“Guns do not kill, people kill.” What an irresponsible and disingenuous statement. Moreover, this absurd assertion often goes with “there are more than enough gun laws on the books, and we just need to enforce the ones that exist”. Horsepucky! People kill people and too often with guns. Guns are the means and the instrument for killing and not some neutral social cohort. Even more unfortunate, there is a fatal intersection between the mentally disturbed and readily available assault weapons. Despite this fatal flaw, the NRA is fighting hard to preserve assault weapon accessibility.
However, it is not all the NRA’s fault. Greatly contributing to the problem is society’s ongoing denial over mental illness — from diagnoses, routine screening, treatment and housing/confinement. Families affected by mental illness often have little or no insurance to help. They find minimal institutional help unless a crime is involved and know it is just a matter time before their physical control of a troubled family member will fail. Dealing with adult children who only periodically act out is particularly difficult.
A single mother’s story told in association with the Newtown shootings speaks volumes: “I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am James Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.” I say yes, indeed. But we need real action on both mental health and guns.
There is no doubt that a common denominator between those who are bent on revenge, infamy, mass murder and suicide is a high-tech, high-capacity killing, assault weapon. Technology has made these weapons very affordable and the NRA has made sure they are readily available.
For too long, the anti-gun control NRA has operated freely within a timid society. They have made it easy to acquire and transfer guns, which are estimated now at 300 million within a civilian population of 308 million. When the inevitable gun violence occurs they simply mumble under their breath and shift the blame to lax law enforcement. How socially crass is that? Unfortunately, too few citizens and legislators are willing to stand up to those who are bought or threatened by the NRA. And that is truly OUR failure and is something that can change.
The NRA’s strategy has been both clever and consistent. They make prevention a mission impossible and force us to use inferior missions of rescue and body retrieval. Moreover, the NRA type doctrine implicitly assumes that 20 children and 6 adults tragically lost is a terrible but acceptable tradeoff in a dangerous world, where gun rights are sacrosanct. How self-defeating.
Writing letters, attending a vigil, signing petitions, saying a prayer at church or joining an organization are good but simply not enough. Remaining a silent witness is totally irresponsible. It merely equates to a strategy of personal statistics: my chances of being a victim are less than being struck by lightning — or any bad news will most likely be someone else’s problem.
So what is the take away here? From last election we learned that big money does not buy America. Likewise, the NRA does not have to dictate our safety and well-being. Above all, the NRA agenda kills--just as if they pulled the trigger themselves. And we are just as guilty when we standby and do nothing. The choice is simple: abdicate and further compromise our family’s safety or say enough is enough. It may be only a small start, but indeed it will be a start.
• Mehrkens is a Juneau resident and gun owner.
Comments (76)
Add commentApples and Oranges
Comparing cars to guns is myopic (either purposefully or ignorantly).
Most alcohol and cars that have resulted in death are not used with the intent to kill people. However, most firearm related deaths ARE intended to kill people.
I think that when I hear "guns don't kill people, people kill people" that some people want to mistake weapon for tool and expect others to believe that the gun in his hand was just as frivolous as the color of the shirt he was wearing.
Guns and mentally ill
I believe it was Reagan that opened up the mental institutions, and allowed the mentally onto the streets. Now most states have laws that say a mentally ill person has their right to be ill as long as they are not a threat to themselves or others.
This threat MUST be witnessed by more than one person. They DON'T have to take their meds if they don't want too. This said it will difficult to control the mentally ill even with more laws pertaining to them
Rough Cut
I thought I recognized you. You were in the SAME ward as I was.
bilb
well played
Who makes determinations ?
If you have a build up to a bad divorce and you go to see a therapist because you're experiencing depression are you a mentally ill person ?
The part time fill in grad student asks if you ever feel like ending your life. You respond that you really don't think about it that much but I guess once in a while sort of but not really - life is so hard lately. Are you a mentally ill person? You probably are (or potentially will be) on some government bureaucrats computer data base as big brother tries to stratify and hard quantify in the ice cold world of half a-- data.
Of course we all know that therapists and therapy are all absolutely ridged and uniform scientific art forms - right across the board nationally - everywhere you go it's phenomenal.
So is this temporarily depressed and likely easily treatable person is permanently denied his new firearm owners mental health card because of some isolated bureaucrats key board strokes. There is no appeal - or it's so complicated no one can figure it out.
The firearm owners mental health card was established as part of the hysterical and ill thought out back lash of some single kooks horrible actions and it now effects the rights of millions. Our temporarily depressed (for good temporary reason) individual is branded for life in the bureaucrats world as suicidal - a mentally ill person.
This "mentally ill person" is denied the right to purchase or own a firearm. A shame in this individuals case since one of his life's greatest joys and therapies is harmlessly strolling through the quiet woods looking for rabbits with his .22.
Non firearm owners regard both him and his needs as unimportant and certainly expendable - for the greater good.
After all he might be dangerous.
The government in the mean time is quite happy in its expansion of access to all details of your most personal health records.
America in the mean time has become a much smaller place.
I know this seems like a silly and overblown scenario - but is it really? How do you sort out the kooks from the 'no problems'? Who makes these decisions and how do they make them? How do you make hard structured programs to approach mental risk issues in a uniform way?
Careful when you tread in these areas. America is still a basically free country and tolerant and respectful of a broad range and diversity of people.
Blame game
Since many seem to be kicking the "blame can" around the rink, why not go after the big drug manf. who are pushing the one pill cures all nonesense. I would like to hear about the use of anti-depressants and thier link to gun violence.
Or how about turning things around and recoginzing that a nut case is a nut case, and their feelings and rights mean less than the person they are trying to hurt's well being? Being a nut case is not a protected class to the point that you are entitled to go "postal" when you feel sad about yourself. Better approach, use the gun on yourself instead of strangers. It would make all of us, including the nut case feel better about things.
To get in front of comments, yes I am heartless about these punk, loser, murders.
Why Not
Just give TSA the task of securing our schools? Everyone knows how good a job they do. The added benefit is that it will give the government a chance to get kids used to "interacting" with them.
A child left to himself...
...bringeth his mother to shame.
I cannot count the number of shots I've seen fired on movies I've watched in the past week. Not all of them were fired by the bad guys. Add that to television episodes and video games and you'll see more gun violence than a world war could duplicate. The troubling thing about this is that there is little or no accountability of the industries that produce these media available to anyone with the one eyed monster in virtually every livingroom in America. How often is this appliance employed as a babysitter by parents who are too busy to instill proper values in the minds of their children? The victims of this visual violence never die and the pervasive gun violence in these media are not only condoned, but, glorified. The silence from the activist movie stars that make millions in this industry is deafening. Instead, we hear the same old rhetoric that would target personal firearm ownership. I suggest that buying a Bushmaster with a high capacity magazine and emptying it on your TV would be a good start to finding the solution to the problem. Armed adults in schools couldn't hurt. Oh, you can feel safer attending a movie at the theatre when I go.
Trigger locks
A few years ago 4 teens went to a friends house and one of them was accidentally shot and killed by a gun "just laying around". At the time I suggested had we had a trigger lock law (and the owner was in compliance) that teen would not have died.
Of course the gun crowd on this site "shouted" me down "this is not a time for politics - time for grieving". So I posed the question if not now when? Even posed to the Empire that they conduct a survey / discussion of this issue at a "more appropriate" later date.
But of course nothing was done and the event (and the teen) were forgotten. Had we had the discussion and the appropriate policy put into place, the bill could have been named for that unfortunate teen, and all those that have died since who still may have been with us could thank us and remembered the teen, his death would not have been in vain.
Had this policy that originated in Juneau, and then spread across the country, 26 innocent residents of Newtown would still be with us.
The nonsense that "guns don't kill people . . ." Just ask what the difference between the Portland Mall shooting and the Newtown shooting? In Portland the gun jammed and the score of intended victims had an opportunity to escape.
"Those who desire to give up
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
– President Thomas Jefferson
I am a gun owner. I own several including AR-15 style rifles (don't tell big brother). I have used them for work, sport and would use it to protect my family if the need be. They are not evil because I do not use them for evil. The sensationalist, left-wing media would have the american public believe that any and all types of weapons that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition and are semi-auto or full-auto are tools of the devil himself.
What has been left out of the not so unbiased media is the fact that in the hands of good people, these weapons save lives and do have a purpose in society.
Feb 12 2007 Trolley Square Mall; An armed off duty officer stopped a shooting rampage by engaging the suspect neutralizing him.
Dec 12 2007 New Life Church Co; Armed shooter was stopped by an armed parishioner after opening fire during services. Shooter was neutralized.
Jan 16 2002 Apalachian Law School; Student opened fire in a Dean's office and was confronted by two other students who retreived poersonally owned guns from their vehicles and stopped the rampage. Shooter was taken into custody.
Oct 1 1997 Peral Highschool Miss; Student opens fire inside the school and was stopped by the principal who retreived a handgun from his truck. The student was taken into custody.
Aug 2012 Early, Tx; Armed man begins shooting in an RV park. First arriving officer gets pinned down by rifle fire as the suspect manuvers to engage him. An armed citizen engages and neutralizes the suspect, saving the life of the officer and many park tennants.
Dec 11 2012 Clackamas Towne Mall; An active shooter was confronted by an armed citizen after shooting three in the food court. The shooter retreated to a stairwell where he took his own life.
Aug 1 1966 Austin, TX; Charles Whitman opened fire on the university of Texas campus killing 17. Whitman was stopped by officers accompanied by armed citizens who climbed the tower and neutralized him.
For the sake of brevity, I will say there are many, many more stories of shootings stopped or prevented by armed citizens that you will never hear about in the media.
The shooting last week in Oregon was all over the media. It was widely publicized that the shooter had an AR-15. Nowhere did you hear that he was stopped by an armed citizen!
The answer to the problem does not lie with banning lawful carriers from possessing firearms. It lies with keeping those firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them.
Oh, and here is one more, Dec
Oh, and here is one more,
Dec 17 2012, two days ago but nowhere in the media; A shooter attmepts to open fire in a crowded movie theater but is stopped by an armed citezen who fires one round into his chest, effectivly stopping the threat before he can kill a single person.
Again, this is nowhere in the media. My guess is that because no one but the shooter died, it was not sensational enough to report on. Or maybe because the fact that this armed citizen (who was also a woman) stopped the threat with a legally possessed firearm, it didn't fit into thier leftist agenda.
Your guess as to why this was not news worthy for the national media is as good as mine...
Gun control in Japan
This is interesting:
http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/18/getting-a-gun-in-japan/?hpt=hp_c4
@Swimmer, Our right to own
@Swimmer, Our right to own firearms has nothing to do with hunting, however protection is another question which is what the 2nd is about and not from criminal’s as we know them. You mention organized sports like Skeet. There are organized shoots where AR-15s are the norm; one event is in Camp Perry OH. There are many across the country. Also I do not know anyone who hunts deer with an AR, in most states they are illegal to use for such game. I do use mine for varmint hunting when I go down south due to the accuracy they can produce. @KP you can still buy large magazines for these rifles, I just purchased a couple yesterday. They never went away, even during the so called assault weapons ban. That is why this ban is worthless and will not do a thing to curb violence.
One other point to mention, did anyone here know that this nut-case tried to purchase a rifle from a local gun store and was turned down? @Leonardo how many laws did this kid break? Your idea on trigger locks was not lost, however it is just another law which can be broken. The owner may not want to place a lock on the gun, even if it is a law, or if it was how hard would it have been for the thing to be cut off? @Really, you left one out. The Sandy shooter finally took his life when an armed officer had approached him with his firearm at the ready. How many more would he have killed if that officer had not shown up?
Perspective
I think very few people in this debate, even in the wake of last week's tragedy, are talking about taking away all guns. Even with the murder of those innocent children as a catalyst for change, such a sweeping endeavor would still be politically unfeasible and logistically unworkable. That being said, as citizens, we have the right to decide where to draw the line on what sort of weapons should be available to the public.
I agree with your lament that interactions between CCW permit holders and potential mass shooters are not more widely publicized. Access to such empirical information is critical to informed policy debate. That being said, even with good data, it’s nearly impossible to draw absolute conclusions given all of the variables. For instance, there was indeed a CCW permit holder present in the Oregon case this month. However, his impact on the situation, even by his own account, is unclear. Another example… many gun control advocates who oppose CCW permit worry that an increase in CCW may lead to increase in crime. Now, depending on which gun control/crime researcher you ask, you’ll get varying answers on CCW’s impact on reducing crime. But, almost all of those researchers, regardless of which side of the issue they tend to fall, agree that the data does not support the claim that CCW leads to an increase in crime. The more information, the better, even if it doesn’t fit your preferred narrative.
Back to my first point… If we, as citizens of this nation and out of concern for the public good have every right to demand that our fellow civilian citizens can’t have legal access to tools of killing such as nerve gas, rocket propelled grenades, land mines, artillery, tactical nuclear weapons, attack helicopters, or fully-armed fighter jets, then we certainly have the right to move that line to include assault rifles.
really and milspec - -
some good points. I'm not a 'ban all guns' type - I own 3.
But I'm a practical person. Even Skeet and trap - practice for hunting birds, have practical purposes. I understand the idea that a populace has the right to be armed and defend itself against foes domestic and foreign. I think it's pretty far-fetched to imagine that all guns in the US would be confescated, and equally far-fetched to insinuate that our own government would turn on us and intern us if we're not all packing.
Really - I think it is a dangerous assumption to assume every person with a CCW permit is able, well-adjusted, and responsible. Are some? Yes. Do some get lucky and prevent a crime? Yes. Could you find stories where people overreacted, or shot a bystander? Probably.
I simply would rather a disturbed person walking into a mall, theatre, or school - have to chamber a round every time, or reload after 6, than have the ability to keep pulling the trigger 30 times or more in quick succession, giving someone, even if not armed, an opportunity to intervene or get away.
In my opinion, this kind of limitation would not impact 99% of the sportsmen and gun enthusiasts out there, so it's a good trade. If competative shooting is about accuracy, one round at a time should be enough.
Like one touchdown at a time?
Give me a break. It's not the concept that "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" that bothers me as much as the fact that even if I decide to own a gun in spite of a ban on guns, the criminal outlaws will still have me out gunned. Let's just all surrender! Will the law enforcement win or will the villains prevail? Meanwhile, decent law abiding citizens fall victims in the crossfire. I won't be cowering behind my door with a muzzle loader.
It is also interesting to
It is also interesting to note that the psychotropic drug he was on has a side effect of violent behavior. Hmmm.
“If competitive shooting is
“If competitive shooting is about accuracy, one round at a time should be enough.” Not so Swimmer, several competitive shooting which I was involved in down south, enabled you to not only shot for accuracy but you shot against a clock. It depends what kind of competition you are competing in. There are several.
I understand what you are saying, so please don’t be one of those who say I have mine to heck with yours. We all enjoy different kinds of shooting sports. Mine happens to be long range one shot at a time. BTW, a person with training can take 3 ten round magazines mounted side by side drop one and reinsert a full one in a blink of an eye.
so let's say we do away with
so let's say we do away with semi-automatic rifles and handguns. i'm not all that up to date on guns, but that would perhaps limit people to single action pistols and bolt or lever action rifles. how does that solve the problem? my concern is that starting with one ban is really just the first step in a complete ban on all firearms. We've got plenty of laws on the books to deal with gun crimes, but laws don't prevent anything. they are just a guideline for how to hand out punishment to people who have broken those laws. DUI cases are a perfect example. the law is pretty clear about that, but we still have people killed every day by drunk or impared drivers.
i think the bigger problem is that we don't value human life as much as we should. look at what we see on tv and in the movies, video games, youtube, etc. there seems to be a desire to glorify violence these days that we didn't see 35 or 40 years ago.
good point, milspec
...I do understand that there are many classes of shooting, some against the clock (though in the olympics, I think they are bolt-action, one shell at a time?) and I think that probably 99.9% of the people who seriously take part in this kind of sport are the kind of responsible people you would WANT to have access to firearms.
I'd suggest that most people who commit the kinds of crimes we'd like to avoid don't have the training to replace a magazine as quickly as a professional - still - it's faster than reloading a revolver, or drawing back a bolt to insert another shell.
It's clearly a rock and a hard place scenario, and I agree with much of what you say, Milspec. I know many people who are responsible gun owners, and excellent marksmen. To me, the "cowboy" attitude exhibited by some on this board has no place in gun ownership, and gets no respect from me. I was taught that the barrel doesn't even point at someone when the gun is unloaded and in pieces for cleaning. That's just the way it is.
I think probably as with most things, there are a number of contributing factors - our treatment of folks with mental health issues, and pervasive violence in games and TV that very young kids are exposed to certainly don't help. But I don't think you can point the finger at those things and leave out the fact that as a nation we have very easy access to guns.
For me, I just choose to hope that if the large clips and assault-type weapons were much harder to get - fewer children will die next time because the killer will have to stop and reload.
Thanks for the conversation, Milspec.
Wow, kp!
Guess I missed that one!
Ritalin vs. parental attention (i.e. an azz beating). Let's blame an inanimate piece of iron and wood! That's the ticket!
Hope deferred...
...maketh the heart sick. C'mon, swimmergirl. Wouldn't you prefer to have an equal chance of survival as the assailant that doesn't give a rat's azz what the legal magazine capacity is? You, like many of us, was raised to shoot guns, havest game and have a healthy respect for firearms and the mortality of creatures that fall to them. But, this ain't the podunk hills mentality that we grew up with. It ain't all about the "one shot, one kill" Robert Deniro film (The Deer Hunter) attitude. Go to the theatre. Go to the highschool. Go to the elementary school. Who's safe? It's time to crack down on the threat. And it won't happen through legislation that disarms or under arms the citizen. Swimmergirl! Buy a Mini 14 with a 20 round clip... Now... While you can. And, keep a Glock under your pillow. You will be safer. Your neighbors will be safer. I WILL BE SAFER!
"I simply would rather a
"I simply would rather a disturbed person walking into a mall, theatre, or school - have to chamber a round every time, or reload after 6, than have the ability to keep pulling the trigger 30 times or more in quick succession, giving someone, even if not armed, an opportunity to intervene or get away."
Swimmergirl, would you rather a shooter have to chamber a round every time they shoot into a crowd of innocent people? Or would you rather have a person in that crowd put the shooter down before they had a chance to take the life of an innocent person? I know if my family were in that crowd, I would want someone to put a bullet into the face of the shooter and stop the killing before it happend! Even if that bullet came from a high capacity magazine or an assault rifle.
Are there people out there who carry and shouldn't? Yes! The difference is that when you legislate guns and ammo, the people who commit these crimes are not going to stop carrying. It is the law abiding citizens (the ones you want carrying) who will no long be able to react and stop these threats.
Do you think the shooter in CT would really have not carried out his plan simply because it was illegal to own high capacity magazines or an assault rifle? No! This kid probably broke 30 different laws before he even stepped foot into the school that morning! Laws mean nothing to these people. Last I looked, it was illegal to murder someone. To date, that law has stopped none of these incidents from happening!
Logical fallacy
To state "To date, that law has stopped none of these incidents from happening" is a truism, with the subtext a logical fallacy.
Clearly, the incidents of which we are aware occured because the perpetrator(s) broke the law (against murder).
There is no way to know, however, how many incidents did NOT occur due to the fact that murder is against the law, because they did not happen! The potential perpetrators chose NOT to break the law, which in those cases functioned as a deterrent.
Neither side in this argument,
whether it be a knee-jerk reaction to ban assault rifles or high capacity clips; or to buy as many guns as you can while they're still available---seem to me to be addressing the core issue, any more than the answers our society settled on after school shootings first reared their ugly heads: That of turning our schools into lock-down facilities which more and more resemble prisons.
That's the "solution" I'm afraid is going to be applied, now to elementary schools as well; as our society devolves more and more into a security state---Surveillance, advanced security systems, Total Information Awareness programs where our "files" are tracked and continuously updated, including words, buying preferences, our current locations, and soon down to our genes and even thoughts...
All that public money being siphoned off to further guard our society, incidentally to many of the same people who make the weapons used to continually threaten it---Anyone else see the irony? All while funds are drained away from social programs, mental health treatment, "entitlements"...
If there is a solution, it's not one which can be enacted in a set of laws passed between election cycles---This is one tragic symptom of a much larger and more complex problem than can be addressed by a weapons ban, OR by buying up as many guns as we can, or giving kindergarten teachers guns and bullet-proof vests.
We're staring the conundrum of a free society squarely in the face here, the very meaning of freedom, and, critically, our responsibility to each other within its framework---Large, complicated issues which are being conveniently dodged by the proponents of either argument, where quick fixes usually result in quick money in SOMEBODY'S pocket.
An assault weapons ban (which is going to send sales through the roof, as though it weren't already there), which incidentally plays into the goals of an ever more powerful government, one which is actively seeking a monopoly on force?
Or join the rush and buy more guns? We'll never have parity with the military, so that particular part of the 2nd amendment isn't nearly as valid as it used to be.
We'll argue these points while our kids become more and more prisoners of OUR system, and those in need of basic mental health care, or health care of any kind, are consigned to poverty, homelessness, and an early death---One where suicide by cop becomes more and more of an option, and the amount of collateral damage just adds to the media attention.
It's a win-win for someone, but it isn't us.
Eloquent and insightful
as usual, Jamison. Well said.
Yep, jamison...
...quite the conundrum, indeed. Guess I'll err on the protective side. Methinks those in closer proximity to me will benefit from the extra security...beknown to them or not.
parents
We dont know all the facts yet surrounding the Sandy shooting but we know the mother had guns and ammo in the home and her son had mental issues. Somehow he gained access to those guns and the result was 20 babies dead, some with as many as 11 bullets in them as well as 6 adults, gone in a matter of seconds.
Years ago we had someone back in the woods, shooting a high-powered rifle towards several houses in our area, including ours. We called the police who couldnt go in the woods after the person, for fear of being shot. The police said there was nothing they could do, they left and we were left to hunkering down and staying away from windows. Eventually the shooting stopped. We were lucky that no one was injured or killed. Due to the time of day it occurred in, the police figured it was more than likely a kid after school who got a hold of their parents gun. My point is that the Sandy shooter, if he had mental issues, should have been treated no differently than having a young child in the home. Parents are told (but dont always listen) to keep guns away from your kids.
I am not against the local gun range. I think it would be great if everyone who uses a gun was required to attend gun safety training but they arent. Just as I feel that anyone who uses a boat should be required to attend boat safety training but they arent. But my view is since we cant be assured that parents will keep guns away from their kids, at the very least, I see nothing wrong in banning assault weapons. It doesnt stop killings but it mitigates the death tolls.
Really - just an FYI
At that Dec 17th theater incident, it wasn't an "armed citizen", it was an "armed off-duty Sheriff's Deputy". Just want to be clear on the facts.
@Rough Cut
Your incessant need to tout your own manhood probably stems from the fact that you're not very confident in it to begin with.