Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
The NRA’s Beloved Gun Culture Killed 20 Children and Conservatives Don’t Care
Every society develops characteristic features based on values, accepted social practices, and patterns of knowledge shared by people in a place or time they pass on to succeeding generations. Culture includes customary beliefs, social norms, and material traits of a group that identifies a society whether for good or bad outcomes. Over four years ago, conservatives and gun-rights advocates began taking advantage of hatred for an African American man the people elected as President to advance the culture of guns by claiming Americans should fear the President ‘s secret intention to disarm the nation. In part, the right promoted the concept that individualism and freedom to express that individualism through gun ownerships has helped divide the nation and prevent communal principles that are necessary for a successful society. The mindset among so-called individualists that their right to keep and bear arms defines what it means to be an American was embraced early on by conservatives guilty of promoting the idea that there is a movement afoot to rob them of their individualism by taking away their guns.
The tragic and senseless slaughter of 20 children and six adults in Connecticut yesterday is a reminder that America’s culture of guns, when coupled with the antagonism from conservatives that gun ownership is under threat, contributes to divisiveness preventing America from moving away from the Wild West mentality plaguing our culture. A firearm is an inanimate object, and not in-and-of-itself guilty of crime, and the shooter in Connecticut obviously suffered from a mental disorder to open fire on innocent 5 to 10 year old children, but if he had not been heavily armed, the tragedy may have been prevented.
The concept of a well-armed populace is being pushed across America and reinforced by ALEC-inspired Stand Your Ground laws with fervent support by the National Rifle Association, and despite the rise in gun violence, a contingent of conservative gun rights groups promoting individualism is contributing to the proliferation of guns in America. The move to arm every man, woman, and child in America has inspired legislators to transform so-called “gun free zones” into war zones based on an individual’s right to keep and bear arms; even in innocuous environments like elementary schools and churches.
Shortly after news of the tragedy in Connecticut, evangelical maniac and alleged follower of Christ, Bryan Fischer, commented on social media outlet Twitter that “Shooters attack an elementary school in CT. – another “gun-free zone.” Makes children sitting ducks.” Leave it to a sick bible-thumping, conservative mind like Fischer to politicize a tragedy, which is precisely the argument conservatives use to attack gun-control advocates in the wake of tragedies like the one in Connecticut on Friday. Instead of addressing the proliferation of guns in America, every new tragedy inspires gun advocates to expand public areas where Americans can carry weapons. It appears their goal is to eventually eliminate gun free zones to get America back to its rugged individualistic roots as a “gunfighter nation” making any attempt at reasonable gun-control legislation impossible. For many, many Americans, and especially to 2nd Amendment devotees, any gun-control is acutely un-American.
Gun-rights activists point to the 2nd Amendment as proof it is a right to be armed and dangerous at all times, and in all places, however, they omit the phrase, and reason, the founders included the amendment in the Constitution to begin with; “A well regulated Militia,” that for over two hundred years has meant the Army, Navy, and the Marine Corps, has shifted to mean an unregulated gun-toting populace. It is an unfortunate omission that has reinforced what so many in this nation believe; their right to own and carry arms supersedes reasonable restrictions on weapons typical of battlefields, but are becoming prevalent in homes, cars, and public places and if conservatives have their way, schools, churches, and shopping malls as gun-free zones will be eliminated to make every American a member of an unregulated militia.
Has America’s culture of guns and violence reached the point that no area is safe from an armed populace? Apparently that is where this country is heading and it portends that no American is safe regardless they are children in first grade or choir members in the local church. The truth is that no American needs to be armed twenty-four hours a day, and especially as they frequent public places like shopping malls, movie theatres, churches, or public schools, but our culture has digressed to the point that even questioning the wisdom of armed citizens is reason for many Americans’ indignant response that their “personal rights” to carry guns is being infringed upon.
There have been no less than seven mass shootings over the past year, and each time gun rights activists point to the disturbed individual as the culprit, and they have a point, but it is indisputable that if the mentally deranged individuals were unarmed, the number of victims would be far less. However, it is not just mass shootings America suffers from, and a dangerous armed populace has borne fruit as evident in Stand Your Ground killings. In fact, mass shootings like the one in Connecticut will embolden the NRA and conservatives to increase their argument that more guns equals less crime until every school teacher, choir member, and yes, even children have the right to carry firearms in schools, churches, and movie theatres.
The pointless tragedy in Connecticut will not change gun laws in America or allow a conversation about the mindset that promotes an armed populace. Groups like the NRA will revert to their typical argument that “guns don’t kill people, only people do,” and devastated parents and relatives of the slain will question why their children were gunned down in a gun free zone, but when the dust settles, and 20 children are laid to rest, Americans will cite the shooter’s mental state and argue their individual right to carry firearms cannot be impeded by the actions of one disturbed individual.
However, as they cling to their concept of individualism defined by their right to bear arms, and cautious legislators weigh the political price of supporting any gun legislation, America will continue arming its citizens and clinging to its gunfighter mentality. Americans can expect more gun tragedies that will inevitably lead to handwringing, a bit of reflection, mass funerals, and empty calls for change that go unheeded because until this nation addresses the culture that encourages individualism defined by the right to bear arms, more innocent lives will be lost and each incident will give gun-rights advocates ammunition to strengthen the nation’s love affair with guns as the symbol of American individualism. For 20 precious children in Connecticut, their chance at individualism was ended by an American exercising his Constitutional right that conservatives and the NRA will excuse, defend, and use to strengthen the gun-culture that informs that America is still, at its heart, a nation of Wild West gunfighters and rugged individuals.
The vision of a population working toward a better society and communal sensibilities was, at one time, ...
After a horrific shooting at a Connecticut elementary school has killed at least 26 adults and children, ...
One of the traits that separate human beings from machines is a conscious mental reaction such as anger ...
It is natural for people to involuntarily react to repulsive stimulus, but it is also natural to revert ...
The slayings of twenty children and seven adults in Newton, Connecticut proves something is wrong with g ...
46A9MA
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 5:45 pm
I’m not sure whether those gun products have “shoot responsibly” on their packages, just like “drink responsibly” in alcoholic drinks.
harris stein
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 10:09 pm
They certainly do have warnings. In fact, on rifles and shotguns warnings are inscribed on the barrel. On handguns warnings are in the operators instruction manual.
itstimeforchange
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 6:04 pm
and the conservative sites are blaming the liberals. Blame, blame blame. Until we come together with meaningful talks for better gone control (not banning) we are just going to go round and round. Both sides of the media feed the fire.
djchefron
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Tax the bullets.
Terry E
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Movies glorify gun violence. TV glorifies gun violence. Video games glorify violence. We glorify and worship our warriors, especially the Navy Seals, the Army Rangers, and all “Special” forces. Violence is a way of life, a philosophy, and a spiritual illness.
Pilot
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 7:37 pm
It is with great pleasure that I remind you that you have the right to publicize your opinion due to the 1st Amendment. Wouldn’t it be interesting if the same people you talk about in this article went after your rights in an effort to keep you from stating your opinions in a public forum. Those of us that believe all Amendments in the Constitution are there for the people of the United States, not just for the few that want to pick and choose which ones fit their political agendas.
djchefron
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
No one is going to take away your guns.If you read the 2nd amendment ir says the right of citizens to bare arms in a well regulated militia.Now if you want to join the national guard you have that right.What I want to know is why do you need high capacity magazines?Do you need 30 rounds to bring down bambi?If so then you are a piss poor shot and should go back to playing call of duty where you can get your rush and no one gets hurt.Why do you need to buy 4 or 6 guns a month?Why do you need an assault rifle?Have we watch red dawn one time to many.Trust if you want to go wolverine go play paintball.You nra fanatics talk about protecting our rights from a tyanical goverment and we need our weapons to do it.I got news for you bub unless you have SAMS and javelins in your arsenal your people will be fitting you for a bodybag.I say keep your guns but if it was up to me I tax your ass to death for the bullets,gunpowder,lead and every thing else that goes in the making of ammunition.Because you people haave one thing right ,guns dont kill people but bullets do.
John
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 8:29 am
The Second Amendment:
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.
The Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I direct your attention to the identical wording of the phrase “the right of the people” in both Amendments. According you your definition, “the right of the people” when applied to the Second Amendment means the National Guard. So, does that mean only members of the National Guard are entitled to protection under the Fourth Amendment? Of course not. The point is, the Second Amendment is quite specific when it says, “the right of the people SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. Simple, direct and declarative.
The areas in America with the strictest gun control have the highest crime rates while those with the least restrictions have the lowest crime rates. Do you really think that’s purely coincidental? It isn’t. Criminals like this are the height of cowardice. They attack those in a position of weakness. Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. This piece of crud stole those weapons and proceeded to do his deed. Had there been an armed teacher, the tragedy would have been mitigated or even stopped.
The adage “outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns” rings true from this tragedy…
Chris
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 10:59 am
“The adage “outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns” rings true from this tragedy…”
The problem with that argument is that all of the guns used were legally purchased by the mother.
Why are automatics or semi-automatics needed by anyone other than the military. We need a national gun data-base and to close gun show loop-holes. Lots of things are regulated already for safety, like the banks for the safety of our money, why not guns? I wonder if the NRA charges “dues” like other unions. How can some support the dismantling of all unions and not the union called NRA?
John
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 11:21 pm
“The problem with that argument is that all of the guns used were legally purchased by the mother.” Right, and stolen by her criminal lunatic son. If she didn’t have those weapons, he would have stolen them from somewhere else.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 11:22 pm
That is an assumption. Without guns close by he may not have performed this crime
Gunless Teacher
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 11:40 am
You have got to me kidding me about arming teachers. I went into teaching because it was a peaceful profession. What an idiotic idea. I mean beyond idiotic. So when a kid goes nuts because I gave him an 89 instead of a 90, he can just grab my side arm and go on a similar rampage. More to the point, it seems, based on your comments, your teachers tried and failed to educate you.
John
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 11:23 pm
A student going nuts over an 89 that take your sidearm? Sir, that is precisely why it’s a good idea you remain gunless…
Sandra
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Thank you for your post. This Canadian can’t comprehend this notion that guns will protect you from your Government and your neighbours. There needs to be a sane, mature discussion about the types of weapons ordinary citizens can purchase and laws enacted to check the background and history of every citizen who desires to purchase arms. Twenty innocent, harmless children aged 5-7 years old were massacred, there is no excuse for such a tragedy and waste of young lives because some angry, vindictive 20 yo looser was allowed access to his mother’s three guns to commit murder and mayhem. Enough with the excuses and 2nd Amendment Rights, these kids RIGHTS were taken away from them, we should all remember that.
Mikey
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 7:59 am
Not sure how to format quotes on this board, so please excuse my efforts.
Quoting djchefron
“No one is going to take away your guns.If you read the 2nd amendment ir says the right of citizens to bare arms in a well regulated militia.”
Old argument, but here goes. The second amendment says “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.”
In 2008, the Supreme Court held that an individual had a right to bear arms regardless of membership in a militia. Ignoring that for a moment, one of the original basis for the 2nd Amendment was as a deterrent against tyranny by the federal government. If a militia refers to the armed forces, which are controlled by the federal government, then who then deters a potential tyrannical government.
“Why do you need to buy 4 or 6 guns a month?”
What does this have to do with the tragedy in Newtown? While the gunman had several weapons, all the innocent victims were killed by one rifle he was carrying. What quantity limit would you propose, other than an outright ban, would have prevented this tragedy? Even if you limited it to 1 gun in totality can be owned, someone forgos buying the pistols and shotgun he had, just buys the rifle he had, and could do the same thing. A limit on quantity of guns would have done nothing in this case.
“You nra fanatics talk about protecting our rights from a tyanical goverment and we need our weapons to do it.I got news for you bub unless you have SAMS and javelins in your arsenal your people will be fitting you for a bodybag.”
I agree a boatload of bodybags would be filled, but I think the Arab Spring revolutions have shown the power of light weapons against a standing army. Add in the weapons brought along by units on the Army that join a rebellion, and eventually a tyrannical government will eventually fall, regardless in the discrepancy in initial firepower.
I would…
djchefron
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 9:44 am
Ok I will be short with my answers.
1.Yes the SCOTUS did ruled that way and we all know that in their wisdom they are infallible
2.Why do you need to buy 5 guns a month?Yeah why.Unless you just have a batshit crazy fetish with guns the only other reason I could think of is you planned to sell them on the black market to people who shouldnt have them to begin with.
3.Look at the peasants who rose up and overthrew their fanatical government.See the problem with that is those governments were unpopular,they lost support of other goverments and I know that you think you are in the majority thats planning to fight the black helicopters and the blue helmets but and I hate to break it to you,at least 90% of us live in what we call reality.
That is all.
Mikey
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 10:24 am
1. No, the SCOTUS isn’t infallible. I’m guessing you disagree with the SCOTUS ruling because of your focus on the 1st part of the 2nd Amendment concerning militias. You probably believe that you can’t divorce the 1st part from the 2nd part of the amendment. And I actually somewhat agree with you. Which is why I said ignore the ruling for the moment. That leaves the issue of what is a militia. You believe that the militia is the professional armed forces. I believe the militia is defined by “the right of THE PEOPLE”. Also, you failed to answer my question. If the military is the militia, and it is controlled by the government, who will deter the government from tyranny. Are you advocating that if that were to happen, the military should lead a coup against the
government. And what if the military becomes tyrannical and tries to take power, who will defend the country from such tyranny?
2. Once again, you ignore my question about buying large amounts of weapons. And again, I somewhat agree with you. It it a bit nuts to buy large numbers of guns. Guns aren’t exactly cheap! At least not a quality, reliable firearm. I own 2 guns. 1 which is suitable for home defense, and one that is suitable for me to LEGALLY carry concealed. I think it would be crazy for me to buy any more. But I also think it’s crazy to go skydiving, but I’m not gonna argue it should be banned. The difference between the 2 though is one is specifically protected in the Constitution, and one isn’t. But my original question stands, would limiting 1 weapon per person have stopped this tragedy. IMHO, it wouldn’t.
3. I don’t believe we are anywhere close to a tyrannical government. I don’t think I’ll be shooting at any “black helicopters or blue helmets” anytime soon. But it’s always a possibility this country could fall under a yoke of tyranny one day. A robust 2nd Amendment not only gives us the tools to fight such tyranny, but also helps prevent it from ever occurring in the first…
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 10:49 am
Part of the discussion about numbers of guns that can be purchased stems from the fact that a large number of Americans along the Mexican border are going into gun houses, fronted with money from the cartels and buying large numbers of weapons that immediately go across the Mexican border. All completely legal. And extremely detrimental to the Mexican public.
Mikey
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 10:38 am
Any why does this forum software keep cutting off the last sentence of my replies??? I was nowhere near the limit on the 2nd reply.
Argh.
Mikey
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 11:14 am
Thanks Shiva for your reply.
The exportation of weapons out of the US is a valid issue, and warrants a review of relevant laws. But are you sure what you described is legal? I’m not a lawyer, but after a very quick search, I found a gun sales website which states any gun sold for export outside the US must be done by a licensed exported, and restricted by the laws of importing country. I’m guessing since you said the guns are bought here, carried across the border, and then resold, the export laws don’t apply, since the final sale is done in Mexico?
I don’t want to hijack the current debate, so do you have a link to a discussion on that issue? I’d be very interested in following it further.
Back to the original question to djchefron (which he ignored). How would a limitation on the quantity of guns sold to an individual have helped prevent the Newtown tragedy, or help prevent a similar future tragedy?
Thanks again for your response and not treating my like I’m a right wing nutjob sitting in my bomb shelter.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 11:19 am
I think we all know that it is not legal to take the guns to Mexico. We know it’s legal for an American to buy any amount of guns that he wants, there is no limit on that that I’m aware of. But we have Americans who are making vast amounts of money getting guns over the border illegally
If you are assuming that there is some valid sale being made, you would be assuming wrongly. The guns go across the border the same way the drugs coming to America enter. Illegally.
You may Google gun houses along the Mexican border or something to that effect. But this is extremely well known that Americans are doing this with money fronted to them from the cartels
Mikey
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 11:39 am
You are correct Shiva. I was confused when you stated it was all perfectly legal. I thought you meant the entire process, but you only meant the sale of guns to the straw buyer in the US. Obviously, the importation of weapons and ammunition into Mexico from the US is illegal, as that truck driver who was delivering a shipment of ammo to AZ and took a wrong turn in El Paso found out.
djchefron
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Ok you right It couldnt have avoided what happen in Newton except that maybe she should had her weapons under lock and key.Except knowing her son was not all there maybe it wasnt a great idea to take him out to the range to learn how to shoot.Maybe if she didnt beleive the tripe about the coming of the meltdown by you who fed to her and the public 24 hours a day by reich wing media.Just maybe she didnt buy a bush master and I wonder what marketing genius came up with that name.But other than that maybe its just our nature that fetishizes killing masses amount of people
Mikey
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 1:27 pm
I find it interesting that instead of answering my point, you attempt to demonize me. It looks like you are calling me a Nazi (“Maybe if she didnt beleive the tripe about the coming of the meltdown by you who fed to her and the public 24 hours a day by reich wing media.”). You don’t know me or my political beliefs about anything (other than the topic at hand concerning the possible implications of this tragedy on “gun control” and 2nd Amendment issues). Yet you try to attack my character instead of defend your beliefs. I almost want to go back and edit my replies where I stated I agreed with some of your points. The idea that I can agree with anything stated by someone who is so closed minded as to refuse to be open and tolerant of others view leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
On to your agreement with my argument that limiting the number of weapons wouldn’t prevent a tragedy like this (though your reply reeks with so much sarcasm, I doubt you actually agree).
1. From a point of view of personal responsibility, I believe the mother made a huge mistake in even having firearms in a home where there is a mentally unstable person. That mistake cost the lives of the victims at the school as well as her own life.
2. From a legal point of view, perhaps a law requiring a firearm owner to secure the weapons that may be accessible to a mentally unstable person to be secured via trigger locks or gun safe might have helped. Something similar to the CAP laws to help prevent injuries and deaths due to accidental deaths from unsecured firearms.
3. I don’t believe the “tripe” you ascribe to me. What I do believe is that we should be vigilant against erosion of our freedoms, be it attacks on our right to bear arms, warrentless wiretaps, freedom of choice, or whatever.
Go ahead and continue to demonize me if that makes you feel better. You have that right after all.
Robert Martin
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Did you not understand the meaning of “well regulated Militia” It is what starts off the 2nd Amendment (of which, actually, there are 2 versions with slightly different punctuation and capitalization, thereby slightly changing meaning)
Version 1 (as passed by Congress in 1791, scribed by William Lambert):
“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.”
Version 2 (as ratified by the states, and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson):
“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.”
The original intention of the Constitution was that the militia or “citizen soldier” would bear arms to protect the country. The “citizen soldier” of today is our Armed Services. In fact in its most basic form it is the Reserve and National Guard.
However in 2008 and 2010 the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home(District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago).
That of course still leaves the “well regulated” part active, i.e. The US Constitution DOES require us as a nation to regulate the individuals possession of firearms and, as the Consitution says, regulate them “well”.
djchefron
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
I am not a lawyer so I am in no position to argue with the SCOTUS because we know that they are infallible in their rulings.But you brout up the magic word regulation.Are you telling me that guns are well regulated?Are you telling me that its smart policy to fight for veterans right to iwn guns when they are deem incompetant to handle their own money?Are you telling me that earning a drivers licence is a lot harder than getting a gun?Well I be damn we do have overbearing gun laws.
harris stein
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 10:15 pm
I’m a gunowner, Vietnam Veteran, and a lifelong voter. I deeply resent your insinuation that I wouldn’t defend your rights, all of them, if necessary.
djchefron
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Where did I make the claim that you wouldnt defend anyone rights.I am a disabled vet myself so throwing out that Im a vet card dont play with me.All I did was ask sensible questions on the regulations of guns.Now if you think that being a vet gives you the right to own a gun when you cant hadle money then all I can say is we agree to disagree.
harris stein
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
I didn’t. I replied to Pilot, just like you did.
djchefron
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 10:34 pm
My fault still getting used to these upper pointy things.
Dancertiffy
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
We need to rethink the 2nd amendment, and perhaps think about getting rid of it entirely. Two thirds of the people in this country do not own guns and they get along just fine. I don’t have a gun and I don’t want one. I live in a somewhat civilized society and I can always call 911. Almost no one in Japan owns firearms and they get along just fine and they don’t have mass shootings.
harris stein
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
Good points, all of them. There is something else the Japanese don’t have. A judeo-christian sky god or a devil.
However, during World War 2 the Japanese committed atrocities every bit as heinous as the Germans. Unlike the Germans they are attempting to walk back their atrocities while the Germans are confronting their past.
Also the allies committed atrocities in World War 2.
Chesterfield
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 8:22 pm
I say ban guns completely. Also right after, take away all guns from police officers as well, because criminals will follow the law and not have any guns at all since they’re illegal. Since criminals follow the law so well, let’s also ban murder. I mean, murder is the cause of over 100% of the murders in the united states, and it’s not fair to our children to let it continue.
djchefron
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
How many crimes have you stopped with your gun?
harris stein
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 10:34 pm
You’re asking a question of someone who probably couldn’t shoot his way out of a plastic bag.
djchefron
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Just was thinking.Cons love them some gun control when the wrong type of masses armed themselves.I present the case of St,ronnie raygun the patron saint of conservatism.In the 60′s when the black panthers following California law started to arm themselves in public to protect themselves from the police.Well we couldnt have abunch of negroes running around with guns.So what did he do?Passed a law prohibiting the public display of guns.See conservatives do believe in gun control.If the wrong type of people start using thier 2nd amenment rights the law and constitution be damn.
Dancertiffy
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
The American culture is,at its core, sick.
Largely based on materialism,violence and greed, we are a culture based on mass consumption and environmental degradation.
Many people in this country base their status and power on their ability to kill something. Imagine a culture where your power and status were based on your ability to save something, such as an endangered species or ecosystem.
Imagine that, and then look at what we have now.
Sad.
We are in so many ways so primitive.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
I always say we have a long way to go to catch up to cultures like Europe and Asia
John
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 8:11 am
There was no reply button above, so I’ll reply here. This was your response to my comment that he may have stolen those weapons from somewhere else.
“That is an assumption. Without guns close by he may not have performed this crime.” That is an assumption, too…
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 8:35 am
And?
UncaJoe
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
Just Imagine…
Nessa
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 10:31 pm
Nothing will ever be done with this all or nothing talk, from both sides. We need to figure out how to allow people to have guns safely and effectively. We shouldn’t ban all guns, but there’s no reason to drive around with an automatic weapon in your car either.
Arthur
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 11:05 pm
The NRA’s Beloved Gun Culture did not kill 20 children: a psychopath killed them. It would be more practical and efficient to ban all psychopaths than trying to ban all guns. Just shoot em’!
Unfortunately, the price of living in a supposed free society is allowing such things as gun ownership. You can’t have freedom cake and eat it too.
Terri
Dec. 15th, 2012 at 11:23 pm
Said the guy who based his entire argument on the premise of all or nothing.
In your argument, it’s either ALL guns or no guns.
DUH. Middle ground much?
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 12:08 am
LOL
J.S.
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 1:30 am
Nessa, I agree with you!!! People do not need all these military type weapons to defend themselves from anyone! The military type weapons all need to be confiscated and melted down and done away with so no one can get hold of them!! The only people who need a military weapon is the military!!! Then there are some who are saying if the school personnel would have had concealed handguns maybe they would have prevented this horrible Conn. massacre. If that be true then they just agreed that you can protect yourself with a small hand gun and don’t be in any need of a military weapon!!!
djchefron
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 8:23 am
I have a question that’s been on my mind.Why would this by all accounts mild mannered women who lives in a Norman Rockwell white picket fence,affluent mostly crime free America have the need for two powerful handguns and a military style assault rifle?
Yellow Dog Yankee
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 9:03 am
The current report is that she was convinced we were headed for economic collapse which would of course set the mad dogs loose in the streets to take her property and maybe her virtue. Therefore she had to prepare to defend herself. I wonder from where (and which radio or TV talkers) that particular brand of fear comes.
Reynardine
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 9:47 am
*That* is interesting! Then what was her loony son listening to (in addition to his mother)?
KatzKids
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 7:30 am
Exactly. I heard a report last night that since her divorce, she suddenly developed an overblown love of guns & had quite a collection. The guns her son brought to the school, may not have even been all she had. They also said she was certain the economy was going to crash but added that she proclaimed she had to protect herself against the “communists.”
The GOPTP certainly has a lot to answer for, in addition to their wanting to arm the Country. They’ve also been the ones who on a daily basis have stirred up the fear & hatred against the “other.” You know, those brown people, gays, women, communist-marxist-fascist – “libruls,” anyone who doesn’t march in lockstep with them and THEIR kind of GAWD, and those who want to punish the “poor Corporations & the rest of the 1%. They’ve been very effective.
John
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 8:33 am
Criminals like this are the height of cowardice. They attack those in a position of weakness. Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. This piece of crud stole those weapons and proceeded to do his deed. Had there been an armed teacher, the tragedy would have been mitigated or even stopped.
The adage “outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns” rings true from this tragedy.
Reynardine
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 9:50 am
Pistol-packing teachers? Are you out of your effing gourd?
John
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 11:07 pm
No, I was thinking more along the lines of a shotgun…
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 10:27 am
www.motherjones.com/polit...
John
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 11:34 pm
With all due respect, the graph’s displayed are all unsourced, unless I missed it. Furthermore, so what? You could make arguments against cars, alcohol, fast food, oh and let us not forget the 10′s of thousands of children murdered through abortion. Excuse me, I meant to say 10′s of thousands of children murder through a woman’s right to choose.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 11:37 pm
So far you have said nothing except throw more guns at the problem. Trying to throw other stats into the mix is laughable. No, you cant make the same arguments.
John
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 8:04 am
What all of you anti gun fanatics fail to take into account is that there are very bad people out there. You can’t plead with them, you talk to them, you can’t reason with them. They are predators who prey on those they perceive as weak. Why do you think this piece of trash picked on elementary school kids because it appears he was pissed off at his mommy for not paying attention to him.
You don’t like guns? Then don’t own one. But penalizing law abiding citizens for these idiots is out of line.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 11:41 pm
Here is your source
www.motherjones.com/polit...
harris stein
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 12:52 pm
You say “Criminals like this are the height of cowardice.” The facts are beginning to show that Adam Lanza did not have a criminal history. He did have a history of mental health and behavior problems. His mother had to remove him from public school to home school him because of this.
So is turning schools into armed camps the answer? The so called experts are all over the map on this. Are you one of those experts? I don’t think so. It looks to me like you don’t even try to balance out your news you get from Fox with news from other outlets that are more balanced.
So where does that leave your argument? In the trash can I would say. More important here is “gun safety.” The mother should not have been freely encouraging someone with a history of mental illness to use guns. It cost her life and the lives of 26 other people not including her son who killed himself.
John
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 11:10 pm
So, using your logic, because he had a mental illness, he’s not a criminal? I’d have to say that pretty much every mass murderer in history had a mental illness. You’re argument, sir, belongs in the trash can.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 11:23 pm
Was he a criminal prior to the killings?
John
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 11:44 pm
No, but neither was Ted Bundy, or those two young men in Columbine or James Holmes.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 12:18 am
Correct
Anne
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 9:04 am
The senseless gun violence that takes so many lives in this country every year is a direct result of the narcissistic, individualistic, every-man-for-himself mentality coupled with the gun fetish among too many of us. The NRA has taken the love of guns to the point where they have become so divorced from the reality of its deadly results that they are truly a danger to this society. I have to wonder if they don’t look at all this carnage as collateral damage. Of course, they are a major part of the problem, but not the only part. There are unlicensed gun dealers and inadequate background checks on prospective buyers, and it’s obvious that one’s mental stability matters just as much as his/her criminal record. Then there is the issue in which the records of one’s criminal acts are expunged, like George Zimmerman’s were. That’s a big loophole that needs to be closed because he is mentally unstable as well as having a history of being violent and confrontational. There’s the stigmatization of mental illness that prevents such people from getting help before it’s too late,
and of course, there’s the glorification of violence in some music and movies. It’s a problem with a number of layers and making laws without also addressing these things will blunt or negate the effectiveness of any efforts to solve this problem.
Wolfgang
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 9:18 am
Americans have twice as many guns per head of population than the next state, which is lawless Yemen. There has not been a war on American soil since the Civil War has there? So why are so many citizens armed? The murder rates in the US outstrip all other states not suffering internal rebellion by an enormous margin.
But then the US is the only peaceful state to allow its citizens almost unfettered gun ownership.
Act now or the killings will get worse.
Sharon
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Thank you for this editorial. It said what I have thought for years. On a website one time, I had another poster tell me the 2nd amendment guaranteed him a right to have a bazooka and a tank in his backyard. I told him the 2nd amendment gave him the right to have a musket and a cannon. He got so angry that I dared tell him that no one needs an automatic gun of any sort.
People say they need an AK47 to go hunting but there would be nothing left of the deer. Same mentality that sits up deer feeds, sits in a cabin, and shoots the deer through holes in the wall.
So opposed to guns on any campus. No matter the NRA training, most people do not have the ability to use a gun to shoot someone and could end up shooting innocent people IMHO. My Dad had a rifle and shotgun when I was growing up for hunting and that was it — no hand guns and no semi-automatic. Those two guns are not necessary for hunting.
Stand your grounds laws are scarey because I have seen a mentality where the open carry just dare someone to do something so they can show how macho they are. There are no guns in my home — finally got rid of the guns my husband had when we were married because I didn’t want our children to grow up with guns.
KatzKids
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 7:42 am
In several “discussions” I’ve had today, people have tried to tell me that the Bushmaster isn’t an assault rifle, it’s just a “sports rifle”, which is how the gun manufacturers are trying to rebrand it. Just a harmless little sports rifle, no worry. I get so angry with these idiots, I have to walk away, and yet as angry and outraged as I am, I still have no desire to shoot one of them. They are immune to facts, empathy, or any other normal human emotion when it comes to THEIR friggin’ guns. Loss of life? Slaughter of innocents? NO matter, just get more guns out there. Argggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!
djchefron
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 2:55 pm
Was at mydeephouse music and other than music we discussvarious topics of the day.Here is a comment that I would like to share.
Originally Posted by Daniel, Grand Duke of Stony Island
You keep a Bushmaster in the house in case all the evil black and brown people in the big city spill out into the quaint towns in the outskirts of the county and begin kicking in doors and invading homes and raping wives and daughters and stealing all your possessions. Don’t forget, Willie Hornton and the Subway Shooter and John Allen Muhammad and the Gangster Disciples and the L.A. rioters are all out there, waiting to take away your safe white life.
Of course, the black POTUS who is soft on crime and gun control is going to take away all the guns. He’s black. All black people want to do is keep white folks unsafe.
Europeans can’t understand why Americans are so fixated on guns because, by and large, Europeans don’t have entire segments of their economy driven by the fear of a black (and brown) boogeyman.
That woman was armed to the teeth with guns that were designed to kill people. She was a substitute teacher and I’m sure she saw the inside of a few inner city schools in her lifetime. So she made sure to be READY.
And all she did was arm her insane white child who was described by folks who knew him as the type to commit a horrible act.
Fuck being nice about this. In disturbing times, we need to speak truth. Racist American media and political elite have made the face of crime a black face. Folks buy handguns and assault weapons and ammo to defend themselves against black folks, but it isn’t black folks who walk into places where people should be safe and indiscriminately kill without provocation.
And yet, today, the face of crime in America is still black. And white folks are purchasing even more guns this week in the fear their government will now try to take them away after events on Friday.
Try to tell me I’m making this up.
Andrea
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 11:02 am
People with a handgun or rifle at home for self-protection is one thing, and it’s in keeping with the 2d amendment. Semi-automatic weapons and a stockpile of guns and ammo is something entirely different. Gun cultists are playing a game where they think they’re prepping for the End of Civilization As We Know It — except the game is all in their heads. Then they want the rest of us to let them play their game with real ammo and real weapons. Your rights end where mine begin.
R.R. Smith
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
To all you persons out there calling for “common sense” gun control (A Euphemism for gun bans an restrictions) and the so-called converstion about guns, enough of your garbage, ponder this, what about the 20,000 gun statutes that exist already, have you ever considered enforcing them,or the statute which bars menatally disturbed individuals from getting guns, oh and all you Obamacare fans, where,s the funding for the care of mentally disturbed people, I guess you forgot that.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Obama care does not provide for funding for various treatments. Seems as if you know so much about Obama care I am wondering why you didn’t know that. If you want treatment for your mental health, you need to get it from private insurance. And within a year or so prices will be cheap enough for private insurance so you can get the help that you need
Gun statutes? What about them? Your NRA is fighting against any type of statutes for anyone to be restricted from getting guns. Maybe you should look at yourself first
By the way, no one is really calling for a total ban on guns. Well I guess some people are in it would really be nice if it did happen but, people want to get rid of assault type weapons to cut down on the number of people you can kill at one time. From the sounds of it that is really going to hurt your feelings
harry
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 2:44 am
Easy way to change thinking on this insane culture:
Make the manufacturers(guns + ammo) and sellers/retailers responsible for any damages caused due to the use of their product, right down to being charged with murder. Then see how many are willing to let these weapons walk out the door under the arm of every red neck.