I can only hope that this time, after yet another tragedy, responsible leaders can guide us to some sort of solution. We've had so many incidents such as Columbine, Virginia Tech, the shooting of Gabby Giffords and now this senseless massacre, but yet we do nothing.
It's still early in the investigation so all we have is speculation, especially since James Holmes has layered up. That doesn't keep those advocating for more gun control from speaking up and likewise, for the calling for more people to buy guns. That's the extent of what we do because Monday morning, no legislator has to be told of the consequences of messing with the NRA.
We shouldn't be surprised that we are hearing the same ol' slogans " guns don't kill people do" and "GUN LAWS HURT LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS" blab blah. The 2nd amendment has never been safer, but the gun advocates continue to push for more guns and laws for open- carry. They want everybody to be able to carry their gun at a church service, bar, campus, or even the capitol. I wouldn't be surprised if legislators write a bill to authorize citizens to board airplanes with their guns; after all, the GOP convention committee took up the issue of whether to let the attendees bring their guns. I can remember when it was about seating arrangements and speaking privileges. You give them an inch, and they want a mile.
Remember the incident where the young lady was raped at our Walk & Bike Trail? We had several posters saying that if only she would have armed; that incident could have been prevented. Huh? When you have to start packing just to jog; we have a problem..I don't ever want to use a bike trail where people are packing.
There is a culture out there that thinks the answer is more guns. It doesn't matter that there are more handguns purchased in the United States than any other place in the world. They seem to think that every violent incident could have been prevented or put to a quick stop if more people were armed. That is so preposterous and is not backed up with substantial facts. The police in Aurora, Colorado showed up in 2 minutes or less and took James Holmes alive where he told them that his apartment was booby trapped. If Holmes would have been killed by a citizen, more than likely, police officers would have been killed entering his apartment. Innocent civilians might have been killed opening that booby trapped door. The likelihood of 4 or 5 armed civilians shooting in the direction of James Holmes makes a chaotic situation even worse, in my opinion. The last thing that a professional police officers need is armed amateurs making the situation even worse because of instead of concentrating on one shooter, their attention is drawn to others who have guns. In the Gabby Giffords shooting, an armed civilian almost shot another civilian who picked up the killer's gun.
There's nothing that could have been done to prevent the recent massacre in Aurora, Colorado, but I would like to think that purchasing thousands of rounds of ammunition, toxic gas canisters, a bulletproof vest, and a weapon that was banned before 2004 and would at least warrant a visit by ATF with a search warrant. The young Mr. Holmes deliberately bought all those legal items over a long period of time, not knowing he had no reason to fear of being detected. Come on people get real, are we really that paranoid that we need silencers, automatic assault weapons, extenders, toxic gas containers, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and armor piercing bullets? I laugh in the face of those who say, “it’s to protect us from government tyranny" as if they can take on the Pentagon.
I certainly don't know what made an intelligent young man without a criminal record want to commit mass murder, and I don't think we'll know for sure until a couple of years henceforth. If we can tie it to some sort of mental illness that's common to all those who committed these tragedies; perhaps we should start with funding more clinics to treat future mass murderers. It's not a time to set up costly scanners at all the theaters, but perhaps they can do a simple thing like replace the exit door's locks which can only be opened by theater personnel. I understand the safely issues of that but that doesn't mean it can't be resolved. Several cities due to budget problems have been thinking about letting go some of their first responders; I think they need to rethink the whole situation. It is my opinion that paying a couple of dollars more a year for property taxes is money well spent for a well -trained dedicated police department who services are invaluable in situations such as these. Like all cities, Aurora, Colorado had some budget problems, and they were thinking of letting go some first responders. Don't say it can't happen in Victoria, because all you have to do is go through the Advocate archives to see where a gun was used at our local college campus.
It's time to join those who are mourning for the victims and their families, and not time to make hasty judgments.
53 comments:
On one of the shows this morning, it was reported that the first police arrived in 90 seconds, yet hea had already wounded and killed so many!
Also, they said he purchased the ingredients for this tragedy over just a two month period. The assault weapon he bought cost in the neighborhood of two grand. 6000 rounds of ammo can't be cheap. (Ammo is heavy--how much was shipping and handling?) Body armor isn't cheap (unless you get homemade from our ol' buddy Kenny).
How does a grad student afford this?
Rest of my thought...
With the information that we do know, how do folks think this is even defensible? Not the massacre, but the argument to allow high powered guns to be easily accessible.
As was said on ABC Sunday,if Americans can readily get this stuff and use them as home grown terrorist;why hasn't Al Quaeda and other groups been more successful....Good question on money angle unless his parents gave him a health allowance.
I couldn't believe Washington Post columnists George Will & Jennifer Rubin answer of just doing nothing because "stuff happens." Jennifer Rubin cited that after the ban on assault weapons was lifted crime went down. She refused to see that the deadly killing with assault weapons has increased but they were willing to blame the entertainment industry..WE can't stop these incidents with legislation but we can make it more difficult for them to acquire 100 round ammo clips and guns can fire 30 to 100 rounds in a very short time. Why should you be able to buy toxic gas canisters? What’s next shoulder fired rocket launchers and grenades?
The republican son was just here. He said he noticed some of my anti-gun stuff on Facebook. I had to make it clear to him that I have no problem with handguns and rifles and shotguns. Folks can keep those.
I told him I had a problem with an automatic weapon that will fire 100 rounds in under 60 seconds. I reminded him that animals are not usually armed when you go hunting them, and if you do truly hunt with an AK-47 like the guy from Wisconsin claims to do, what kind of shape is the animal you shot? It has to be pulverized.
Anyway, he left with this assignment: Tell me why anyone who is not intending to kill someone, whether in war or as law enforcement would NEED an automatic weapon and/or a huge clip of ammo.
He said he'd have to think about it.
*should read
...kill someone, except in war...
Well,Liz Cheney questions the constitutionally of those remaining weapons that are restricted.
Senator Johnson of Wisconsin says that many in his state use AK 47s to hunt varmints as Romney calls them.
The NRA owns them.
Oh, well, if that is how Liz feels, never mind.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/22/jason_alexanders_amazing_gun_rant/
I guess for those who feel that anykind of weapon should be legal, do they have a problem with someone owning a tank, or a bazooka, or weapons attached to their airplanes?
Where is that line drawn?
I agree with the rest of you. There is no earthy reason to own a gun that shoots that many bullets in a few seconds, unless you are in the armed services, or are trying to kill as many people as you can in a few seconds. Even a bad shot could get the job done with 5 or less bullets at one time.
Born--did you read the Jason Alexander article?
I think these second amendment folks need to be reminded of what the Founding Fathers actually said. They talked about a militia. The second amendment has been skewed over the years to go from 'militias' to 'individuals'.
Good point about a even bad shot getting it done in 5 bullets or less.
I have owned well over 200 firearms through the years. I have never been much of a hunter. A high capacity long gun was in my collection from time to time. It was simply because "I didn't own one of them." Once the novelty wore out, it was cycled out of the collection.
My son has an AR15, no need for it, but that is what he carried when deployed (military version). I think he has earned the right.
There is not any need for anyone to own one. In the same breath, no one has a need to own a 100+mph car either.
To the ammo- at any give time I would have in excess of 20,000 rounds (possibly closer to 100,000) -- purchased when on sale (shotgun shells in particular). I hand loaded all of my handgun ammo. I shot competitive pistol for a number of years. It was not uncommon to fire 2000+ rounds a day. Practice does indeed make perfect.
Long-winded point is simply legislating out these things is in violation of many people's rights. Yes the NRA attracts some "nuts" by the nature of the subject matter. To even imply the NRA is against firearm control is absolutely incorrect. The NRA has to draw a line somewhere in the sand. NRA has been forced to use the "give them an inch, they will take a mile" solely to protect the right to bear arms.
At the end of the day, one must realize that "gun control" will not ever stop these senseless murders. The answer (if there is one) lies elsewhere.
To a more direct point, if only there had been one trained, armed citizen within range- the death toll could have been much lower. Body armor will stop penetration, but it cannot defuse the energy. It would have allowed for taking away the weapon and stand on his head until the police arrive.
It is a horribly sad day for American, the thought of those defenseless people brings tears and immeasurable anger.
Tophat
I agree with a lot of your points that “gun control" will not stop these senseless killings but common sense laws just might deter a killer in the making. The idea that an unlicensed dealer can sell as many guns as he wants from the back of his car is preposterous. The NRA will not let republican legislators ban those on the terror watch list from purchasing guns... Every amendment to the constitution and the Bill of Rights has reasonable limits. We saw people carrying AR-15s outside of venues where President Obama was speaking in New Hampshire and Arizona...The point has been driven home; we have very liberal gun laws.
I don't think I'm entitled to any special privileges just because I was in a military. I agree that your son has a familiarity with a weapon and will probably pass a background check in flying colors but civilian law should not make exceptions for prior military service.
We all own cars that go 100 miles per hour but we have posted speed limits inside the city and on the open road.
The authorities told us that the shooter was protected from head- to- toe, threw down a gas canister to do what it was intended to do, create chaos and limit visibility and he fired indiscriminately and rapidly. I doubt that the trained police officers of Aurora, who responded in less than 2 minutes by the way, could have stopped the killings much less an amateurs with a gun. In this particular incident, it's a good thing that he was kept alive because his apartment was booby trapped. A lot of people stand behind this " if only a trained civilian" theory but no one can account for adrenaline, unfamiliarity with the situation, and the fact that first responders don't like the idea that a citizen may be armed and has to be accounted for. Think of it this way, a police officer has a partner and colleagues who has gone through the same type of training, so the trust is there; not so with that civilian.
You know when we found out that the Mexican cartels were getting 90% of their weapons from American gun shops; we did nothing and now that we know that you can buy as much ammunition online as you want; we will do nothing..... I guess the other answer is “do nothing" even thou its only has been 18 months since the Tucson shooting.
It was a sad day and is it pretty bad that they are a few will use the opportunity of a large crowd to do their destruction.
Born and EA
I was surprised that the rebels of Libya, Egypt, and Syria could not obtain weapons. If there were only Americans, they could buy what they could afford.
Rather than get into all the details of "Fast and Furious" one of the problems the ATF had; was that the prosecutors would not file charges on those people who purchased legal guns. People who could pass a background check would purchase the weapons, turn around and sell them to those who could not. There was no Brady check and seller could not be arrested for "not assuming “that the weapons would be used in ac crime.
We can't even discuss closing the loopholes that people are using to buy the assault weapons.
That only if more citizens were armed theory, didn't stop a lot of people from getting killed at Ft. Hood. I wonder if a Muslim terrorist would have been the terrorist. I imagine a mosque or two would've been bombed.
A very god article
"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.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/james-holmes-weapons-internet_n_1694451.html
Tophat, bear with me here--
You are about the hundreth person who has claimed "if only there had been one trained, armed citizen within range- the death toll could have been much lower."
1. It was a packed theatre. You think there was not one trained, armed citizen in that theatre?
2. The well packed theatre was a. DARK and b. FILLED WITH TEAR GAS. You really want even a well trained citizen shooting in that circumstance?
3. It has been documented over and over again that in the majority of event of this nature, folks who were well trained **wink, wink--had a CCL** failed to act. One of the more recent events was when Gabby Giffords was shot. Several died there. And Arizona lets you walk around with your gun strapped to your hip like the Wild, Wild West! You don't even have to conceal it!
The argument that armed citizens could have been of some help is simply not rational. It does not hold up.
And for anyone--I am still waiting for a good reason that someone would need to use a gun that that fires 100 rounds in under a minute. Unless you are killing something that is also armed, it is unnecessary.
(please don't make me go to the also worn out "big gun to make up for small..." well, you know what I mean. But I will if you make me!)
"The idea that an unlicensed dealer can sell as many guns as he wants from the back of his car is preposterous. The NRA will not let republican legislators ban those on the terror watch list from purchasing guns."
Illegal guns dealers are exactly what the name says "illegal". Seemingly anyone can get a firearms license, even a Class 3 license with very little, or no monitoring. Wrong on every level, and hardly fair to merchants that have made the brick and mortar investment.
The NRA does not have the power to instruct legislators. If an individual is on the terror watch, we would be the first to say NO! This sounds like a myth dreamed up by someone.
"I don't think I'm entitled to any special privileges just because I was in a military. I agree that your son has a familiarity with a weapon and will probably pass a background check in flying colors but civilian law should not make exceptions for prior military service"
He passed the same background check as everyone else. My point was solely that people that own one for various reasons, none which have anything to do with murder.
"We all own cars that go 100 miles per hour but we have posted speed limits inside the city and on the open road."
Yes, and we have laws that that say murder is illegal.
"The authorities told us that the shooter was protected from head- to- toe"
As I said, the energy cannot be defused by kevlar. It isn't like the movies- trust me-- it will, at best, ruin your day. Parts of the body are still not protected. The point is to stop the aggression until the authorities arrive; not kill the suspect.
"You know when we found out that the Mexican cartels were getting 90% of their weapons from American gun shops; we did nothing and now that we know that you can buy as much ammunition online as you want; we will do nothing."
I am aware the cartels are obtaining weapons from the US. Al Queda obtained the aircraft from the US. Tim McVeigh got rental truck and fertilizer in the US.
The cure does not lie in passing more unenforceable laws.
No one needs alcohol, cigarettes, fat laden food, Christmas trees that can ignite, worthless TV programs; the list goes on and on.
Tophat
Congress makes the laws, but as long as as the NRA has the threat to primary those who go against their wishes,the have unique power and it is not a myth.
" People from most other parts of the industrialized world find the American proliferation of guns shocking, but, really, they have no idea. Even most Americans don’t know that Congress has, in recent years, refused to consider laws that would ban the sale of assault weapons capable of firing 100 bullets without reloading, and declined to allow the attorney general to restrict people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing weapons.
The country is not nearly as crazy as its politicians make it out to be. (A survey by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found 82 percent of N.R.A. members opposed letting people on the terrorist watch list buy guns.) Although it could certainly use a little leadership.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/opinion/guns-and-the-slog.html
More on this:
"WASHINGTON -- Under current U.S. law, there are several ways a person can fail the background check required to purchase a gun. Being on the FBI's terrorist watch list is not one of them.
A group of military veterans is hoping to fix that problem by reviving a long-stalled bill, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act. The proposed law would allow the FBI to block gun sales to people on the watch list, closing what the veterans call the "terror gap."
"This is common-sense legislation that does not infringe on a gun-owner’s rights, and will protect our troops and our nation," said Vet Voice Foundation in a press release. The group, founded by veteran and progressive activist Jon Soltz, recently formed a new working group to rally veterans and ramp up pressure on Congress to prohibit such gun sales."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/gun-sales-terrorist-suspects_n_1305233.html
I'm not arguing that people that own AR 15s are murderers.
Hypothetical s are whatever you want them to be,so if you want a vigilante to be a hero; you can make him one.
As I said before, I know we're not going to get any legislation as long as republicans run the House of Representatives... I'm asking for the ATF to set up trigger points, red flag if you will, purchases of a large quantity of ammunition and weapons. I am asking for follow-up interview with a warrant. The article provided said that he purchased all this online without going through the Brady check.. Some legislators want to regulate pornography, why not make it harder to purchase ammo and weapons online. ... Cokie Roberts of ABC Sunday said we allow the department store Target to use their software to target customers for future sales; why not extend that to the ATF?
Tophat
The point is to stop the aggression until the authorities arrive; not kill the suspect.
Many gun advocates (the majority) are saying kill the mass murderer before he kills anyone else;that's a normal untrained human response.
20 years ago, if you purchased more than 3 guns in a 30 day period your name was reported to BATF. I was several times- I never heard a thing.
If you purchase over a certain amount of ammo?- well as soon as that is law, they simply get someone else to purchase some. Go to different merchants, etc. Handloading is cheaper and within about 10 minutes, anyone can learn to run a press.
Guns are typically sold through wholesalers, manufacturer does not sell direct.
Wholesaler has to have a copy of FFL in hand before they can ship.
Buy a gun online, you have to have it shipped to a licensed dealer. That dealer will do the background check, etc. before you can take possession.
Then there is the huge black market- I don't think they are going to pay any attention to any law passed. BATF is solely a joke to them.
To the theater comments, I don't think there would be anyone armed.
I am not stating an arm citizen could have altered the event- I only suggest it would have been something- otherwise they had no chance. 2 minute police response is very good, but the shooting was already over. Police cannot be everywhere, all the time. They do their very best to render aid, but they ain't Superman.
I have not met the majority of these gun advocates that you refer to- but I do speak for the ones I do know. Personally I would avoid lethal shot placement, unless that was my only option. Then yes, I would and face a jury of my peers.
It is a very complex problem, but passing more laws isn't going to change the murder's intentions.
We cannot continue to look at the government to fix our problems- it cannot happen.
Tophat
Again, I’m not looking for a government to do anything and I have stated my reason 3 times.I agree with you on that point.
I am well aware of all the roadblocks that will be thrown in order to keep the status quo.
I'm also aware that the culture can be changed and I'll give a couple of examples:
In my youth and my young adult age it was common to see someone smoking. By the time I was 45, smoking Americans became almost nonexistent. The tobacco companies make a lot of their profits overseas and selling to underage American teenagers. Several laws, education, higher taxes/ cost and lawsuits have stopped our former obsession of smoking.. It can be done.
I can remember the habit we used to have of drinking three of four beers after work and driving home and then came the open container law. It didn't stop our drinking but we didn't drink and drive anymore..... It can be done.
"If you purchase over a certain amount of ammo?- well as soon as that is law, they simply get someone else to purchase some. Go to different merchants, etc. Handloading is cheaper and within about 10 minutes, anyone can learn to run a press"
--------------------------------
3000 rounds for a handgun, 3000 rounds for the AR 15,350 shells for the shotgun, a 100 round drum magazine in a period of two months should have started some kind of inquiry.
You continue to say that we can't do anything but over this past weekend I've heard several proposals:
1. States could sue Arizona, Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina for having liberal gun laws as was the case where individuals used to sue the gun manufacturers.
2. Allow people to buy the AR 15 etc. but put surtax on 100 rounds or more.
3. Crackdown on the gun shows and shut them down, if they have too many complaints lodged against them.
4. Rein in the Castle laws that were extended to stand-your -ground laws.
5. Both sides of the issue should be receptive to an open discussion.
`
Guys and Lady, laws are good only for good people. Make a million laws, but unless one is "good" the law is useless. We are governed by a government of a million laws, but our society has more than one bad person. Thus, your laws are useless.
I am one of the "good" persons. I will and do respect the law of the land.
But if for some reason I turned evil (impossible), there is not a law around which could protect you from me. So make all the gun laws you want, you would still be in mortal danger. Your laws are trying to protect yourself from me. And from me you need no protection. So, you need no additional laws. From the evil one, you need your gun.
Thank you, Dale
Dale
We’re a nation of laws, and yes it keeps honest people honest, but that's what a civilized nation does.
I am not asking for more laws; I'm asking for different approach; use our existing laws to get better results, instead of saying “it’s useless or we can’t." In my last post, I gave a couple examples where persistence paid off.
"Laws are good only for good people" is just a slogan and is often used by people who want or accept the status quo.
Here’s a slogan that I like the use “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
OK,now that we had our battle of the "slogans";now what?...:-)
Mike, I do not use slogans. I do not use labels.
So here are your question: a) Which law stopped the fellow in Colorado from killing and maiming those folks? b) Which law prevented the killing of the solders at Fort Hood? c) Which immigration law and driving law prevented the death of those in Goliad today?
Since you are into slogans: Stupid people, who create stupid laws, to stop stupid people, accomplish nothing but showing their own stupidity.
"We are a nation of laws" which are ignored by those who do not wish to play along.
EA,
No, I didn't read any articles
Although,controlling the sales of certain kinds of guns might help in certain instances, it won't stop those who really want to get one of those guns.
Safety issues will have to start at locations. I've heard 2 different accounts on how the shooter got in from the outside of the exit door. One person said that a phone rang and a man got up to open the door, and another said that he heard pounding on the door, looked out, saw the guy, and tried to hold the door shut but was afraid that the guy would shoot him through the door. I haven't read after that what really happened.
Better security at exit doors will have to be dealt with. Cameras outside, surveilance inside. Maybe double entry, with camera inside...something that will tip off people that something is amiss.
There should always be a off-duty armed cop, or security guard, at the entrance of all public venues where there are a lot of people.
born2Bstupid,
You picked a name that suits you well
born
I apologize,I know who the poster is;eh thinks he doesn't leave his ip address behind...Now that is STUPID.
Dale,Dale Dale
There was not a law that prevented 9/11 but that does mean we didn't beef up our security.
What does having an immigration law have to do with an auto accident?..Unless you think they are sub human and can only get in a car accident in the US.
Our prisons are full (over capacity) in most cases because they broke the law and we enforced it.
Stupidity can be subjective.
Think about it...A slogan is "A favorite saying of a sect or political group."
People are not stupid for posting opinions contrary to mine but I didn't think I would have to delete comments because we are all adults...Act accordingly.
I may indeed be stupid for thinking that we should have an up or down vote to reinstate the ban on assault weapons,100 round magazines, extenders, and toxic gas canisters...I may also be stupid for thinking that we should put more pressure on the gun shows to close the loop holes.
You would think that if someone has the intelligence to type on this blog, that they wouldn't have to copy off of a name someone else has.
EA- perhaps it not rational to you. It makes perfect sense to me. Could it made a difference, assuredly could have. Note: I used "could" twice. The confusion of the moment would probably hinder most civilian, police, or military shooter.
Military (that I am familiar with) uses a single shot with a 3shot burst selection.
I do not know who would need a 100 round sub 1 minute firearm. Perhaps some special tactic shooter? 100 rounds per minute is so slow, I am not sure what application could be compatible to that slow rate.
If this mission is to kill someone that is also armed- requires one shot.
Tophat, I am not sure if you are trying to be serious, or if you are yanking my chain. So, at the risk of giving you the benefit of the doubt, let me ask my question this way:
Under what circumstance would the average citizen in this country need a weapon that fires more than say 6 bullets?
What circumstance could the average citizen find himself in that he would need to show up armed with say, just a 1000 rounds of ammo?
What would the circumstance be if the 'mission' as you call it, would not be to kill another human, but would require this kind of firearm and ammo?
Yes, I want the SWAT team that comes to my rescue to be well armed with all the AR-15s adn AK-47s they can carry.
I don't want that whack job that lives next door to me to have the same thing!
(and to eliminame unecessary back and forth, let's stipulate that we are just talking regular guys. No skeet shooters, no gun range junkies, just regular guys.)
EA-
Under what circumstance would the average citizen in this country need a weapon that fires more than say 6 bullets?
Any firearm can shoot more that 6 bullets. A gun will shoot until it destructs or otherwise malfunctions.. Kindly rephrase the question- otherwise I have no clue as to what you are asking.
What circumstance could the average citizen find himself in that he would need to show up armed with say, just a 1000 rounds of ammo?
As your qualifier was to exclude sport shooting- None
What would the circumstance be if the 'mission' as you call it, would not be to kill another human, but would require this kind of firearm and ammo?
As already stated, I do not know of any application that a 100 round per minute firearm is useful. Your original question was why someone would need a firearm that shoots 100 rounds per minute. I remain not knowing why a civilian, police, military, terrorists, murderer would ever want/need that slow of a fire rate.
I don't want that whack job that lives next door to me to have the same thing!
I do not know your neighbor.
Thank you Tophat. Now I understand your position.
I will file your responses along with the others who either couldn't answer the questions or wouldn't. They were not hard questions.
EA-
Good. As I recall, I am a moron in your opinion.
I answered your questions to the best of my ability.
In summary, we're not making news because in some ways we are mimicking what has been said by others across the nation. Most of us are consistent because we normally say the same thing after every tragedy. It's either" if only" or” there's nothing they can be done."
I find it ironic that those do not want to impose more gun laws because it won't stop tragedies or they have 2nd amendment issues are normally the same people that support the “papers please law" in Arizona and the “stop and frisk" law in New York.... I guess the 2th amendment takes priority over the 14th amendment... Priorities!
We have fought the 2nd amendment and a definition thereof for 20 years or more and the issue has been settled... The proponents of no more gun control have won.
This is just my opinion but I think the concealed handgun people are looking for respectability and justification for their line of thinking. Some want to be on par with the first responders but they are not generally thought of in that regard... They're just another version of vigilantes like the Minutemen, Republic of Texas militia, and the Oath Keepers to name a few.... They're usually anti- government types who have their own agenda. They're not to be confused with those that buy guns and ammunition, as collectors, hunters, target shooting and for home defense.
Tophat said if there was a limit on the amount of ammunition an individual could buy, the lawbreaker would get someone to buy more ammunition and so forth. That makes the second and third person an accessory to a crime.... Several states monitor pedophilia web sites using sophisticated software and the cooperation of domain owners. That same method could be used to track potential terrorists.... Priorities!
I also think that the opponents of change know that something could be accomplished but it would infringe on what they're allowed to do right now. They throw up their smoke screens but people can see through that....
Like I said nothing will be done because our legislators don't have the backbone to stand up to the NRA. There is not a grassroots effort to start and fund an organization to challenge the NRA. ..The NRA is not the reason for all the senseless murders but they are a deterrent to a civil discussion aimed at trying to slow down these mass killings.
Mike-
"Again, I’m not looking for a government to do anything and I have stated my reason 3 times.I agree with you on that point."
Ok I am confused. The list your provided has government doing many things. Not being argumentative, simply confused.
"3000 rounds for a handgun, 3000 rounds for the AR 15,350 shells for the shotgun, a 100 round drum magazine in a period of two months should have started some kind of inquiry"
Government intervention- very expensive as well. Will require numerous investigators.
"You continue to say that we can't do anything but over this past weekend I've heard several proposals:
1. States could sue Arizona, Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina for having liberal gun laws as was the case where individuals used to sue the gun manufacturers
Government intervention. To be honest, I am not aware of any social problem ever solved by lawsuit.
2. Allow people to buy the AR 15 etc. but put surtax on 100 rounds or more.
Government intervention. Ar-15 fires .223, there are hundreds of guns cambered for 223. Every time a rancher buys a few boxes- he pays a surcharge? Most people would get rid of their 223 rifle, and purchase some other chambering in 22 caliber.
3. Crackdown on the gun shows and shut them down, if they have too many complaints lodged against them.
Government intervention.
4. Rein in the Castle laws that were extended to stand-your -ground laws.
Government intervention.
5. Both sides of the issue should be receptive to an open discussion.
I can agree, but we have to realize that an AR-15 is not more dangerous than any number of other firearms. The AR looks different, but it functions identically. Ammo sales? Maybe warrants a long hard look. Singling out one chambering gains nothing.
I can see merit in the discontinuing of high capacity magazine. No sporting, hunting, or tactical use that I am aware of.
Mike, B2BM etal.
OK, we are a "nation of laws". Which law already on the books prohibited a fellow from openning up in a theater or driving a truckload of immigrants into a tree and killing them? What new law are you going to write which will stop both of these things from happening in the future? Sorry guys, you Liberals and those Conservatives can write every law in the book, and you will never stop bad things.
You can lock every person in prison, and the only difference, the crimes will happen now in the prison. You can take away every gun, knife, stone, pill, drug and yet, those crimes will still happen. I.E. When was the last time a mass shooting happened at a gun show or NRA convention? Just doesn't happen. The nut jobs who would do these things are not suicidal. These shooters attack the unarmed and the sheep. Why?
Mike, I am assuming you are a Catholic. Our church preaches and preaches morality...sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If we do not abide by the supreme law of God, why would people abide by your laws?
Perhaps, my friendly progressives, it is time to admit your laws have made no difference. Period. We have to change the hearts of man. And obviously, we are failing at that.
Tophat said
"Again, I’m not looking for a government to do anything and I have stated my reason 3 times. I agree with you on that point."
No reason to be confused....
Proposals are just that, we'll hear a little bit of squawking but then we will move on. That's about as plain as I can put it.
"3. Crackdown on the gun shows and shut them down, if they have too many complaints lodged against them.
Government intervention.
4. Rein in the Castle laws that were extended to stand-your -ground laws.
Government intervention.
You call it government intervention but I call it reform.. In the first place, Government made the laws and it wasn't called government intervention back then.
The AR-15 is a metaphor for assault weapons and a culture of anything goes. I've always said that we should have multiple gun laws because guns might not be a problem in Montana but they are in inner city Chicago.
Last night I saw a chart where in 1990 about 70% of the people wanted stricter gun laws, today it's anywhere from 44%- 47% who want stricter gun laws. I don't have an answer for that.
dale
That's just it, I don't make laws but I abide by them. I don't live in a world where everything has to work perfectly or it's considered a failure.
I also don't want to go back to the 1880s where the OK corral was an everyday occurrence.
I don't hold myself out to be the gatekeeper the truth and I certainly don't need to be lectured about what the Church teaches because morality could be treating ALL people with proper respect, caring for the poor and being a good steward of the earth that we share with all people. Those things should come naturally.
And we're talking past each other because you're assuming I want more laws that can't possibly be passed...You are lecturing me for having a thought contrary to yours.
Tophat
I assume you are a reasonable man as most gun owners are;I really mean that.
It's hard to believe we are even having this civil discussion on this issue because I have not owned a gun for 40 years and none of my large extended family even owns one in Victoria,Texas City,El Paso,Austin,Houston or SA. It's not that we are against guns ;it's just that they don't appeal to us. My step dad never owned one neither did my grandfather...I fired all types of weapons in the military but it was just part of the job.
That was just background because you lost me in your discussion with EA. You were way over my head.
I hope you believe me when I say I don't want to take away anyone's gun rights. I can learn from people like you when my demands go too far. That's why I said proposals because they lead to discussions and common sense laws can derive from them. And those laws can be tinkered now and then to suit the situation.
Mike, our thoughts and objectives are absolutely identical. Our end results are the same. And, I would never lecture you or anyone. A law requires acceptance. We are moving farther and farther from acceptance. That is why it appears more and more bad is happening. Accept my apology if I appeared to be lecturing or preaching. Neither is my intention. Neither is the use of "slogans"... that would require me to be on a mailing list, watching a news network or being a member of a group. Thanks
Mike-
I don't know how we will keep guns out of the wrong hands, given the way things are currently structured. Perplexing at best.
Banning one class of firearm leaves all the rest at the ready. Hence it does nothing.(Obviously - if that would stop the violence- I don't know of a sane responsible American that would stand in the way.)
If it was the case that the "bad guys" only used this class if firearm,it would be a no brainer.
Unfortunately- not the case.
A few things the US could do-
Quit importing military surplus. AKs.Sks, etc. This have no sporting, hunting, collector value.
Place a much greater emphasize on the firearm industry policing itself.
Take the whole issue out of the Federal Government hands. The Feds has NEVER demonstrated ability to do anything correctly.
Put it at state and local level where it belongs. Good gun laws in Texas are much different than New York City.
When done, the Fed has to accept that states are going to "profile"- white,black,yellow,brown, makes no difference- if you do something unexpected we are going to take a very hard look at you.
I would question why a grad student is buying that particular gun as his first firearm. Ammo sales- same point. As it stands now, the merchant cannot ask any questions- he would just get sued.
There are many things that should have already been done- but they were not because if was the Fed.
Passing more laws at Fed level does absolutely nothing. That has been proven many times over and over.
One of the worst problems with this is the people that are campaigning for change are absolutely clueless. Our press is the worst violator. Politicians are making grand speeches, while they don't know the difference between a BAR and a Roger 10/22.
Meanwhile the folks that know the best about what to look for, ask,change are the people that take the most blame for lax laws. The NRA. As such, we sit on the sidelines with sorrow.
Dale
No apology is necessary for expressing how you feel but I disagree that our thoughts and objectives are in exact alignment. We are 180° apart on many issues and that's OK.
I've had some disagreements with EA and born2Bme (and I lost every time) on some issues but we're not enemies over it.
I don't agree that a law requires acceptance in the way that you put it. I am not an anarchist.
We all use slogans; catch phrases, sound bites, sayings, and known talking points but some not as often as others. You don't have to be on a mailing list or be a member of a group because they been around for while, to where they come as second nature. They are as common as saying “as my grandpa used to say" Nothing wrong with that and there's nothing wrong with identifying it.
Tophat
You stated “Place a much greater emphasize on the firearm industry policing itself.
Take the whole issue out of the Federal Government hands. The Feds has NEVER demonstrated ability to do anything correctly."
That is a partisan statement and not a verifiable fact.
This is where you and I will always disagree because the likelihood of the firearms industry policing itself is akin to the oil and petrochemical industry doing the same. "Trust me" they will say.... all the way to the bank. It's like the tobacco companies CEOs who swore up and down before congressional hearing that nicotine was not addictive. Greed = profits over safety.... “The only difference between man is opportunity."
The Feds are “we the people” and is not a separate incompetent entity. Gun laws are a Federal issue because we need a third party judge to govern the law in all 50 states. That doesn't mean that the Fed can't grant waivers to states.
I'm not a Tenther but if states have a complaint, we have that third branch of government, SCOTUS to sort things out.
Several states are currently overstepping their limits right now. Pennsylvania is another state that just proved that voter fraud is not prevalent in that state."According to frequently cited studies on voter fraud, there were a grand total of 13 "credible cases of in-person voter impersonation" -- one of the types of fraud most frequently targeted by voter ID champions -- recorded from 2000 to 2010. As Comedy Central's Indecision blog points out, exploding toilets and deaths by television are far more common."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/05/pennsylvania-voter-id-law_n_1652469.html
I for one am not a federal government hater; I am grateful to the EPA for clean air and water, the FDA for safe food, in the BATA, FBI and CIA and the intelligence community for keeping us safe. Not always perfect and either is the private sector.
Tophat
This is another area of disagreement I am with you but your other ideal seem reasonable to me. I think the Feds or a congressman can get expert testimony from gun manufacturers.
When done, the Fed has to accept that states are going to "profile"- white,black,yellow,brown, makes no difference- if you do something unexpected we are going to take a very hard look at you.
I have to assume that you didn't read about the " driving while black" issue in New Jersey Turnpike case where young black men were pulled over for questioning unproportionately to whites. The reason given was that minorities committed the most drug offenses but that premise is factually untrue. Racial profiling became a self fulfilling prophecy not to mention it violates the 4th and 14th amendment. One was for illegal searches and the other equal protection under the law.. Merchants will get sued you say! Grocery merchants card their customers every day.
What dah..I said " This is another area of disagreement I am with you but your other ideal seem reasonable to me.
I meant to say this is another area of disagreement I have with you but your other ideas seem reasonable to me.
OFF TOPIC but important if you are interested in facts.
"The Congressional Budget Office projects that the Supreme Court’s health care reform decision will leave 3 million people who would have otherwise been covered under the Affordable Care Act without insurance, but will reduce the 10-year price tag of the law by $84 billion. The new projections suggest that the GOP’s recently renewed effort to repeal the entire law would increase 10-year budget deficits by over $100 billion.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/supreme-court-obamacare-cbo-medicaid.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
And I continue to ask why?
"Less than one week after the mass shooting which left 12 dead at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., the Denver Post reports background checks for people wanting to purchase firearms in the state have jumped more than 41 percent.
"It's been insane," Rocky Mountain Guns and Ammo employee Jake Meyers told the paper, saying there were already 15-20 people waiting outside the store when he arrived at work Friday morning, just hours after the massacre.
Over the weekend, the Colorado Bureau of Investigations approved 2,887 background checks for people seeking to purchase a firearm, according to the Post.
The spike follows an example set in Arizona, where gun sales soared following a shooting which left six dead and 13 wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, according to Bloomberg.
I do have a saying my dad told me. "In 1947, Hubert Humphry visited my college campus in Duluth. Immediately, I liked what he said, and became a Democrat. In 1959, I became an elementary principal and started paying real taxes. Then I became a Republican."
Bill Zuck
I never made my Dad's initial mistake. Dale ;)
Lol...that's a variation of being a Democrat until they got mugged....That's not original ...:-) It,s an in-house republican joke...You don't want to hear the counter to that.
Honest, that is what my Dad told me @ 1975 when I was about to vote for the first time. Another original... as I was leaving for Texas A&M. "Son, I will bet you a cup of coffee. When you return home from college you will be a flaming liberal." Guess who lost the bet, Mike!
I miss my Dad.
I have no need to make up slogans. Learned them all from Dad. And guess where my son learned them!!!
Until the next time around, awaiting your next blog.
Guns, by their very nature, are dangerous.
Our founding fathers could clearly see the need for private citizen to be armed. In studying history, I have found they had many different reasons. I concurred with their wisdom.
To expend effort to ban, limit one single class/type of firearm is an exercise in wasted motion. -- One single caliber/chambering are likewise useless action.
An effort to monitor large sales of ammo is likewise futile. All of the horribly wanton actions of murders have required less than 100 rounds.
Personally, I could care less if the AR-15 class of firearm was outlawed. I have no want or desire to own one. However, that does not means that others do desire to have one in their collection. As previously mentioned, many military (active or retired) desire to own one, as well as many collectors. This is very much their right.
I suggest spending the all the time, money, and effort towards detection of firearms falling into the wrong hands.
Legislation to limit these particular firearms is akin to putting a band aid on a severed leg.
May looks good, but totally ineffective. Perhaps there are those that will feel they obtained some great, while in reality... nothing. But they can walk away saying, "I did something."
Post a Comment