Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, Justice, Politics, Society, Things That Tick Me Off, Uncategorized

Guns and the Collateral Damage That They Do

Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)- Guest Blogger

I was struck by a news story earlier this week, not only because of its importance, but because of how little air time it received in the mass media.  Earlier this week, the victims of the 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona had a chance to speak to the man responsible for those hideous acts.  One statement was especially powerful and it was from the husband of Gabby Giffords, now a former Congresswoman from Arizona.  I apologize for the length of the following quotations, but I think it is important to read most of what Gabby’s husband said to Mr. Jared Loughner, who perpetrated the crime. 
“Mr. Loughner, for the first and last time, you are going to hear directly from Gabby and me about what you took away on January 8th, 2011 and, just as important, what you did not. So pay attention.  That bright and chilly Saturday morning, you killed six innocent people. Daughters and sons. Mothers and fathers. Grandparents and friends. They were devoted to their families, their communities, their places of worship.

Gabby would trade her own life to bring back any one of those you savagely murdered on that day. Especially young Christina-Taylor Green, whose high-minded ideas about service and democracy deserved a full life committed to advancing them. Especially 30-year old Gabe Zimmerman, whom Gabby knew well and cherished, and whose love for his family and his fiancee and service to his country were as deep as his loss is tragic. Especially Judge John Roll whom Gabby was honored to call a colleague and friend and from whose interminable dedication to our community and country she gained enormous inspiration. Gabby would give anything to take away the grief you visited upon the Morrises, the Schnecks, and the Stoddards – anything to heal the bodies and psyches of your other victims.

And then there is what you took from Gabby. Her life has been forever changed. Plans she had for our family and her career have been immeasurably altered. Every day is a continuous struggle to do those things she was once so very good at. Gabby is a people person: she exudes kindness, creativity, and compassion. If she were not born with the name – “Gabby” – someone would have given it to her. Now she struggles to deliver each and every sentence. Her gift for language can now only be seen in Internet videos from a more innocent time.

Gabby was an outdoor enthusiast. She was often seen rollerblading with her friend Raoul in Reed Park, hiking in Sabino Canyon, or careening down Rillito Wash Trail on her bike, as she was the night before you tried and failed to murder her. She hasn’t been to any of those places since, and I don’t know when she’ll return.  There’s more. Gabby struggles to walk. Her right arm is paralyzed. She is partially blind. Gabby works harder in one minute of an hour – fighting to make each individual moment count for something – than most of us work in an entire day.

Mr. Loughner, by making death and producing tragedy, you sought to extinguish the beauty of life. To diminish potential. To strain love. And to cancel ideas. You tried to create for all of us a world as dark
 and evil as your own.

 But know this, and remember it always: You failed.  Your decision to commit cold-blooded mass murder also begs of us to look in the mirror. This horrific act warns us to hold our leaders and ourselves responsible for coming up short when we do, for not having the courage to act when it’s hard, even for possessing the wrong values.” CNN

It was hard for me to read the full statement without shedding a tear.  Not just for Giffords and her husband, but for all of the families who suffered at the hands of a man who should not have been able to obtain the weapons and the ammunition that he had that fateful day.  I am not advocating the rescinding of our Second Amendment rights, but I am pleading for common sense in how we turn a blind eye to the damage guns do, without ever caring about what we need to do to prevent these kinds of weapons and the size of the magazines that allow a mentally disturbed individual like a Jared Loughner, to kill and maim so many innocents.

Mr. Mark Kelly, the former Astronaut who is Gabrielle Gifford’s husband, did not stop with the perpetrator of the violence, he also took all of us to task for allowing our society and our politicians to ignore the violence and death that are brought every day to this country by people carrying guns.  “Your decision to commit cold-blooded mass murder also begs of us to look in the mirror. This horrific act warns us to hold our leaders and ourselves responsible for coming up short when we do, for not having the courage to act when it’s hard, even for possessing the wrong values.  We are a people who can watch a young man like you spiral into murderous rampage without choosing to intervene before it is too late.

We have a political class that is afraid to do something as simple as have a meaningful debate about our gun laws and how they are being enforced. We have representatives who look at gun violence,
 not as a problem to solve, but as the white elephant in the room to ignore. As a nation we have repeatedly passed up the opportunity to address this issue. After Columbine; after Virginia Tech; after Tucson and after Aurora we have done nothing.

In this state we have elected officials so feckless in their leadership that they would say, as in the case of Governor Jan Brewer, “I don’t think it has anything to do with the size of the magazine or the caliber of the gun.” She went on and said, “Even if the shooter’s weapon had held fewer bullets, he’d have another gun, maybe. He could have three guns in his pocket” – she said this just one week after a high capacity magazine allowed you to kill six and wound 19 others, before being wrestled to the ground while attempting to reload. Or a state legislature that thought it appropriate to busy itself naming an official Arizona state gun just weeks after this tragedy occurred, instead of doing the work it was elected to do: encourage economic growth, help our returning veterans and fix our education system.”  CNN

The idea that any politician of any stripe could downplay the destructive magnitude of these high-capacity magazines and the weapons they feed is disgusting and sad.  Without all of us taking a stand against allowing people with mental disorders from owning guns and without all of us saying it is not necessary in our society to allow these high-capacity magazines, how will the violence ever end?

Is it necessary to our Freedom as a society to allow unfettered access to guns and ammunition that is only meant to be used against innocents?  Can’t common sense restrictions be put into place without the NRA and politicians crying foul?  Recently in Cook County, Illinois which has seen more than its share of gun violence, the President of the County Board recently attempted to stem the gun violence by advocating a tax on bullets.  It may not be the best idea, but it was an attempt to find a way to stop our youth from killing each other and her efforts were met with derision and she had to drop her ammo tax idea.  Chicago Tribune  

It is far past time for our society to wake up and agree that not everyone should have access to guns and high-capacity magazines, isn’t it?  How many more killings will our country have to endure before We decide to put an end to it.  The NRA and gun manufacturers have made a great living demonizing anyone who might suggest that common sense restrictions on gun ownership are necessary and they have made sure that guns sales are going through the roof.  Will it take gun violence impacting our own families before we do anything?  What can be done to stem the tide of violence with guns?  It is a debate that we must have!  Isn’t it? Don’t we owe it to the victims and the victim’s families to finally do something to stop the killings?
Tomorrow may be too late!

292 thoughts on “Guns and the Collateral Damage That They Do”

  2. MikeS,

    “ID707,

    You missed the point entirely. firstly poor neighborhoods in general have more crime, however, my own experience in Black neighborhoods is that they are not as “unsafe” as most White people presume. This is based on my own extensive experiences from 1967 through my retirement in 2004.”

    I mentioned statistics as comparison figures between poor and rich districts. Not living experiences.
    Then you offer such terms as “unsafe” and presumptions as to what White (sic) people presume about the poor districts. I did not deny or denigrate your experience.

    How or why should I do that? I used another form of measuring, not opinions but statistics. No more.

    Admittedly, his use of melanin is still confusing me.
    Perhaps Dweeze could explain if you asked. I am curious.
    It is either highmindedly noble or dirty “coding”. Which?

    Thank you for your measured reply.

  3. GeneH,

    If my memory serves me right, you are wrong again.

    Eddie FIRST mentioned good ol’boys as one concept and THEN mentioned thugs as a contrasting one.
    Good ol’ boys was not used in a negative connotation.
    And his later explanation showed clearly that it was not meant as such. It was a group to which he said he could willingly have been one with, and that it included blacks, mexican, etc.

    How can that be negative+

    Otherwise your explanation was a good one.

  4. Mike,

    I think it has to do with being a native southerner and the colloquial use of the term “good ol’ boys”. People from the north may not pick up on the usage of that term properly and think it only has a positive connotation when actually it has both a positive and a negative connotation depending upon context. The negative connotative usage is roughly equivalent to either thugs and/or idiots. It’s applied to groups of rednecks, which is an attitude, not necessarily a skin color and in that usage usually also implies stupidity. Examples (-/+): “A bunch o’ good ol’ boys decided that Vern needed a whoopin’ so they up and gave him one.” “Mr. Johnson’s truck got stuck in some gumbo mud but lucky for him a bunch of good ol’ boys coming back from huntin’ saw him and pulled him out.” Both are perfectly acceptable and I’ve heard many real life variations of those usages in my lifetime. Given that Eddie had just mentioned thugs, to me it read as the negative connotation.

  6. Generally, I feel we all, or at least many of us, lose contact with the fact of our uniqueness.

    We assume too much, just because we speak the same language that your use of a word has the same values as my use.

    The person who writes has no way to see confusion on your face, nor rising anger, nor agreement. He, like myself,
    writes assuming that his thoughts, so clear in his mind, and in the context that he also sees clearly, will be the ones conveyed by his words to you.

    What are the chances of that?

    The only solutions I see currently is that we do as ElaineM so often does. She asks for elucidation, clarification, exemplification, etc,

    Given the opportunity, or rather taking it, Eddie offered clarification of what a good ol’ boy gang could include, and what thugs meant to him. Now both terms mean different things in differcnt parts of America and in different minds..

    I believe what the guy in NYC said, was to him perfectly expressed, but I think it wasn’t to me.

    All I wish is that we ask before we shoot with words like racist, troll, stupid, ignorance, etc.
    No excusings, no rebates are asked for, just give’m time and more rope to eventually hang themselves. They don’t need your help in that.

    If we do, I am sure that more real information will flow under the same time, and more understanding, and our
    cortisol and blood pressure levels will stay lower.

  7. GeneH,

    I’m not sure that I can agree that Dweeze is a racist, crypto or otherwise. If he is the one in NYC, whatever, the comment from there was that a degree of melanin was the ONLY esxential difference between him and them, ie between us all. And thus melanig skin content was of ridiculous value in evaluating people.

    However to deny that black neighborhosds (although they ARE in fact heterogeneous) have a higher crime incidence, is also to deny reality, unless NYC changed since yesterday).

    The points I thought he made, of which you only quoted a half, was that :

    1) The politicians do little or nothing to solve the problems which cause crime, ie lack of: education, opportunities, jobs, a chance to bet on the future.
    2) Yes, work for ALL the people in the district
    3) All of which would lead to a rise in self-respect and thus respect for others. (He said it better)

    You are good at selecting your arguments out of what the opponent offers. I am not sure that your selection is not biased to prove your point.

    I offer this as a point for discussion, neither as provocaiton nor as a put-down.

    1. “However to deny that black neighborhosds (although they ARE in fact heterogeneous) have a higher crime incidence, is also to deny reality, unless NYC changed since yesterday).”

      ID707,

      You missed the point entirely. firstly poor neighborhoods in general have more crime, however, my own experience in Black neighborhoods is that they are not as “unsafe” as most White people presume. This is based on my own extensive experiences from 1967 through my retirement in 2004. The second point is his own words introduced into the discussion of the validity of banning certain weapons:

      “Put on your big boy pants and face the unpleasant reality that we (that’s all of us) need to address the people who shoot others, even if their skin contains more melanin than ours does. And that’s the real reason that cowards such as you two bleat about guns: you don’t have the stones to take on the vested interests in the minority communities.”

      Any reasonable interpretation of that usage is he’s racist.

      Gene,

      As far as Eddie goes, I disagree, but I’m always willing to be proven wrong and if so I’ll admit it. I did see his comment directly to you, but it wasn’t enough to convince me at this point.

  8. “You must’ve missed the memo about how that one’s been played a couple of thousand times too many and no longer works.”

    Unless, of course, they are talking about an actual racist in which case it is valid criticism.

    “Any time someone accuses another of racism these days, all the accuser accomplishes is announcing his idiocy.”

    But especially racists who are so stupid and poorly educated as to use the verb “accomplishes” improperly. “Accomplish” means to achieve or complete successfully. The verbs you are looking for but not finding are “illustrate” – explain or make (something) clear by using examples, charts, pictures, etc. – or “demonstrate” – clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence.

    Given that there is plenty of evidence demonstrating that you are a racist:

    “And that’s the real reason that cowards such as you two bleat about guns: you don’t have the stones to take on the vested interests in the minority communities. Dare I also mention that the overwhelming majority of the local governments whose benign neglect of the areas that most crime happens in are politically aligned with you?

    People choose violent crime when there aren’t viable alternatives. That’s what we need to work on, not this silliness.”

    Which is a very long winded way of saying “put those darkies to work and their won’t be a gun violence problem”.

    White people shoot people too, dingus. Rich people shoot people too. Gun violence – while statistically more prevalent in poor communities – is not limited to poor communities. Or minority communities for that matter. You might have gotten out of that position you put yourself in if you just hadn’t succumbed to the temptation to use that code language “minority communities” in that context. Because, oh yeah!, minority communities have a vested interest in keeping a high level of crime in their neighborhoods. 🙄 See, that’s euphemistic loaded language and that is the trademark of a propaganda troll. Your status as such is in no doubt as you yourself admitted you were baiting. “I chose my words deliberately to provoke a reaction”. Then you go on to double down. Once is a mistake. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a pattern.

    And given there is so much evidence illustrating that Mike is not an idiot that I’m not even going to bother to list evidence for what is a manifest truth to regular readers?

    I’m going to call bullshit on that and on you.

    Be sure to come back any time you want to have your feeble anonymous trollery attempts dismantled and displayed.

    Critical scrutiny happens.

    That being said, I do think Mike jumped the gun on Eddie. I read Eddie’s original comment as equating thugs with thugs. But on you, thedweeze? He’s got your number.

    Thanks for playing.

  9. Wrong yet again, Mr. Spindell. You know, your ability to tenaciously cling to the wrong side of an argument is kind of admirable. But only kind of.

    This has nothing about the election, although that was a nice bit of projection on your part. And yes, when I come across yet more pathetic whining about guns, I find it hard to simply pass the idiocy by.

    Your screeching racial piety has been quite entertaining. At no time did you address anything else I said. That’s about the only typically “Librul” thing you’ve done, although it was quite enough. And that laughable snipe about education? Funny. I probably have you beat by both IQ points and credit hours, and not a single thing you’ve written can argue against that.

    And you absolutely played the race card. You must’ve missed the memo about how that one’s been played a couple of thousand times too many and no longer works. Any time someone accuses another of racism these days, all the accuser accomplishes is announcing his idiocy. I’m sure your mother will be proud to hear of your latest achievement.

    You have a problem with reality.
    You also have a local problem with guns, a problem you refuse to recognize. That will eventually bite you on the butt. Good luck with that.

    Thanks for playing. It’s been instructive. Too bad you didn’t get it.

    1. “Funny. I probably have you beat by both IQ points and credit hours, and not a single thing you’ve written can argue against that”

      Dweeze,

      I doubt that, but it is of no consequences, since your own words have shown who you are and it isn’t pretty. You offer no refutations against what I said other than rather childish assertions, the equivalent of an eight year old’s
      “Nyannh, Nyannh, Nyannh!. It is a pity today that so many like yourself think that debate is merely making unfounded assertions, rather than response to their opponents points and then foolishly declare an unearned victory. You were somewhat amusing for a time, but ow you’re just tedious. Have a wonderful day. 🙂

  12. Nitpicking grammar is not exactly the greatest way to bolster your argument…..

    MOST people at one time or another have made this typo… or error…
    it is easy to make the your/ you’re mistake….

    You can tell it was a mistake, because he does not do this in the other instances of You’re….

  13. Your=you’re. Don’t you have spellcheck? Know a person by their semi-literate rantings. Lemme guess. Public edumacation?

  14. Mike, you got a drinking issue, dude? I don’t think you can keep your targets straight. One more for the road, eh?

  16. Mike,
    You’re full of more crap than a Christmas goose, but good luck with your self-validating bullshit worldview. Piece of work.

  17. “Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace.” – Dalai Lama

  19. JAG-
    I carry no water for the NRA. I can’t stand them. As for defensive uses, even the most anti-gun researchers put the number at around 100,000 per year (compared to around 15,000 total deaths and around 100,000 total deaths and injuries. The vast majority of research puts it over one million. Either way, it is absurd to not consider the positives of gun ownership.

    Your notion that banning “a” gun isn’t banning all guns, well sure, that’s correct. However, “the” gun you want to buy is the most popular center fire rifle in the country. And there are numerous other weapons that would qualify under the nebulous title “assault weapon”. You would be banning a massively popular category of guns in the hope that you would prevent a small fraction of gun homicides.

  20. One can do a hell of a lot of damage with a measly .22LR round. That’s the same caliber John Hinckley used to go after Reagan and wound a few others. And using a crappy, short-barreled revolver, no less.

    A .22LR is an efficient round for killing people (especially defenseless ones). It’s cheap as dirt, makes a tiny hole in the body, tends to bounce around inside the body doing further damage, is hard to verify ballistically, and it’s pretty quiet compared to hunting/military rounds. A killer could carry pocketfulls of even the standard 10-round magazines for either a pistol or rifle and have a party. It’s been a favorite of mob hit men.

    So where does it end? How far does the camel enter the tent? Are you gonna ban even .22LR rifles that most young kids use as their starter rifle?

    Banning the high-profile, military-style weapons solves nothing other than to make the hoplophobes feel good. And, as we all know, it’s so much better to feel good than to DO good, right?

Comments are closed.