Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw) Guest Blogger
You may recall that after the horrible Tucson shooting massacre, I wrote a piece for this blog suggesting that it might be a good time to consider banning deadly weapons and the high-capacity magazines of the type that the alleged killer used on that fateful day. It was a difficult issue, but I thought then and still think now that it is an important issue that needs to be discussed by not only us, but by the American public through their Representatives and Senators in Congress. With that prior posting in mind, I was shocked to read a story earlier this week about the president of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre, who blamed the shootings on government policies in a recent speech to the CPAC conference on Thursday, February 10th.
You did read that correctly. The head of one of the biggest lobbying organizations in the country went in front of those “reasonable and moderate” CPAC members and made the claim that it wasn’t guns or ammunition that caused the deaths of 6 people and the wounding of 13 bystanders. “LaPierre said U.S. gun laws provide more protection to killers like the Virginia Tech and Tucson shooters than to the victims of their attacks, and suggested the current environment puts women at risk for rape. He condemned “gun-free zones and anti-self defense laws that protected the safety of no one except the killers and condemned the victims to death without so much as a prayer. “Government policies are getting us killed,” he said. “ CBS News.com
Mr. LaPierre goes on to give the usual response that guns don’t kill people, people do. He even suggested that if people with guns were there they could have prevented some of the death and destruction. I guess he didn’t bother to read that one gentleman who was packing a gun at the event, almost shot one of the people trying to subdue the alleged killer. Doesn’t he know that people can carry a concealed weapon already in Arizona? Where is this “gun-free zone” that he was referring to? It certainly wasn’t in Tucson. I also am confused how the Virginia Tech shooter was aided by the government?
Why is it asking too much to limit even the size of a magazine? Why does the NRA continually blame government policies that weren’t even applicable in the Tucson shootings? Wouldn’t it make sense to at least discuss making it harder for mentally ill people to buy guns legally? Why does anyone listen to the NRA at all? As usual, I have more questions than answers, but I was hoping you would help me!
Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
you’d no doubt feel safer without sports cars, SUVs and large trucks on the roadway. If not, you should, as those are most likely to be involved in a cycle-motor vehicle collision.
Add in the young, and the elderly as demographics, toss in the distracted Mommies with a minivan or SUV of unsecured/whining children, and you’re a target clad in Lycra®.
Is it the vehicle or the operator? Is it the operator without the skill set required to maintain adequate control? That was my point, be proficient or leave it at home.
I’d wager by your serious cycler garb, you’re in far greater danger if a life-altering or life-ending street collision, than a firearms-related incident.
Unless of course, you only cycle in a velodrome.
Stay hydrated.
43North,
I have no intention of purchasing a gun so your caution is unnecessary. Since I will not be carrying a gun, I do prefe if noone else does to. I can’t require that, but I would feel a lot safer.
Stamford,
Amen.
“Zero bullets fired.”
For now.
The NRA talking points on the Virginia Tech and Tucson shootings, and the recent emailing of a video on the topic of Mexican Border security are at-best factual on only one point, and the rest can be otherwise disregarded as marketing. The “Join the NRA today, and defend your…” is your clue.
Valid: Willful wrongdoers find the gaps, the cracks, the unguarded and strike there, or in those moments: Mumbai, India. Fort Hood, Texas. Airline hijackings on 9-11-01.
Virginia Tech. No, low, or poor security in each instance.
There’s anecdotal evidence that another University shooting was been ended by the presence of armed (and trained) fellow students.
Only by establishing a secured facility, would a completely disarmed population ever be truly safe. I don’t speak of metal detectors at the door, I’m speaking of a fenced, wired, gated, inspected facility. Thing of visiting a Federal medium-security prison. You, your vehicle, and anything you’re carrying is inspected. The TSA, but in a functional, hard-core mode.
Then all we have to do is trust that our guards don’t pull a Major Malik Nadal Hasan, and use their uniform as a means to defeat scrutiny.
Fallacy:
1) More guns would have stopped ANY gunfire. False. Due-diligence on the part of those who knew Laughner was mentally-unstable would have.
2) Civilian held firearms add to the danger. False.
The armed civilian had the presence of mind NOT TO discharge his firearm. Gun present=Shooting deathsis a fallacy. To decry this civilian having a gun as being equally as dangerous as Laughner, is patently wrong. Zero bullets fired.
If you as commenters, do not have the desire or capacity to maintain that sort of self-control, I’d hope that you never choose to purchase or carry a firearm. Training is key, it is the “Well Regulated” as defined in supporting documents of the day.
I’ll extend that to sports cars.
To buy a Porsche, Ferrari, or Corvette, my expectation is a requirement of track training by a well regarded driving school. The transition from econo-boxer mini-van to 600HP sports car isn’t a property right, it isn’t a bragging right of newfound corporate status, it’s a lethal weapon in your hands.
If you’re unwilling to accept the need for training, leave that item at the dealership, or keep it in your collection (garage or gun safe) without fuel (ammunition).
~43North
eniobob,
Amen. Nice link.
“Despite someone with an agenda reporting that a civilian with a gun almost shot other people …”
“So despite someone’s effort to spin this as a near-additional-tragedy because someone was carrying, that point is groundless propaganda.”
And when it does happen, and it will, will it still be groundless propoganda, Mandell? Just because you have no problem with more innocent people being massacred at the OK Corral, I am not. It’s bad enough having one lunatic with a gun, it will be doubly bad when lunatic two starts shooting willy nilly to take out lunatic one – at the expense of those that aren’t gun-toting lunatics and just trying to stay alive through the hailstorm of bullets.
Justifying the actions of one, who you call the good guy, who could very well have killed an innocent man – and others in the vicinity – for the simple fact that the innocent guy was just holding a gun is pure, unadulterated propoganda at best, and disingenuous bullshit at worst.
Mandell,
All I know is what Mr.Zamudio reported to various newspapers and news outlets immediately after the event. If you want to call that goundless propaganda, that is your right. It is also my right to report what he had said earlier and to comment that anything said on Fox News is suspect to me.
As I understand it, the Glock 9mm holds anywhere from 15-17 rounds, not 19, depending on if you are using the Glock competition, compact or full-size model. So the shooter in Tucson actually got 2-4 more shots off that could have killed someone or injured someone than if he had not used the extended magazine. It should also be noted that it was reported that 31 shell casings were found on the scene so your information seems to be incorrect. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41021843/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
Woosty-
My favorite memories of my Grandmother were when she would say, “You boys go out in the back yard and fill this pan with red raspberries and I’ll bake two pies for dessert. Your Dad is going to make ice cream, too.” I don’t recall a submachine gun hanging next to Grandma’s coal stove. Or a pistol in the Pontiac’s glove compartment. I guess I was just lucky.
The first issue here is the 2nd amendment, which is settled law. Over 160 million guns by the most conservative estimate I’ve seen are legally owned, and something north of 5 million people have and exercise a right to carry concealed.
Despite someone with an agenda reporting that a civilian with a gun almost shot other people, here’s the original interview with Joe Zamudio, who I wouldn’t mind living next door to me.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUmmOWL05r8&w=480&h=390]
My understanding was Loughner got off 19 shots, exactly the same as the gun is designed to hold, had a jam, failed to clear the jam, unloaded the gun and removed the magazine and tried to reload with another high cap magazine which was bulky and was fumbling with it when tackled by bystanders. Zamudio assessed the situation correctly, and helped subdue. Had Loughner still been firing, Zamudio would have taken him under fire to try to stop him.
So despite someone’s effort to spin this as a near-additional-tragedy because someone was carrying, that point is groundless propaganda.
Some people trust in authority and believe that we can make a society safe when all authority rests in the state. The power of the state ultimately rests in deadly force, police (even in the UK) use guns, the military uses guns, deadly force is ultimately the way law is enforced. The 2nd amendment was an amazing purposeful subversion of this situation, not put in the Constitution by ‘the framers’ but put in by popular demand of the states asked to ratify it – whose people had a strong taste of what authority could do, and managed to free themselves from it by use of arms. They specifically did not want all possession of arms to lie with the state, and it’s clear that they thought be governed by their consent means they retained the same option as the state to act with arms.
200 years later, what does that mean? Well, as a lefty that just endured 8 years of watching the Republicans try to subvert the Constitution, I’m in no mood to hand over my weapons, so I’ll suggest something specific. We have a very good system of instant background checks, but crippled by the fact mental health data doesn’t get added to the database, The reasons are twofold – no compelling reason for mental health professionals to report, and law enforcement so reduced in manpower they don’t have resources to do it. Both Loughner and the Virginia Tech shooter would have been stopped had they been included, and we need both a mechanism to do so and law to compel compliance, along with some funding.
A thousand people die
every day by gunshots,
and three times as many are severely
injured. Spinal cords severed, bones
shattered, families destroyed,
hearts broken. If the death, injury
and disability resulting from small
arms were categorised as a disease,
we would view it as an epidemic. As
a man-made vector of injury, guns
are manifestly bad for human health.
No country is immune.
http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/GlobalCrisis07.pdf
Blouise,
great stats!
Bob Esq.
I agree that Rachel Maddow should have gotten the O’mans slot.
Stasmford Liberal, thanks!
Mespo,
amen to your comments about the real intentions of the friendly NRA.
Lotta,
thanks for the link to the O’Donnell show. I, like Bob, Esq. don’t like his show, but he was good in this one.
Woosty,
Great video links! I will never look at an elderly person in a wheelchair the same!
Jason,
I would like to see you sources for the claim that conceal an carry gun states’ violence has decreased and is violent crime defined as including guns(?), and that most of the gun restrictions were passed by Republicans. Until then, consider me a non-believer. Arizona is a conceal carry state and Mr. Loughner allegedly got off over 20 shots before being subdued by people without guns so I guess he is an exception to your statistics.
OS,
I understand that it is possible some mentally ill people would somehow find illegal weapons or supplies, but I am sure it would be reduced significantly. Would the accused shooter in Tucson, Mr. Loughner gone to that extreme if the extended magazines were not available legally? He bought everything else legally.
They should have given the 8pm slot to Maddow.
Lawrence O’Donnell is a pathetic replacement for Olberman. The man is insufferable.
I think someone already posted this video here (take a bow) and I saw it on the O’Donnell show, it was a good takedown of Mr. LaPierre.
“After NRA lobbyist Wayne LaPierre attacked MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell at this year’s CPAC, O’Donnell responded in his Rewrite segment and pretty well ripped LaPierre to shreds for his part in contributing to the number of deaths after that tragic shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in Tucson, Arizona.”
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/lawrence-odonnells-takes-apart-nra-gun-lob#comment-1775745
I never saw it.
My head is safer where it is!
Wootsy…
I suppose you’ll have to get your head on secure and go forward…then again was 8 heads in a Duffel your favorite movie?
…and did I mention I yearn for civilization and am seriously thinking of packing my bags for Europe before things here degrade any further….
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrteiQLcYvs&w=480&h=390]
I don’t get why guys like guns anyway…they are NOT attractive….
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvQJsYnkNhA&w=480&h=390]
The government enables it by passing and signing into law things that only a law abiding citizen will follow any way. The crook is not going to follow any magazine capacity law.