Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Weekend Contributor
On February 7th, 2014, the sad reports were compiled from the deadly day before. On Thursday, February 6th, at least 24 people were shot and 14 of them were killed. Two of the dead were small children. The shootings and killings were from cities and towns all across the country. A 17 month old girl was accidentally shot by her 3 year old brother in North Carolina.
A 13-year-old was accidentally shot and killed while playing with a shotgun in the state of Washington. In Seattle, Washington, a man was shot and killed by a fellow tenant. A man in his 30’s was shot several times and critically wounded in Owasso, Oklahoma. A 18 year man was shot and killed at his uncle’s home in South Carolina. These and others were all wounded or killed by gunfire on February 6th, 2014. Just one sad day out of many.
We have written a few times before about the need to do something, anything that might be useful in reducing gun deaths and the reactions varied from agreement to claims that Americans have a Second Amendment right to carry guns and daring government officials to try to get their guns. There is no argument that we all have the right to own and carry guns. However, don’t citizens have a right to protect themselves from those who carry guns?
Amy Scott is fighting for her life in Alabama because she was shot at her grandparents home. A 24-year-old man was shot and killed in Nashville, Tennessee. A 37-year-old man in San Jacinto, California was shot to death. Some of these many killings were probably crime related. A large number appeared to be accidental and with some, the cause or motive of the shooting is unknown.
This past week, the trial commenced in Jacksonville, Florida, in the alleged murder of an unarmed black teenager by a another man at a gas station. The defendant, Michael Dunn, is attempting to use the Florida Stand Your Ground law to claim that he was in reasonable fear for his life when he fired up to 10 shots into the car next to him at a gas station. Three of the shots hit and killed 17-year-old Jordan Davis while he was sitting in the back of the car.
This shooting allegedly started over a disagreement over the teenagers loud music which the defendant took exception to. I was particularly struck by this story, not just because of the Stand Your Ground defense, but because the defendant pulled his weapon out of his glove box after he claims a shotgun was pointed at him from the other car.
“The jury in the trial of Michael Dunn, which began in Jacksonville, Florida, on Thursday, will hear how a 47-year-old software developer — who is white — grabbed a 9mm pistol from his glove box and fired repeatedly at 17-year-old Jordan Davis, a black student, during a November 2012 altercation that started as an argument over loud music blaring from the car Davis was sitting in at a Florida gas station.
After shooting Davis, Dunn fled the scene with his girlfriend, drove to a hotel for the night, ordered pizza and watched movies. When he was arrested the following day, Dunn told investigators that he had fired in self-defence after seeing someone in the car point a shotgun at him. However, police found no weapon in the vehicle.” Guardian
The defense attorney pulled out all of the stops in attempting to persuade the jury that Mr. Dunn was justified in firing up to 10 shots into the teenager’s car, even as the teens attempted to drive away to evade the gunfire. ‘ “God didn’t make all men equal. Colt did. Colt is a firearm,” Strolla said. “(Dunn) had every right under the law to not be a victim, to be judged by 12 rather than carried by six.” ‘ CNN
That is an amazing statement by the defense attorney. Evidently, those with guns have the right to shoot and worry about it later. At least according to the defense attorney. While all of the courtroom fireworks were proceeding, even more people were being shot and killed due to gunfire. A 25-year-old man was shot and wounded in Omaha, Nebraska on February 6th.
A county employee near Boring, Washington was shot and killed. A 40-year-old man was shot in the leg in front of parents and school children in Brooklyn, New York. All in one day. One violent day, but one out of many violent days due to gun fire.
The shooter in the Jacksonville, Florida killing who is claiming it was a self-defense related shooting, also seems to have some very disgusting and racist ideas. The prosecution in that case produced copies of letters written by Mr. Dunn that were racially incendiary, to say the least. I am not attempting to make this a racial shooting, but the letters may convince some that if it was white teenagers playing their music loudly, there would not have been a shooting tragedy that day.
Adrian Maynard was shot twice while he was departing church with his grandparents in West Virginia. Again, on February 6th, 2014. Why do Americans have this apparent addiction to guns? I believe that reasonable measures can be taken to reduce some of the shootings and deaths, but unless Congress gets an earful from citizens across the country fill up their email in boxes and voice message systems with demands to pass background checks on all weapons sales and transfers or other reasonable ideas, the shootings and the killings will continue unabated.
How can we as Americans look ourselves in the mirror when the gun violence continues? Do we act only when the violence strikes our families or our friends? If the killing of innocents in schools cannot bring meaningful action, what will it take to bring that action? The shootings and deaths that we highlighted are all from February 6th, 2014 and reported on February 7th, 2014. The latest Stand Your Ground case in Florida just happened to be on trial on that same sad February 6th.
One sad day out of 365 sad days. When will it end?
Lawrence E. Rafferty–Weekend Contributor
“The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.”
And there in lies the problem, “us vs. them” ideology. Political affiliation has nothing to do with reality. True “equality” is when the people in government are equal to the people not in government. Reality is relative to what we collectively make it. And, the “divide and conquer” perspective is doing very well with creating reality so far. Thus the whole left/right paradigm has gained a foothold as a limited and narrow way of thinking, sadly so. So, the argument of reality being based in a left/right paradigm obviously has its source in a limited and narrow way of thinking. Let’s move forward, not backwards.
Right to Bear Arms… when the executive (likely a Republican) drops posse comitatus, the man-child with 100 guns will not hear the drones coming.
Just because one can do a thing doesn’t mean one must do it. Gun ownership is a sucker’s bet. Spare me your “heritage.” Write some other permission slip that is based in reality, called instead “I like to shoot.”
I would like to add, that our Rule of Law is essentially designed, in response to the history of governments, to thwart negative human nature both in and out of government, and to “equalize” people in and out of government. The American Rule of Law does just that, makes “equal” the people not in government to the people in government. Government is an entity, only made up of other people, who are no smarter or better then you and I. Until we as a species evolve out of our human nature, whereby the greed for money and power, authoritarian rule, the exploitation of the weak, and the use of violence, then we can make policy that is “withstanding” to our Law. We must, however, for the time being, do our best to hold firm to the efforts our founders made to undermine the history of what government has been like. Thus, “public policy” that is “withstanding” to our Rule of Law, today, only prevents us from truly “progressing”, and actually moves society backwards, towards the days of authoritarian regimes and the “inequality” of people in and out of government. Once both the people in government and not in government have evolved out of the use of violence as a means to get what they want from other people, then I will surrender my right to bear arms.
Theater goon, the facts speak for themselves, more guns = more gun deaths. Your assumptions are not correct be that by US standards or world standards:
“There was a significant correlation between guns per head per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths with Japan being on one end of the spectrum and the US being on the other. ” http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study
Or for US:
The new study found that states with the most laws had a 37 percent lower rate of suicides by firearm and a 40 percent lower rate of homicides compared with those with the fewest laws. – See more at: http://www.boston.com/dailydose/2013/03/06/states-with-strictest-firearm-laws-have-lowest-rates-gun-deaths-boston-children-hospital-study-finds/zaIGbTdwtVaPFiGlCfSlTP/story.html#sthash.IDEvQdbx.dpuf
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html
And generally, the more guns per capita, the more deaths by guns.
“We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.”
Read More: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409
Facts speak louder than slogans or anecdotes….
I’m out of here……
rafflaw . Sadly, the number of people kills by arms in a well armed society is less than the number of people killed throughout history by societies where the Citizens are unarmed.
It is interesting to note that the protection of individual rights, the intent of our Constitution, has not yielding that effect, except for a couple of issues, both important yet, the overall effect has been just the opposite. Except for the abolition and slavery and suffrage, individual and property rights have been abrogated to such levels that there are effectively no important ones left. The freedom of speech is useless when it falls on deaf ears; speaking out against government corruption is moot, if there are no real realistic methods to do anything about it.
My point is that government policy often appears to effect the majority in almost the opposite as intended. With close observations of the majority of significant government policy, the negative ramifications of such policies appear to negate the positive effects. Example::antitrust laws actually created greater monopolization, higher prices and lower wages, exactly what it was supposed to prevent. The four decades between 1860 and 1900, before the legislation, lower prices and higher wages occurs. As soon as the legislation was enacted the opposite started occurring. Effectively, the legislation broke up the best and most competitive participants in the sector, allowing the weaker less competitive companies to gain greater market share. Not only did prices rise but wages started going lower as companies cut costs to keep the price demands of consumers down as much as possible.
The point is, you must be very careful what you want government to do, as it may not over the long term, accomplish that goal and instead makes things worse.
Regardless of the numbers, whether by the FBI or the CDC, this is still not argument enough to undermine the Rule of Law, which is that Americans hold an individual, fundamental right to be armed with a gun (Heller vs. DC). Sound “progress” in our society is made when the “public policy” not only sustains the well being, equal opportunity and the technological innovations that benefits the whole, but “equally” secures and protects the fundamental rights of the individual. Such policy is “not withstanding” to the Rule of Law. Public policy and public safety are subservient to the Law, not above it. The effort to progressively advance the common good is to “equally” advance the rights of the individual. To do the opposite is unlawfully unreasonable, and such policy undermines the collective’s well being. The collective is made up of individuals, who have individual rights and individual minds. Basically what we have here, are other individuals who have a different view of what American government should be like rather than what we have. Yet, the Constitution is still the Law of the Land, period. And, until the Constitution is scrapped and done away with, under a Convention, the individual right to bear arms still stands and shall not be infringed.
Tim,
Look at the CDC figures for a more accurate picture of the numbers.
Nice article, and yes something has to be done. However, in light of the increase in population, and the present day ownership of guns being more than there have ever been in America, gun violence is still the lowest it has ever been and it is still decreasing, according to the FBI Crimes Statistics. Such scattered gun violence has been the case since the beginning of gun existence. Only now is it common knowledge, because of media outlets reporting on the matters. The deaths from guns themselves are not argument enough to undermine our Rule of Law, the Second Amendment. If this argument were valid, then there would be no prescription drugs or alcohol. Both leading to more deaths in America today then gun violence ever. States should create some sort of incentive and motive to seek out more training and education on gun ownership, maybe a tax credit or even a write-off. You don’t throw the baby out with the bath water, and it appears that this reasoning has been public policy for some time now, as it relates to fundamental rights. Rights that are nonthreatening to government are the ones government seeks to secure and protect. But, when it comes to rights that may pose a threat, even theoretically, than such rights should at least be reduced to legal privileges, which to do so would be criminal on the government’s part. Our Rule of Law protects the minority from the majority. So, the argument of most Americans wanting to get rid of guns won’t work. Campaigns on gun education and responsibility should be the response to such gun violence. Yet this wont happen because it advocates the exercise of a fundamental right that the government sees as theoretically and potentially threatening.
If we look at the facts of the situation, over the last few decades we have seen two trends:
Firstly, increasingly liberalized firearm ownership and personal carry laws, as well as an increase in firearms being owned.
Secondly, a major decrease in violent crime (including that involving firearms) and a major decrease in accidental/negligent firearm injury.
That being the case, it rather tends to show that the claim “more guns equals more crime/death/gunshot victims” is simply incorrect.
I suppose there are those who just don’t want to give up on a good talking point, even if it is inaccurate.
one way to keep down gun deaths and to keep the criminals from owning the guns is by forcing the manufacturers to only make a set amount every year of certain guns. and to make sure those guns go where needed..
what everyone seems to ignore is the fact that its the over production of manufacturing that allows the guns to hit the streets and allows the criminals to obtain them.. well that and the corporation making sure they hit the streets i mean how else are they to keep their prisons filled? how else are they to argue for their wars against fake terrorist and countries.. the truth is out here.. but no one wants to accept it. because in accepting the truth then they all have to admit everything they thought they knew were all lies.. which means their very existence is based on a lie….. if the laws on the books were worth their salt.. then the prisons wouldnt be half full. actually if any of the laws were worth a damn then the prisons wouldnt be half full… and the reason they wouldnt be half full is because only the elites would fill them and they damn sure arent about to do that……
WE WOULDNT NEED GUNS IF IT wasnt for the corporation and all of their shenanigans. if we werent pledged as human resources to pay off debts not our own… there is no reason for sub machine guns, sniper rifles etc its technology that the corporation uses to not only steal all the resources of the world but to cow the people and countries who refuse to bow to them…. isnt it amazing how our ancestors managed to live so much longer then we do. before the guns,? before the new medications? all of this crap is supposed to give us longer life spans yet the life span has shortened by 30+ years.. and were worse off on every front… then anything our ancestors had to deal with…. especially when it comes to GUNS AND LAWS!!!!!!
Well, I know having a pistol with me saved my bacon more than once.
samantha,
I’m really not sure exactly what I meant…and I’m not trying to be evasive here. War is such a horrible human endeavor: it reduces soldiers to being less than human, costs huge amounts of money and lives, destroys cities, countries and societies. This has been going on forever and I’ve tried to understand what drives us humans to these extremes and can’t come up with an answer. Money, power and greed seem to be a common denominator, which leaves me without any practical experience to draw from. I’m not an aggressive individual, not highly competitive, don’t understand the need for power and control and as such can’t understand those who are like this.
It is my understanding that approximately 3% of our population are sociopaths. If so, it seems that a disproportionate number of them end up as CEOs and politicians who really don’t care or have empathy for others in their insatiable greed. So I guess maybe your comment does summarize my feeling: whoring politicians in bed with the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about.
I must apologize as I’m in way over my head in trying to analyze these complex human motivations and actions. I spent my adult life working as a chemist in laboratories without paying too much attention to the outside world. Science is like that, human emotions don’t come into play when dealing with the world of molecules and atoms. They do what they are going to do based upon the laws of physics that we mortals are still trying to understand. I have always found it easier to understand incomprehensible fields such as quantum mechanics than I can human nature.
I tend to digress a lot and really got off the subject at hand here. My comments here do not in any way address the central theme of this thread and I offer my apology for my lack of proper focus.
Samantha,
I’m not sure if you mean opposition from Congress or the public. In any event, Johnson faced a bitter struggle from those opposed to the Viet Nam War from politicians, civilians and some in the military. Johnson was very hands on with the military, which was resented by the military as they didn’t see the need for a mere civilian’s input on how to conduct military operations. It was a very contentious and violent period in our history and having served in the Army during that time I can assure you that Johnson faced opposition from many people in and out of the military. Johnson’s Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara was also roundly criticized for his role during this very unpopular war.
The opposition that Johnson faced was directed at a seemingly never ending war that was killing a lot of young Americans. Even though I was in the military at the time, a Sgt in the Army, I too was very opposed to this war. When I first saw the Viet Nam War Memorial wall I fell to my knees with uncontrollable tears flowing down my face–many of my friends and fellow soldiers were on that wall. Even after all these years I today would not be able to re-visit that memorial.
Johnson got the GI Bill of Rights through Congress, was very influential in Civil Rights legislation, appointed the first black Justice to the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall, passed a voting rights act, and was a staunch supporter of the environment. The Viet Nam War was his downfall, and it’s a shame because he could have accomplished a lot more if he had been re-elected. But that damn war……
Jamie had used the word “party,” towards which I then directed my question. Yeah, that damn war. If only LBJ and so many other whoring politicians hadn’t been in bed with the military industrial complex! Is that what you mean?
Wayne, I appreciate your efforts to use your guns wisely and with the least amount of harmful impacts.
While we may not agree on gun issues, I certainly agree with your political views. If it wasn’t for Vietnam, Johnson would have given FDR a run for his liberal money and he would have served another term. He certainly did know how to get things done, but at least the opposition party wasn’t quite as vengeful and obstructionist as today’s GOP. Even when they get what they want, they want something else. It’s bad for politics and tragic for the country. Another subject for another time.
A spirited debate is challenging and enjoyable. We may not change any minds, but we can offer our arguments and maybe slip in an ah ha! moment occasionally. All the best…..
What opposition? According to my history book, the Democrats controlled the House and Senate during LBJ’s term. If LBJ had any opposition, it was from Democrats who threw in with Republicans.
Thanks Bankster,
I have spoken to several Park Rangers in Custer National Park who swear that Bear Spray is very effective, that and playing dead. Shooting a grizzly bear is not only very difficult, in most cases it will just make him/her more angry. To say nothing of needing a powerful firearm and and being an expert marksman. I’ve been around black bears a few times and they dislike me as much as I dislike them but fortunately have never had an encounter with a Grizzly. When I’m out and about I make a lot of noise, usually have a dog with me, and so far that has kept me safe.
Although I voted for Obama I must say and admit that I am very disappointed in his Presidency. He is not the leader I thought and hoped we would get…he appears to be way too willing to compromise with those who refuse to compromise. His opposing Party has been anything but helpful and that has led to a lackluster performance on his part. He reminds me of a moderate Republican, and that’s ok if one wants that but I was hoping for a more liberal progressive Democrat in the mold of LBJ. LBJ just got things done period and didn’t care who got in his way.
But I digress.
Yes, guns can be dangerous and lead bullets and shot can and will cause issues in the environment. I do my best by using lead free primers and fully jacketed bullets and since I don’t hunt my environment impact from lead is pretty minimal.
Thank you for your comments, they are appreciated and I wish you the best….we both have our viewpoints and I’m sure we will both defend those opinions as best we can. I enjoy a spirited debate.
Take Care,
Wayne
Wayne, thank you for writing about your personal experiences. I was wary of grizzlies while working in Alaska. Amazingly, all we were given while working in bear territory was bear spray! I’ve never hunted for food and would likely starve if I had to.
Most people I know who own guns are very responsible and use care with their weapons. I have had friends who were shot accidently and survived, thankfully, but as you are well aware guns can and will kill. I’ve fired many a gun and used to enjoy target practice, but I stopped doing it after investigating lead shot and its detrimental effects on the environment, but that’s another story for another time.
I am not advocating for more laws, since more laws lead to more unjustified fear that guns are being taken and that leads to more guns being purchased. NY just instituted new gun laws that weren’t necessary (7 round clip instead of 10? What is that going to do for public safety?) The only thing the new laws did was get the gun crowd riled and out buying many more guns, which data indicates is more dangerous.
I am simply saying that the vast majority of studies show that more guns per capita lead to more gun deaths per capita, be it accidental, criminal or suicidal. After all, a shooting death is a shooting death nonetheless. More drunks on a highway will lead to more highway deaths. More pools will lead to more kids drowning……
I prefer the facts to the slogans. If I lived by slogans I would have voted for Obama or Romney (voted third party, thank you). Enjoy your guns. As you said, they are tools, protection and entertainment, but they come with a heavy human and environmental toll.
Bruce, That’s a great line!
Guns are like parachutes, if you need one and don’t have one you probably won’t ever need one again.
I am not a “gun toting idiot” I am a believer in the Constitution. We have a civility rule here now Veronica. While epithets like that were common in the recent past, those days are thankfully over. I refer you to the civility rule @ the top of the blog. Folks who want to limit the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens are not bad people. They just have bad ideas.
bankster,
I do agree with you about the bears…they don’t take prisoners and a mama grizzly is one tough beast that is best left alone. Another nasty four legged critter is a Moose—they can be ornery at times.
Look, my wife and I belong to a gun club and target shoot on a somewhat regular basis…although not in the harsh winter months. The people we see are probably just like those you see, except for the gun issue. These folks are honest hard working people that take gun safety very seriously. They are not wild eyed gun nuts or survivalists—they have families with the same needs and concerns as everyone else. I’ve taken two NRA gun safety classes and they constantly emphasize safety at all times…during the class and at home. Unfortunately there are gun owners who get careless and it is my speculation that they probably haven’t had any or very little training. I do think there is one gun control change I would agree with and that would be in the area of training and requiring a demonstration of basic gun safety. In Montana such a safety class is required for one to obtain a concealed weapon permit. However we are a shall issue State so unless one is on a prohibited list of some kind then obtaining a concealed carry license is rather routine. One has to show proof of citizenship, residency and have their fingerprints taken. In the nearby town where I live 30% of the residents have concealed carry permits and when one considers that the minimum age is 18 then there are a significant number of adult residents authorized to carry a handgun. I honestly cannot remember the last gun related murder we’ve had here—it’s been many many years.
Yes, Montana does have very liberal gun laws and Montanans do own a lot of firearms as many residents are avid hunters—not for trophy’s but for food. We have a large number of out-of-state hunters that come here every year and unfortunately we do have our share of hunting accidents that in many cases end tragically.
However the murder rate by gun per capita in Montana is 1.2 with the corresponding number for Illinois at 2.8 with DC leading the pack at 16.5. Interesting in that 57.7 % of Montanans own guns while that figure for DC is 3.6%. So we are not the wild West out here with people pulling guns and shooting at each other all the time—we respect firearms and consider them a tool in our day to day life.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this issue of gun control….