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!
Where I live Glock and AK-toting thugs are not likely to show up at the front gate. Not yet. A pickup truck filled with shotgun-wielding good-old-boys is more likely. Point is (without picking nits) that I am literally an army of one. The women folk here at the ranch don’t handle firearms well. Sorry gals, that’s my reality.
I don’t tote a carbine. That would be just silly. My concealed .45 handles life around town just fine. Oh, and my guns aren’t toys or phallic symbols. That would be my Cessna. 😉
“Where I live Glock and AK-toting thugs are not likely to show up at the front gate. Not yet. A pickup truck filled with shotgun-wielding good-old-boys is more likely.”
Eddie,
Would those thugs who haven’t shown up yet have dark skin? It seems you differentiate between “White good-old-boys” and “Black thugs”. It seems to me a “thug is a thug” regardless of skin color, but then perhaps you have a preference there.
You can make the same argument with drugs. At this stage in society shouldn’t we be concerned with people taking substances which can ruin their lives or even kill them? Yes, but demand for drugs is so high that prohibition will simply not work, and has largely contributed to our rise in prison population. Im all for something that will actually work, but at this point the only statistics that I’ve seen seem to indicate that prohibition, or limitation, will not work. There are too many guns in America and by limiting who can own one only creates a black market, it does not save lives or lower crime rates.
Guns in prison? No, but there are enough shanks and other homemade weapons to start a small war. It is a never ending battle.
It is amazing to me that at this stage of our society, we seem to have given up on controlling the wrong guns in the wrong hands. Why would we or should we ever give up on controlling who gets lethal weapons? I am not advocating the rescinding of the Second Amendment, but reasonable restrictions are not only allowed, they are necessary to attempt to save some lives.
Is it easier to get guns in prison……..?
To expand on what Chris says above, any prison inmate will tell you it is often easier to get illegal drugs in prison than out on the street. I think the correlation is obvious.
For the same reason that prohibition of drugs hasn’t worked in this country, neither will it work for banning or even limiting gun ownership. There are an estimated 270 million guns in the US, and a high demand for them. Prohibiting or limiting ownership would largely be futile, as most criminals admit that obtaining a weapon could be done relatively easily, and the cost of such prohibition would not be proportional to any impact it may have on crime.
Even the Brady Law, which required backround checks and a waiting period for handgun purchases, provided no significant differences in crime trends. Regulations on commercial gun sales can be easily evaded, and many criminals resort to illegitimate resources to obtain a gun anyway.
It occurs to me there has been some discussion of large quantities of ammunition. Some posit that sales of large quantities of ammo be limited. My question is why? How many crimes does one ever hear of where the offender gets off more than just a few shots before either running away or being taken down?
I buy ammunition in boxes of 500. I prefer to do target practice with the .22, because it keeps the cost down. A box of 500 rounds of .22 ammunition can be had for the price of a steak dinner. Larger caliber rounds, either pistol or rifle can cost up to $2.50 every time you pull the trigger. My co-worker has a S&W 500, and each round costs him $2.50. Needless to say, he does not shoot it at the range much. It is easy to go through a box of 500 in one afternoon at the target range.
The real problem with all too many gun owners is they do not practice enough. If you own a firearm and think you might need to use it one day, then you should make regular trips to the range until you can operate it accurately and efficiently in the dark.
Malisha-
“The point is not that people should be prevented from owning guns. The point is that (a) assault weapons designed for the quick and efficient killing of a dozen people should only be issued to swat teams and each member of a swat team should be carefully vetted;”
Why not hunting rifles? They are far more powerful than an AK or AR-15. As has already been explained, “assault weapons” are just semi-automatic rifles that fire (in most cases) a medium power cartridge. They are rarely used in crime. Gun homicides committed with ALL long guns, that’s shotguns, hunting rifles, target rifles, and so called assault weapons comprise around 5% of all gun murders. If all of these murders went away, it would reduce the gun murder rate less than it has on its own in the last ten years or so.
Mike Spindell-
“It still mystifies me as to why someone would want to own such powerful weapons. The shooting I’ve done with both pistol and 22 caliber rifles at impromptu targets does give satisfaction, especially when I was young.”
.22s kill a lot of people.
Something else to consider is that the AR-15 platform is the biggest selling center-fire rifle in the country. Its virtues are many; it’s lightweight, has little recoil, is very accurate, and on and on. Damn near all of them kill nothing but paper targets. They aren’t a measurable problem.
Jason,
You won. Never seen anyone demolish so many conventional arguments in so few seconds. 😉
Just for clarification, my stating 30 rounds in less that one minute is a hypothetical. Hypothetical because I am not even interested in weapons compared to others here.
My figure was, I thought, illustrative of the guy in Arizona. Firing on a loose large group of people in an open ares would likely take around a minute to get off so many aimed shots. He had only to defend himself from unarmed people, so he had no pressure from that source.
He was disarmed when he had to change his first magazing according to newspaper reports.
In spite of the illustrious persons participating, I dialed out at the beginning as I felt it would not yield anything of real value as to solving the American firearms problem, but it did give some facts worth knowing. That’s why I read it afterwards.
It did also bring up an allied point by SwM: The dichotomy between the life on the land and the life in the city.
OS,
Thanks for eliminating the confusion. You are so tired that your writing is getting dialectalt—and that is not a snark.
Gurl,
You asked for my email. Did you see it? Commcheck pse.
fallingpetals@hushmail.com
Mike,
Most people probably do not know it, but the USA owes a great debt of gratitude to Gen. Robert E. Lee. Some of his generals and commanders wanted to keep fighting a guerrilla war after the surrender at Appomattox. Lee, being the level head that he was, insisted they lay down their arms and accept the surrender. There were a few pockets of insurrection, but they were few in number and all were eventually either killed or arrested. Had Lee not been insistent there be no ongoing guerrilla war, who knows what this country would look like now. As it was, one small group of insurrectionist plotters managed to kill Lincoln.
The point is not that people should be prevented from owning guns. The point is that (a) assault weapons designed for the quick and efficient killing of a dozen people should only be issued to swat teams and each member of a swat team should be carefully vetted; (b) gun ownership should be regulated in a rational manner, not in a psycho-defensive-lunatic-fringe-I’ve-got-my-rights manner; and (c) ANY WRONGFUL BEHAVIOR with a gun should be dealt with effectively, meaning swiftly, officially, and with an ultimate view toward PUBLIC SAFETY and not emotional stroking of a paranoid, pugnacious, perverse lobby. 👿
well…. it just so happened that a man was carrying a gun that day….. here is his story…..
“I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready,” he explained on Fox and Friends. “I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this.” Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. “And that’s who I at first thought was the shooter,” Zamudio recalled. “I told him to ‘Drop it, drop it!’ ”
But the man with the gun wasn’t the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. “Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess,” the interviewer pointed out.
Zamudio agreed:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/01/friendly_firearms.html
I am sick and tired of people vilifying guns just because a Congresswoman was shot. For some strange reason, her wound is of greater importance than the thousands killed every year by guns. Taking guns away isn’t the answer. The problem is the fact that MORE guns are needed. Had someone been carrying a gun at that supermarket that day, they could have taken out Loughner before he killed as many as he did. After Alexander Hamilton was killed by Aaron Burr in 1804 by a GUN, they didn’t get rid of the 2nd amendment did they? Giffords herself is an advocate of guns. Are you all forgetting that?
So guns is the problem? Not the people behind them? Really? If those people in Arizona were killed by knives, would you want knives banned?
Don’t worry Idealist, I’m putting up a blog called simply “Malisha Sezz” in 2013.
Thanks lotta! I am with you on the math issue!
Ohhh man…
justagurl, wow…just…wow.
You should REALLY stop talking now. Thanks.