“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 commentskirkz, really, and roughcut
Frankly - based on your cavalier comments and (probably false) bravado around the subject of firearms and killing another human being, the three of you are, to me, poster children for the kind of "I'm so tough, I'll beat my chest, shoot first, and ask questions later" people who should NOT be wearing concealed weapons, and NOT the kind of people I would want in a mall with me if some disturbed person opened fire.
The guy who says, "yea, I'll buy 6 new assault weapons, and I'd shoot a nutjob in the face".........not my idea of a responsible gun owner, and probably much more likely to have poor aim and judgement in an emergency situation, resulting in shooting a bystander, or someone waving a toy gun while playing with their kid in order to "stop them before the killing started".
My wish, gentlemen, is that these large clips and assault weapons were NEVER introduced to the public at large.
It will take a long time to weed them out of the populace.
But if they didn't exist and weren't available, I believe lives would be saved.
If guns kill people, then
If guns kill people, then spoons make people fat. It's the choices people make, not the instrument that affects outcomes. Making guns illegal won't stop evil-doers any more than making drugs illegal stops drug dealers. It will only keep the honest people at a disadvantage.
same as it has always been
The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution as interpreted by the US Supreme Court throughout the years provides the right to virtually unfettered access to arms to all US citizens, with certain limited exceptions and provisos. This “right” is considered one of the many freedoms (i.e. religion, speech, privacy, etc.) that define America. In the whole our freedoms have been defended against threats foreign and domestic. The defense of our freedom is captured succinctly in the often quoted axiom “freedom is not free.” It has a price. The interred remains of our service men and women on distance shores is testament of this truth.
Standing alone, the right to bear arms also is not free and comes with a price. That price is the carnage of Sandy Hook and the countless acts of gun violence that have come before and no doubt still to come.
In the aftermath of Sandy Hook the clarion call has been sounded that “this time is different,” “we have reached a tipping point,” “meaningful change is coming.” I disagree. No measure of gun control or mental health care improvement regardless of good intentions or heartfelt purpose will provide the meaningful change that will prevent another senseless slaughter or significantly curb gun violence. Our freedom of arms has flooded our society with more guns then living souls and our intent is to let it continue with minimal restrictions. The vast majority of gun violence perpetrators are not mentally ill. But most importantly we have not reached “tipping point” for “meaningful change” because a tipping point is not a simple majority and meaningful change is not restricting access to certain guns.
It literally comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. How many more Americans must die from gun violence before the benefits derived from the freedom to own and posses a gun is outweighed by the cost. And to reach a tipping point the view that the cost outweighs the benefit must be reached by a super majority. No politician or regulation will make this happen. It is personal to each individual. Put another way, the freedom to bears arms must be superseded by the value of another competing freedom en mass in order for meaningful change to occur. That other freedom is clear: the freedom to live without the fear of being gunned down.
The meaningful change is the abandonment of the 2nd Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court and the reclamation of guns in our society. Not to fear. This will never happen. This type of moral courage does not exist in our society in sufficient volume and never will. Instead we will piece meal ineffective regulations that may bump a metric one way or the other. Leaders will proclaim victory and the offended will decry the violation of their Constitutional right and freedom, when neither is true. And in a time not to distance, the butchers bill will be tendered again and will be paid with interest.
@H66
Your statement is a textbook example of a false equivalence. Basically, it's kindergarden logic.
A spoon's basic function is to move food around.
An assault rifle's basic function is to kill human beings.
If all the guns in private
If all the guns in private ownership were gone tomorrow, would that make elementary schools safe?
An elementary school is a concentration of small children guarded by unarmed women. If a fully grown man wants to do harm to the children of an elementary school, he doesn't need a gun, or a club, or something sharp to do it. He just needs his bare hands and there is nothing standing in his way.
I'll bet a lot of those women who died trying to protect their children in this shooting died wishing they were armed with a gun.
guns
First, no one is talking about taking away all the guns. Second, ye of little faith when it comes to women. You can bet if an unarmed man came into a school and tried to harm children with his bare hands, the women would take him down. Never under-estimate the power of women trying to protect kids. Third, you assume the only adults or teachers in an elementary school are women. Fourth, for you to presume to know what the women had in their thoughts when they died is just pure disgusting.
kiki
If you find it so disgusting for me to presume that the adults who died in the school shooting died wishing they had the means to kill the man murdering their schoolchildren, may I have permission to be disgusted with you for presuming that their thoughts were focused on something else?
As far as my faith in women, I have a lot of faith in women. Many women around the world die fighting to protect themselves or their children from a male attacker. But thanks to nature, the odds of winning a physical confrontation between a man and a woman are stacked against the woman. Never underestimate those physical differences when thinking about a women's options in defending herself against a man.
The point of this commentary piece above is about guns, and its theme is in the following quote: "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. " So NRA members and gun-owning citizens are supposed to bear the guilt of this tragedy seems to be the theme of this piece. And the focus is on the guns, not the murderer.
The point of my post is that in a gun-free world, a deranged man is not prevented from attacking those weaker than himself. If he thinks he needs weapons to aid himself, the local hardware store is stocked with tools that double as medieval assault weapons against anyone who is unarmed. I hope the focus from this tragedy ends up being on preventing that guy from showing up at a school, or handling him if he does. There will be no comfort to society if in the next mass-killing, the murder victims are killed with a weapon other than a gun. Law-abiding gun owners do not scare me. People without guns who wish to act on their murderous intentions do.
Trust ME
You statement is kind chauvinistic. There are JUST as many male teachers in elementary as there are females.
@Trust Me
I dont profess to know what the adults nor the children that were killed were thinking when they were gunned down, never said I did. For me, your statement that they "died wishing they were armed with a gun" crosses the line of impropriety.
There is this constant fear-mongering that everyone wants to take away all the guns out there. Perhaps there are a few that do, but most reasonable people would say thats going too far. But I agree with another comment made earlier, assault weapons should have never been allowed in the first place. People were doing just fine killing each other with the guns that were already available and when assault weapons were introduced into the mix, it just made things worse and there is no reason to have them. Next people will be complaining that they cant have their own personal surface to air missiles. You can still have your guns to protect yourself and go hunting, you dont need assault weapons to accomplish either task. Enough is enough.
cars vs guns
I find it extremely hilarious that people are pointing out the death toll from vehicle ACCIDENTS. Seriously folks, have you ever heard of someone going on a killing spree with a vehicle? How many people would still be alive if the dude from Virginia Tech tried to run people over on campus instead of going on a killing rampage?
superhero: Cars vs guns
I think one of the points that some folks are trying to illustrate is when some say 'you don't need a gun' there is some validity in pointing out you don't need a car. You want a car, and it is convenient for you to have a car. And yes - whether it makes you mad or not to point it out the fact is cars do kill far more people in the united states then do guns. Way more. And many many irresponsible people do own cars.
If you assign zero value to someones interest in something then it's a real easy equation. They are wrong and everything they are interested in has no merit. Why because you appointed yourself to decide this.
I have no interest in owning a .223 bushmaster or any similar rifle. Zero. But do I have the right to judge or deny some other person their interests if they are law abiding citizens? Personally I think many who dwell on such armament have a braggart inferiority complex and I don't really enjoy being around them - but I believe they have a right to pursue and engage in their interests.
If I were to make a list of things that I don't approve of and would like to see eliminated from mankind because in my view they have no value. We don't need them and they really offend me:
1) Rock climbing
2) Rap music
3) cell phones for welfare recipients
4) the purchase of red bull with food stamps
5) 95% of country music (keep some Willie Nelson)
6) Line dancing
7) cigarettes
8) Bartlett hospital
9) The booze store and dive bars downtown
That list took me all of 2 minutes.
These things have no value - the practitioners are scum. None of these things are needed. Why? I say so.
Cars are dangerous period. They kill and maim loads of people. I think many people should not own one and I want to be the one to chose who - because their needs, interests or uses are immaterial. Believe me, I am a good judge of such things. I am in fact an expert.
I am way way way more likely to be t-boned in a car - particularly in this town - then I am to be victim of gun fire from a enthusiast.
.
READ, RESEARCH, THEN QUIT BASHING THE NRA!
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml
I wrote to them, the NRA, lock-stock-and barrel a while ago (if any of you can figure out my flash in the pan joke). Ping - I hit my target with that gun first try that day. Those guns take time to load, and time to think before shooting - step by step loading, then pull it into the locked position, then raise the stock, then aim the barrel.
The "flash in the pan" punchline - YOU CAN'T SEE ME IF YOU ARE SHOOTING.
My dead daddy would agree with the current NRA membership survey results, if not to push them further. Consider me an original, a legacy of the Evergreen Sportsmen's Club.
Thank you NRA! -< -< -< -< -<
Sandy Hook incident has changed the national conversation.
Parents, grandparents, teachers see their own in the faces of the Newtown victims.
It is time to take responsibility for our national culture and not let it be owned by assault rifle and high-capacity magazine industry. Or the extreme-violent video game industry.
The Adminstration's Task Force led by Biden is a good place to start. There will be opportunity for lots of reasoned input, just as these discussions here present a good variety of points of views, most of them respectfully shared.
What do we really need? Our children to be safe, and free, and happy. Guns for hunting and for self-defense. Improved health care of all kinds. Less isolation for some. Greater opportunity and less income inequality for all.
Teachers were willing to give up their lives for those kids. What are we willing to give up for the improved (not perfect) safety, freedom, and happiness of all our children? These rights of the children should be paramount in the discussion.
follow the money
follow the moneyfollow the moneyfollow the money
Who benefits from the masses buying more guns? The gun lobby. Gun manufacturers and gun distributors. Of course they want gun against gun against gun. Everyone should own one for your 'safety' and the pocket of the gun industry.