whether the shooter had some “dark trekkie like person’s reality and fantasy or is there a political or religious motivation?” He also made the point that the FBI’s worst fear is the “lone wolf” actor, because if someone chooses to commit an act, if they do it by themselves, they are the hardest to stop or catch in advance.
President Obama responded to the Friday morning shootings with a message of love and unity:
This I think is a day for prayer and reflection. So what I’d ask everybody to do, I’d like us to pause in a moment of silence for the victims of this terrible tragedy, for the people who knew them and loved them, for those who are still struggling to recover, and for all the victims of less publicized acts of violence that plague our communities every single day, so if everybody can just take a moment.
Yes, the President is right, we do need to come together. But must coming together always involve whitewashing the hard questions on the periphery? He also called for reflection, and sometimes reflection is uncomfortable. As we look into our national soul, can we see room for improvement? Do we see areas where we might be contributing to a culture of random violence?
Can we talk about gun control yet?
I don’t mean taking away people’s guns. I mean can we talk about gun control. Can we have a discussion about gun regulations? It doesn’t seem that we can even broker the topic, such is the NRA’s lock on our gun policy. For every 1 person who asks this question, there seem to be 10 knee jerk second amendment defenders who refuse to sift through nuance. Regulation and control isn’t the same thing as taking away. Why exactly do we need access to assault weapons?
Even New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called for a conversation on gun control. “You know, soothing words are nice, but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be President of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country. There are so many murders with guns every day, it’s just got to stop.”
I acknowledge that the alleged shooter appears to have no criminal history, and so a deeper background check might not have stopped him. But this is no excuse for NRA funded Republicans pushing to get rid of Colorado’s Insta- Check system. He also had access to a variety of guns and ammunition. Police found two Glock pistols, one Remington shotgun, and one AR-15 Type assault weapon in his possession.
I’m not suggesting that gun control could have prevented today’s tragedy. I still want to have the conversation. I want to live in a country where we can have the discussion, freely without being shut down as anti-American because we are asking questions about our current gun policies.
71 people were shot in rapid succession, within a minute to a minute and a half. This would not have been possible with a handgun. One of his weapons was an “AR-15″ (a magazine-fed, semi-automatic rifle). In Colorado, not only do you not have to register your guns, it’s prohibited to do so.
That reminds me of another subject it’s way past time America talked about – reckless free speech of public figures. I used that phrase deliberately to provoke the rightful defenders of free speech into auto-responding so we can get that out of the way before I finish my thought. Now, is everyone breathing? Okay. I’m asking why we can’t hold people accountable, even morally, for their reckless use of their free speech – whether that recklessness turns into a tragedy or not. It’s called shame and it has it’s place.
Now, ironically, many people will take the position that I should not dare to speak of the following out of love for others’ free speech and because I shouldn’t “politicize” this tragedy; the argument is that it’s politicizing a tragedy to hold people accountable for their words, but their choice to politicize the fans of a summer movie is free speech. If they hadn’t made that choice, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
While there is no reason to suspect that the Right’s conspiracy theories about the Batman movie contributed to the shooter’s motive, especially in light of the fact that the shooter appears to have been planning this for a long time, it does bring to mind the need to be accountable for our words. Fox News painted Batman fans as Obama thugs and Rush Limbaugh claimed the Batman film was Obama propaganda. But once again, I doubt they will be feeling any shame or second guessing their choice of words or their targets – movie going fans, in this case – who have no political office or affiliation and don’t deserve to be dragged into the paranoid world wherein the pundits of the Right operate.
But more to the point, I am not accusing Fox and Rush of anything except what is already established: they are consistently reckless with their speech. Somehow I am not supposed to say this now. I am supposed to be polite and not point my finger at the elephant in the room, and yet if I don’t say it now, if I wait, tomorrow they’ll tell me it doesn’t matter. They’ll tell me there is no proof that their words lead to actions, in spite of the many recent shooters who were following the mainstream Right’s paranoid rhetoric. When it comes from mainstream outlets on a daily basis, to expect that it does not seep into the culture is absurd.
On tragic days like today I wish America could have a sane conversation about gun regulations and responsible use of free speech by public figures. It seems instead that we’ve moved from targeting political opponents with crosshairs and then a random shooting of same person that also involved innocent people and a child around her, to the verbal targeting of random Americans as having a political side they have not even taken. When later that week, those fans are the victims of a mass shooting, it’s fair to ask if we can be more responsible with our speech.
If I had gone on national TV/radio and vilified fans of NASCAR as all being Romney thugs who were engaging in propaganda for Romney while at the same time pushing Stand Your Ground laws and access to machine guns, and then days later a shooter targeted NASCAR fans, you can bet I would be feeling some horror and shame, deserved or not. It’s called self-reflection and self-examination. It’s time we as a nation had a moment of self-reflection about the direction we’re headed.
I’m not saying Fox or Rush had anything to do with this; that is not the point. The point is, when you choose to vilify random people as thugs, you own those words. If those words come back to haunt you, you own that, too. It’s called personal responsibility for the general tone set in this country. Any human being with a soul who is on record as having vilified the fans of this film would feel bad today, even if their words had nothing to do with tragedy. On this subject, I was buoyed by many Republicans publicly condemning Republican Michelle Bachmann’s recent McCarthy-esque smearing of a well respected public servant, Huma Abedin. Words matter.
So on this day, I ask you if we can’t talk about gun control today, when can we? And if we can’t talk about the importance of taking responsibility for our reckless words, even when they are not the direct cause of a tragedy, when can we?
My heart and thoughts go to the victims and their families, and my hopes are with those critically injured that they make a full recovery, including the 4-month-old baby harmed. And we can’t forget those survivors who may be forever haunted by today’s tragic events. The President is right, we need to come together.
But sometimes we also need to have hard conversations about where we are going and the consequences of our complicit silence in the face of an obvious cultural problem. We have to stop enabling reckless rhetoric and the NRA’s power over our gun policies. We can’t do that if we refuse to look at the factors contributing to who we have become or if we fail to take responsibility for our rhetoric, which is not the same thing as taking responsibility for this shooter’s horrific actions.
In the same vein, the rush to judgment about the shooter’s alleged affiliations and motives are just as dangerous.
Coincidence? A day before the Dark Knight Rises massacre in Colorado, Rush Limbaugh was living it up i ...
On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh blamed Batman, specifically the new darker Batman character, for the Co ...
After a horrific shooting at a Connecticut elementary school has killed at least 26 adults and children, ...
President Obama has released a statement condemning the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and several ...
Yet another reason to be glad former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is not our President. Today, Huckab ...
Theresa
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Can we talk about mental illness too please? Everyone rushes to blame the guns and the gun laws, which, granted, need work, but we’re talking about very mentally ill people here who need/needed help and for some reason didn’t get it; let’s talk about the stigmas placed on mental illness that prevent people from getting help and sitting alone with their delusional thoughts of hatred and violence until they become so huge and real to them that they act them out
Andrew Rei
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 10:28 pm
Agreed; “gun control” would not have helped in this situation; as Theresa suggests, we need to have a serious conversation, as a society, about keeping guns out of the hands of lunatics; did you know that 75% of these mass killings have a situation where the gunman/gunmen actually tell people what they’re going to do? I think you can’t simply “laugh off” someone who says they’re going to hurt/kill people, especially if they’re “loners” or show very little emotion while doing it. Here in the state in which I live, and I’m not saying this would have helped in this situation, anyone who has been committed to a mental health facility cannot sell, pawn or buy a gun…pure and simple. Such a law in Colorado (or across the country) might be a good first step; remember: guns don’t kill people; people kill people
Everybodhi
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Best commentary I’ve read. Thanks, Sarah, for putting this out there.
Alvin Gongora
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
I look at this horror from outside of the US. I just cannot wrap my mind around the addiction that the US and its population seem to have to guns up to the point that having a gun, carrying it around, loading it and being willing to pull the trigger stands at the same level as any fundamental right such as food and shelter. Voices of decency and civility such as yours brings some hope and my expectation is double: (a) that your voice will resonate with millions around you that are just as concerned as you are adn willing to tackle the root causes of that type of violence; and (b) that somehow the electorate should move away from platforms that reinforce the trigger happy menatility of the extreme right.
Jake
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
I’m more than happy to have the discussion..The problem, as I see it, is that anti’s don’t want to compromise and the pro’s don’t want to compromise. There is no middle ground for either side. I think the laws that are already on the books should be enforced before adding any more. But the anti’s want to try and legislate every single “what if”. And that typically involves banning a class of firearm which I’m against.
Everybodhi
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
The ban on assault weapons expired, if it were in place, this would not have been possible.
Carrie
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
I don’t see any reason even in the comments here why anyone needs an assault weapon. They always justify it because someone else had it.
Keith Bouton
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Any weapon set up properly can be an assault rifle. It may not look like your typical assault rifle but with enough imagination and ingenuity anything is possible, so don’t blame the weapon blame the wielder.
Carrie
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 9:56 pm
Dont tell me who it what to blame. You’re so full of yourself and you don’t even know who you’re addressing yet that doesn’t stop you from assuming authority and expertise.
I’ll stick with my husbands opinion since I know he’s trained to use an automatic. You obviously aren’t but you see yourself as big gun slinger. People like you are why we need gun control.
Keith Bouton
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 10:30 pm
I am not defending the nut job that did this I am defending firearms in general. Carrie you are entitled to your beliefs and your husband may be trained in fully auto weapons. I am not some big gun slinger, hell I don’t even own a gun. You are already judging someone just for their beliefs, so don’t say people like me are the reason for stricter gun rules. I have owned firearms in the past and practiced along side law enforcement, which I know does not make me an expert, but DON’T judge me because of my beliefs. If you don’t like firearms then go live somewhere else.
Carrie
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Im not judging your beliefs I’m judging your attitude towards other peoples beliefs and the bs you back up your opinion with. If you don’t like free speech maybe you should move. We own guns. But my husband isn’t fool enough to think he could have taken down the shooter in a smoke filled room in two minutes.
No one is coming for your second amendment “rights” but then if events like thus keep happening who would blame then if they did. Obama expanded gun rights.
Lol re your denouncement of NRA. You protest too much. Why are you hysterical? Tell us who us threatening to come for your “rights”.
Maybe one day you can explain to the family of the baby killed how your rights to make a fool of yourself were bigger than their baby’s life.
Marcia Siehr
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Cmon people! Do you really think a guy willing to commit mass murder against innocent people would care if he bought his semi-automatic weapons/guns legally or illegally? Go ahead, pass another law, it isn’t going to stop people like the “lone wolf.”
The real cause of this tragedy is some kind of mental illness or personality disorder, that went either undiagnosed or untreated. Why is it so hard for this country to talk about this subject?
Elizabeth
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 9:33 pm
One would hope that if assault weapons were illegal they wouldn’t be so easy to obtain. If assault weapons were illegal, a person would be questioned about having one. Certainly, they would be more expensive to obtain, another deterrent. There is no reason for ordinary citizens to have semi-automatic assault weapons. They have only one use; 71 people shot in less than 2 minutes.
Keith Bouton
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 9:43 pm
With the right know how any typical semi-automatic rifle, even a little bitty .22 rifle, can be modified into a fully automatic rifle which is illegal but can be done so don’t blame specific rifles, blame the nut job behind it or am I being to harsh by calling him a nut job for you anti-weapon people, NOT and just in case you didn’t get it that was sarcasim.
Keith Bouton
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 9:36 pm
It still very well could have happened, it just would have been a different gun hell even a small .22 rifle can kill. What are you going to do, make them all illegal and only the cops and bad guys will have weapons? What is the normal response time for law enforcement to get to a call? In some cases 5 seconds can be too long.
Carrie
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 9:59 pm
You better calm down Keith. You’re getting hysterical tying to hijack the conversation for your precious NRA. You’re silly.
Keith Bouton
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 10:34 pm
SILLY, I am just protecting my rights as a citizen of the United States of America. I’m not even a member of the NRA so why would I hijack it for them. I am not giving my hard earned money to them when I have my 2nd amendment right which I am trying to protect.
Hrafnkell
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Thank you, Sarah. This all needed to be said. And sure, gun controls won’t eliminate mass murder but as you said, nobody limited to a pistol could have shot so many people so rapidly.
And here comes the NRA spin: 3, 2, 1…
Keith Bouton
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 9:45 pm
That is complete bull shit. I have seen police officers at the range go thru 3 12 round magazines in less than ten seconds. How long was this nut job in the theater? I’m sure he was in there longer than 10 seconds.
Carrie
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 10:06 pm
You have seen police blah blah. You aren’t a police officer so instead I’d telling other people they’re full if it why don’t you stop embarrassing yourself. I dare you to try your big theory out but we all know you would fail like anyone else would have or worse since you know nothing about actual combat. Gas filling the room he killed them in two minutes. They couldn’t shoot him if they wanted to without killing innocents you idiot.
Go troll somewhere else after you pick up your NRA check.
Keith Bouton
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 10:46 pm
I never said I was Law Enforcement or even military, just going on PERSONAL experience and I am not embarrassing myself and by the way I do not get a check from the NRA. If given the opportunity to protect someone I would, but seeing that it always happens somewhere else I can’t. Alot of things can happen to different people in 2 minutes and if they truly want to protect/help someone it could have gone differently. Not anyone could deal with those conditions, but if you practice and plan for circumstances like that anything is possible and by the way I am just stating my opinion just like you so don’t call me an idiot unless you want to be called one also.
Robert Schiele
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
A serious, rational dialogue about gun control and gun ownership isn’t going to happen anytime soon, and no amount of killing will cause one to happen. In fact, even if there were a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and even if it were passed unanimously by all the states, disarming the RWNJs who also have a gun fetish would probably cause a de facto state of civil war to break out.
Lee Hillhouse
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 3:06 pm
More strict gun control might ease crimes like spur of the moment, crimes of passion….when you walk in and see your Honey nuzzling someone else. …..and even in this case, well, OJ didn’t need a gun, now did he?
…but this, this was the work of an insane person and I doubt he got these guns legally. You do know that ILLEGAL guns are our second largest crime money maker. The top three criminal money makers in the US…drugs, guns and human slaves… Anyone can get a gun.
More stringent laws will just keep the guns out of the hands of the law abiding. Crazy folks will always find what they need.
I agree with Theresa. The folks that are blaming the right wing and the folks that are blaming the left wing…all disingenuous. It is just the work of a mentally ill man. The mentally ill are more likely to be victims of violence, not perpetrators but sometimes, when a paranoid goes over the line, they leave a swath of dead bodies and blood.
IF you want to lay this at the feet of the right wing, you have to go back to Reagan basically declaring mental illness a myth and closing all the hospitals and halfway houses.
…but this man, this day…mentally ill. …and the only thing that would have stopped him would have been some intervention at a time long past.
Elizabeth
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
The police have said that the four weapons they seized all were obtained legally.
Johnee
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Sara great article. Like yourself, I am a gun owner and I recognize the difference between a healthy,rational dialogue and the knee jerk “the gubbment’s comin’ ta git ma guns” reaction.
As far as free speech… as long as there are no laws (like those ridiculous hate speech laws in Canada) preventing it, the rest of us have the right to speak out against, boycott advertisers, and shame the folks that have all this reckless and ignorant B.S. spewing out of their mouths.
Johnee
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Oops. Sarah not “Sara”
A Walkaway
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
I was afraid of this sort of thing as soon as I heard the news… I’m still waiting to hear what motivated the shooter (there is got to be something, although we may or may not be able to make sense of it). That’s what we need to focus our attention on… rather than making life more scary for those of us unlucky enough to live in the real world (with violent criminals, home invaders, nuts out to overthrow the government, and you name it).
Every time I see calls for gun control on this blog, I feel as if I have crosshairs painted on my forehead. It goes both ways, you know. I think that everyone here knows I’m not an idiot and that I don’t advocate violence (and would rather avoid it), but have had my life put in jeopardy enough times that I demand the right to self-defense, and that includes the means to do so – and if it takes an “assault weapon”, so be it. I know that the crooks (and dominionists) have some pretty nasty firepower, and I don’t, as the saying goes, go to a gun fight with a pocketknife.
I don’t want my family or myself killed because of “gun control” – and that is where gun control was heading in the past. In fact, you talk about discussion, well that discussion needs to include the attempts to bring about an outright ban, if not that strict regulation on who can own a gun and who can’t. I’ll never forget those days (especially the late 60s and early 70s), and thus want no discussion of “gun control” whatsoever – when the police flat out would tell people that using any potentially lethal force in defending yourself was against the law.
You want to fix the problem… cure the cause rather than trying to just treat the symptoms.
Johnee
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Great points. Believe me, I share your concerns. But we can’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Yes, there are some on the left that are quite irrational and want to ban all firearms (what the hell good would that do)? However, there are just as many that are gun owners themselves that just want to open up a dialogue about the issue.
You are correct though, that a lot of these red necks are stock piling automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and that’s a scary thought.
laladoza
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 3:59 pm
But curing the cause and its many varied and unpredictable forms is not realistic either.
Not to make light of a serious topic but in the words of Eddie Izzard,’They say that ‘Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.’ Well I think the gun helps.”
A Walkaway
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
There will always be violence in this world, granted… that’s something that we all have to remember (sad to say, there are too many sociopaths and that condition does seem to be genetic or at least not “a choice”). However, desperation is one big factor in crime, as well as bullying and other nasty behaviors which are all learned. We start trying to get people to stop teaching those behaviors (such as racism – demonstrated not to be somehow inherent) and that will go a long ways to end the violence. We give the poor and disadvantaged hope and a reason to believe in “the system”, and they’ll start working within it – as long as it rewards that work.
A good example of something that could have been prevented were all the horrific school shootings. Something I learned a couple of years ago was that the perpetrators had (almost) all been bullied severely. There ARE programs that really work to reduce bullying, racism, homophobia, and the other forms of violence (and thus eliminate the chances of a violent reprisal). Read H. Roy Kaplan’s book “Failing Grades” for a discussion of one such program that works.
I firmly believe that we can reduce violence (and the need for self-defense) by working on society. The sort of things I’ve read on this blog would go a long way to fixing the problem… but it would be counterproductive (if not dangerous) to try to solve the problem by treating the symptoms.
Reynardine
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
People kill people, but they can do it a Hell of a lot faster with an automatic weapon than with Velveeta.
City people have reason to keep a handgun- a revolver with a normal number of chambers or a semi with a normal clip- for self defense in home or office or business. In the countryside, you can need one or more long guns and a varmint gun, as well. Hunters, skeet shooters, and competitors may need more specialized weapons. Rapid-fire weapons that can fire dozens of rounds without reloading have no purpose but to mow down large numbers of humanity, and they have no business in the hands of civilians. Private tanks and other such artillery, such as one of the Koch brothers recently paraded in Colorado, should be outlawed altogether. Nor do any firearms belong in the hands of domestic abusers, sex offenders, or the diagnosed mentally disturbed.
Rep. Gomehrt had the temerity to say this shooting was because of a loss of Judeo-Christian values and that everyone in the theater should have been so armed. I tremble at the thoughts of so many shots in the dark, especially the ones coming from the mouths of the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, Hannity, and Gomehrt.
Keith Bouton
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
This guy in Colorado did not have an AUTOMATIC rifle, it was an ASSAULT rifle there is a very big difference. With an automatic weapon you pull and HOLD the trigger and it keeps firing until you run out, with a ASSAULT rifle it is one round for each trigger pull. For those that may be slow I will break down so you can understand, example: 10 bullets in a magazine= 10 trigger pulls. If you are going to blame specific weapons then you better get your facts straight.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Immaterial to the number of people killed and wounded.
A Walkaway
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 1:20 am
Shiva, in that argument you just advocated banning my 22.
The people we fear aren’t going to go along with any form of control, and any attempt to do so will likely set them off. Rather than advocating for bans (which is what is being talked about here), we need to take a different approach.
From what I’ve read here in the last few minutes, the laws in place should have stopped this, but the guy fell through the cracks. We need to look at how THAT happened, and try to prevent that. As many people as I’ve known who owned guns, not a one fits the description (STEREOTYPE) I’ve heard here of “Gun Nut”. Yeah, I’m sure that there are some “out there”, but I think that’s one of those stereotypes that is detrimental to any discussion of this situation. Most, including people who own full cannons (Black Powder) would no more use them to “mow down” bunches of people. They like shooting them for fun. What I’m trying to say is that all of the “solutions” I’ve read will hurt innocent people. That is something that should be strictly avoided.
Mike
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 4:24 pm
There is nothing to say about gun control. You might get shot by some maniac with a gun when you go to a theater and you might get hit by a meteor when you go outside. Gun control is a winning issue for the GOP because it is one of the few areas where they are correct and a lot of dems and liberal journalists are wrong.
Now drop the subject unless you want a reoubliCON landslide.
Reynardine
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Mike, we are also talking about mouth control, and that can’t be dropped.
Palin draws crosshairs on Giffords, and Giffords gets shot. Assorted people run their mouths about young black males, and Trayvon Martin gets shot. The Mouths of Sauron read an eevil cultural marxist theme supposedly motivating a dumb movie, and a movie audience gets shot. And the Reverend Terror Jones first hangs the President in effigy, and then erects his tombstone, and?… More of them are out there. MRA sites talk about shooting women. Racist sites talk about slaughtering minority children. Gun rights and tongue rights both depend on use of the weapon not resulting in a palpable risk of mass murder, and if you do not believe tongues have never been restrained to that end, please see Beauharnais v. Illinois. Abuse it, you lose it.
A Walkaway
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 1:22 am
I’m more concerned about they abused it, and WE loose it.
Mark
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 5:31 pm
For crimes like this, the perpetrator should be publicly disembowled drawn and quartered slowly and his head should be put on a spear in a cage with a few birds and shown on the internet till the birds have removed the flesh from the skull. Then lets see if another person behaves this way. I wonder if everyone in the theater had a gun, as this person broke thru the door how many shots could he fire before someone in the audience would have taken him out. How many people would that have saved from being wounded? My sympathy to those and the family and friends of those caught in the fire of this jerk.
Steve Chisnall
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
No, Mark. To do that would be stooping to the level of those we’re trying to protect the people from. If you become that which you’re trying to defend against, you’ve lost.
Reynardine
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 7:31 pm
And how many more people would have been shot in the dark in the chause melée? If you think times when the punishments you name were commonplace were any less violent, you are welcome to view Chicago’s Harding Collection for what people used to wear and carry in the streets. It was a rare person in those days who wasn’t missing parts from a chance encounter of the close kind.
Reynardine
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Chaude melée
nycgrlupstate
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
Fantastic piece.
Steve Chisnall
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 7:22 pm
Don’t call it “reckless use of free speech” because they’re not using free speech they’re ABUSING it. Amazing how adding two letters to the beginning of that word can drastically change its meaning, but by omitting those two letters that change “use” to “abuse” you made a grave mistake. Call it what it is: ABUSE of free speech.
Jared Drury
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 7:23 pm
IMHO, this is not a gun control issue. It is the same as saying that we need more laws like the Patriot act because there is so much terrorism. The fact is that more people die annually from peanut allergies than they do from terrorist attacks, yet we don’t see a massive outcry to end that problem. FEAR is the biggest issue. People fear things like terrorism because they know that it can happen at any time. The FBI has said that they don’t believe that this is linked to terrorism but that is a complete and utter lie. This persons goal was terrorism, but the ‘authorities’ are loath to call it for what it is because of their wonton disregard for truth in their battle against our civil rights. Please let us not give up more of our civil rights in the name of fear lest we end up with more laws like the ‘patriot act’ and fewer rights.
Bill
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 7:24 pm
As long as the MONEY of the National Rifle Association tells Congress that they will be punished if they attempt legislation there will never be anything done. They brain wash the gun owners because the NRA owns and or is backed by the manufactures who dont want their profits limited. They dont care how many nuts get their guns or how many people are killed because of the sales of those guns. The only thing is $$$$$$$$$$ on their mind. Saddly
Keith Bouton
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 9:56 pm
Nothing personal about your argument but the same could be said for alcohol, prescription/illegal drugs and i’m sure the list can go on and on but you don’t see people banning or doing something about our politicians to control that. How many politicians have been pulled or caught DWI and just recently Kerry Kennedy DRUGGED driving after just taking sleeping pills on I-684 in New York. You don’t hear a big scandal over that and she caused a hit and run and should I even talk about Ted Kennedy?
Peggy Fischer
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Amen…Sarah…well said….
Keith Bouton
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 10:04 pm
Even though this act in Colorado by legally purchasing weapons with Colorado weak gun laws, which may be one of the weakest in the US, DON’T start talking about gun regulations UNTIL something is done about all the ILLEGAL guns out there. All lawmakers are doing is making it difficult for legal citizens to purchase firearms. I have no problem with 7-14 day (cool down) grace periods and background checks. They should also do medical background checks for mental illness, no if’s and’s or but’s about it. Don’t start saying we shouldn’t have AR weapons, the civilian versions are only one pull, one shot and they only thing different between the AR version and the hunting rifle version is appearance(.223 caliber). I know there are large capacity magazines out there but if a person practices enough they don’t need those. Hell with enough practice this guy in Colorado could have done the same thing with a .22 rifle. Take care of the illegal weapons first and the smugglers that bring them in and some of us may reconsider.
A Walkaway
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 1:28 am
(Laugh) I’m known to be a dead shot with my 22, and it took an entire 15 round magazine to put down a Pit Bull and a mongrel which were trying to tear apart one of our kitties (she got away from them with minor injuries) in our back yard. Shooting them in the head and heart only made them mad and the pit bull was still staggering towards me when it finally dropped.
Both went into attack mode (towards me) the second I started shooting. A single-shot would have been a massive fail.
Keith Bouton
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 10:00 pm
I have known police officers shoot dogs before and trust me the dog does not react like a person. A dog will go into attack mode, people have a strong tendacy to hide/cower when being shot at, so don’t compare humans to animals. You were either using a bolt action or semi-automatic rifle, if a nut job like the one in the theater wanted to he could have modified it in a fully automatic .22 and I am sure even you could have dropped that dog a hole lot quicker that way.
Justnothappning
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 10:09 pm
Certainly we can have this discussion. While we’re at it, why don’t we also discuss relaxing HIPAA controls on the release of data when related to (a) purchase of firearms, and (b) exercise of that dangerous “free speech” right.
There’s a lot of below-the-radar discussion amongst gun owners about _responsible exercise of the right_, that you probably never see, never participate in, and would in all likelihood discount the very existence of. It nonetheless happens, with _great_ regularity.
ANY right can be abused. In THIS case you wish to restrict a right. Where was your desire to restrict the freedom of speech, the right to free exercise of religion, the right to peaceably assemble after the Heaven’s Gate mass suicide? Never happened, because you would have been appalled at the very concept.
When are you going to get that Civil rights means _all_ of the rights, for _all_ of the people?
Shane-danga-lang
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 10:44 pm
This still could have happened even during the Assault Weapon Ban. The incident that happened years ago in California when the two gunman had a showdown in the street with full automatic AK-47s against the police was during the Assault Weapon Ban. Incidents like this are tragic and isolated in this country no matter how severe, but when we ban things as our history has shown it creates a black market and even further desperation for those that want the items. Our last ban didn’t make them illegal to own since those already in possession were grandfathered in, but instead ceased the import of them.
Richard Quinby
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 11:47 pm
Sorry, the truth is that if someone in that theater had been armed a lot of lives could have been saved.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 20th, 2012 at 11:48 pm
Really? That one person could have also panicked in the tear gas and killed more people
Standing up to shoot could have got you killed. The guy had protection from his groin to his head
Keith Bouton
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 10:06 pm
If a person truly wants to conceal carry he will practice periodically so would stand a better chance in a situation like what happened in Colorado. I’m not saying anyone could do that, they have to be prepared for all circumstances. Even though he was in full body armor if you have a descent hand gun and shot center mass it would have caused him to fall and either the legal shooter or other people could have gotten things under control until the police arrived. For example, drive a car at 20 mph and hit a practice dummy and see what happens. I know a car is a whole lot bigger but a standard hand gun bullet can travel at 1000 feet per second, sure the body armor may stop the bullet from entering his body but the kinetic force has to go somewhere and usually it knocks the person flat on their back.
Carrie
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 10:15 pm
Keith you just won’t shut up you gave to make sure everyone knows that more guns would have fixed this right up in case anyone blamed your precious semi automatic. Too bad you’re wrong and have zero qualifications to proselytize about the glory of guns. If you get paid by the word this makes sense.
Keith Bouton
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 10:49 pm
Don’t get paid by the word, don’t even get paid for any of this. I just stand my ground for my beliefs.
Rob Kaufman
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 2:33 am
I totally agree Sarah. There are a lot of damaging words and weapons used to prove a thought or take a stance. 2 glocks, a shot gun, an assault rifle, 6000+ rounds of ammo, tear gas, a 100 round magazine that allows 100 bullets to be fired in a minute, and Kevlar assault gear is a little excessive for anyone. The problem with talking about this issue is if the President were to open a dialogue, everyone screams “you are taking my guns away” and that is not what we are talking about. The 2nd Amendment will always be a right. We are talking about responsible gun control. There is no reason to allow anyone to build an arsenal of weapons. It is just incredible that the NRA and many people who own guns find it necessary to do so. The 2nd Amendment is about the right to bear arms but not all of them. One traditional gun is all that is needed, the rest should be minimized. Maybe we should allow the first firearm owned to be reasonably obtained … BUT any others will take intense regulation and scrutiny. We also should monitor large amounts of ammo. Anyone with more than a reasonable amount of ammo is to be questioned. I just think that anyone with the ability to own a stockpile of weapons loses their protections of the 2nd Amendment. I do agree that mental issues should also be addressed but understand that yesterdays shooting took planning and readiness. He was close to graduating with a Masters. He doesn’t have a criminal record and nothing suggested he was “ill.” His violent acts may point to insanity but the premeditation to do so negates that somewhat. Overall…we must all stand together on an open dialogue to a better ideology of how the 2nd Amendment is defined and interpreted. More guns in the hands of citizens is not the answer. It just compounds the issue by putting deadly weapons in the hands of people all willing to use them. Remember, President Kennedy (among others) had many armed agents surrounding him and was shot. No matter how many guns you put out there the one who wants to commit a crime – will. We need to change this fearful, protective form of individualism and start discussing the real dangers inherent in our American society – Each other.
Keith Bouton
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 10:14 pm
So you wan’t government in control. How about gov’t controlling alcohol, cigarettes, gasoline, groceries, how many children you can have, what medication you can take, what doctor you can go to, what house you should buy? Don’t tell me this is different because that is where it starts and then just snowballs down hill from there.
JJM
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Well, I’m just checking off my list for travel the states where these massacres take place: Arizona was one, now Colorado is gone. Who wants to be in a place where so many demented people have every opportunity to stage and act on their fantasies?
In most big cities, sites where violent crimes are likely to occur are well known to everyone. But in these semi-rural, unsophisticated areas that live off the idea of being in ‘the frontier’ violent acts seem random because there is very little in the way of a social order or social matrix in which the madman’s conduct would have been known, monitored, perhaps moved into preventive care. The extreme narcissism now bred into our young people ends, taken as it sometimes is to the extreme, with them saying, “If I’m going to die, it’s the end of the world anyway, so I’ll take as many with me as I can.”
But gun control in the USofA? Forget it. Americans live their everyday lives as so predictable, so routinized that they secretly crave the excitement the thrill such horrendous events bring. You can never legislate a collective death wish.
Keith Bouton
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 10:21 pm
There are more things out there that cause more death’s than guns. Here is a list, go look it up yourself:
alcohol
cigarettes
cars
prescription narcotics
poor diet
lack of exercise
parasites
HIV/AIDS
suicide
malaria
various cancers
diabetes
fucking measles
diarrhea
respiratory diseases of the lungs
Is anybody on the bandwagon and doing anything to stop this, I haven’t heard anything here.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 21st, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Meaningless