Another shooting in the United States but this time with a different ending. It happened in Colorado, a madman with assault rifles, armed to kill as many as he could before he would take his own life-- except this time a woman with a gun, a woman trained to use that gun, took him out and now the talking can begin.
How do those who justify the ownership of assault rifles think now with several more shootings? Or on the other side, how about the group against concealed weapon permits-- does the fact that a concealed weapon saved possibly a hundred lives change any minds?
Yes, the woman was trained, had been in the police force, but anybody can get trained who wants to carry a concealed weapon. I won't say it's a fool proof system, but they do check your background, fingerprint you, require references, and, in most states, a class. I have read that there has not yet been a crime committed by an owner of a concealed weapon permit, and this has not been the first crime stopped because of an armed citizenry.
Awhile back, Salem, Oregon, had a shooter also pinned down by an off-duty police officer until the police arrived with the firepower to take the shooter out. That shooter also only killed a few. There is no real way to stop someone, who has no regard for life, from killing a few, but there is a way to limit it to only a few if enough ordinary citizens take the trouble to get trained and do go armed given the nature of our times.
As soon as you hear about one of these shootings, you know who it'll be-- a young person, almost always male, most under the age of 30, loser in life as he sees it, angry at the world, no respect for the lives of others. They turn their anger at their own failures onto society as a way to get revenge as well as thinking they will become famous. The amazing thing is they are not famous for more than a few days. Can any of us remember any of their names? Oh yes, there are a few who do know their names-- those who want to do the same thing.
Is there a way to stop this? One thing would be identifying these people ahead of time-- except often they hide what they plan. Sometimes the schools do know but they have no tools to force treatment. And then if they were identified, what do you do about it? We don't let someone be imprisoned nor force psychological treatment on anyone who has not yet committed a crime. (Actually, we do now but only when it's terrorists or defined by the state as enemies which doesn't help with shooters and does hurt our rights as citizens, but those are topics for other blogs.)
Do all these violent computer games, which kids seem to love, do they play a part in this? Could they numb the players to what real people are like when they win the game by shooting them in fantasy? I don't know if this is a factor but even the toys today in the boys' areas are full of violence. Yes, I know we all played cowboy and Indians when we were children but is there something different when it's on a virtual screen? The most popular movies are violent ones. Is that a reflection of the times or creating the times?
We could stop the sale of all assault rifles and attempt to confiscate the ones already owned from every honest citizen in this country. Why from honest citizens? Because they get stolen or taken by family members as happened in the case of the Omaha shooter.
Assault rifles are not for hunting game. They are far more dangerous, make it harder to take down a shooter, maybe even inspire people that the weapons give them power they can find no other way. Why do we even have assault rifles in private ownership? Because a few paranoid people have some mistaken idea they could use them for home defense-- defense from what? From the government who has a lot more powerful war tools? The police? Are you an honest citizen if you want to protect yourself from law enforcement?
The idea that to protect right to bear arms, we have to protect war weapons in the hands of anybody, does not make sense to me. Getting rid of assault rifles is a start.
An armed, trained citizenry is a good plan also. Not everyone would be willing or able to carry a gun. Not everyone has the fortitude of that young woman in Colorado, but there are enough who can that it would slow down some of these killers. If more killers get taken out before they make their target goals, maybe less will consider it a way to fame and glory. (and on that vein, I am sick of the media's drumbeat of who are these people. The media is not qualified to ask or answer that question in a sound bite. Let that be for the professionals to look into. The media only glorifies something that doesn't deserve glorifying.)
I believe in our right to carry guns, to have them for personal protection, and my fear is of those who would take them all away thinking that's the solution. The Supreme Court will be considering that in the spring when they evaluate DC's law. You'd think with all those conservatives on the court that it'd not be in doubt what their answer would be-- except many of them are neo-cons who have a whole different agenda.
Guns are not the problem. It's guns in the hands of the wrong people and the wrong kinds of guns which are obviously all too easy to acquire. Yes, I've said all of this before and sadly will probably say it again...
11 comments:
it amazes me when you can buy sniper rifles and machine guns like you buy groceries at a store. what kind of harm are they trying to protect if that's the legal reason behind it?
The mall shooter in Utah earlier this year was pinned down by an off-duty police officer so I agree with you strongly that people carrying concealed weapons is a good thing most all of the time. But I disagree over this somehow being the rifle's fault. I do not own an assault rifle, but I am very much against banning them. And the Virginia Tech shooter which was the deadliest mass shooting in US history used pistols just like the ones you are saying are OK to own. And the VT shooter had been identified as a problem and had been sent for treatment, but because we do not live in a police state and we have some constitutional rights they did not follow up to see if he completed his treatment or much after that.
The one thing about our society is it requires a considerable amount of honesty and personal responsibility.
These people are sick and if they could not get a gun they would find another method of causing mass death to try and gain fame. The kids at Columbine built bombs but luckily they did not do a very good job of making them. If they would not have had any guns they likely would have spent more time building the bombs and likely would have killed even more people.
As for video games, yes they are violent, but I do not think they are causing this problem either. I have never dropped an anvil on someone’s head because I saw the coyote do it to the roadrunner when I was little. And I am sure the University of Texas Bell Tower sniper in 1966 did not play any video games to make him violent.
Well, if I was voting on this, I'd take the Glock out also as an automatic high powered handgun isn't needed for self protection either. I carry (when I carry) a .357 which is a very plain revolver. It can't fire forever without reloading. I like it because i figure if 6 shots didn't do it, likely more wouldn't either. Mine is intended to stop a cougar, but it would also have adequate stopping power for an assailant in my home.
If it was my decision, I would take military powered weapons out of the hands of the public. I know it's not going to happen as money talks, our borders are porous, people won't turn in weapons if the laws get passed, and the NRA has a lot of the country convinced, as you are, that somehow everyone has a right to arm themselves to the teeth-- even though they don't do it. Is a tank okay too? Just curious.
I think the games of my era and my kids, which was your era, were a lot different than what I am seeing for sale today. I won't say they cause kids to kill as obviously it's not that simple, but what is their point? Why are they so popular? What do we gain as a culture to have young people thinking killing is cool? And it's no comparison to roadrunner as those were cartoons and not realistic.
We have had shootings like this since Vietnam as war tends to bring about more violence, always has, always will. We likely had them before also but just less media to tell the country and at one time-- more armed citizens to put a stop to it if it got started.
Yes a tank is OK and totally legal to own right now. But possession of ammunition for them is outlawed as is driving them on the road.
The .357 is a good weapon, I have a nice stainless one but it weighs a lot to carry and I tend to agree with you if you need more than 6 or 7 shots you probably need a SWAT team with you.
It is all driven by media exposure! He said in his suicide note that finally he will be famous! and the media followed right along and made him famous. Now this latest one at the churches is becoming infamous also.
I think that if we all carried guns, and knew how to use them, that there would be less crimes, not more. How manypeople do you think would start shooting if they thought that 50 guns would be pointing at them right back.
I guess that is my Republican side coming out. I have a concealed weapons permit, but dont carry, as I cant take it on base, and I go on base a lot. SO I leave it at home and unloaded.
Rain...it is all beyond me....I don't understand anyone having a gun...Well, almost anyone. Protecting yourself from a cougar is important!
I agree with you about Road Runner and Coyote---these are Cartoons, and therefor, though I personally ALWAYS hated the violence in cartoons, it is not real people doing things to other real people.
How many people will have to die before the Gun Laws change? There is our Vice President out 'hunting'....Help Me Please! And I'm sure he is one of the people who thinks everyone should be armed....! Well, I don't. I know a number of people who have been innocent bystanders, killed by shootings. Drive By, Attempted Robbery, Robbery, etc. But, none of this was true, in my experience, until the 70's....In one year, I knew three people who were murdered by people with guns in 1975.
More, since then. This is appalling to me. Utterly and totally unacceptably appalling.
And we know it's not the guns, but the people. Well, this is a very sick sick society we live in when these kind of random and not so random killings, can happen.
We have to do something. I don't know what it is, but I know we must do something. Because this killing must stop.
I am, surprisingly given my liberal bent, one of the people who believes that Americans do have a right to bear arms. I HATE guns in any way, shape or form, but during the Watts riots in the 1960s, I stood in line at the ammo shop to get bullets for my husband's bird hunting pistol. I was scared enough for my babies that I could have used it.
My youngest son was not allowed to have any toy guns, but he just went out and broke tree branches to be guns. It's almost instinctive, I think. Now in his 40s, he has become a duck hunter and shooting game has become one of his hobbies. Go figure.
I don't follow the gun lobbies, the pros, the cons of having the right to bear arms, but I see no earthly reason that any private citizen should be able to have an assault weapon of any kind. I also don't understand how people are so easily licensed to have weapons. My police friends, however, say that most street crimes are committed by people with either stolen guns or handmade ones, thus bypassing the licensing anyhow. If guns were banned, there would still be guns for those who really wanted them.
The whole climate of mass violence is simply foreign to me. War is one thing; crimes against each other are something else.
Thanks for your thoughtful post, Rain.
I spent a number of years using guns, learning to properly care for them and respect them. They had a purpose and were not randomly used to kill animals for sheer joy. If everyone treated them in that manner we wouldn't be having this debate, except to take them from those who use them inappropriately.
I think comparing a cartoon like Roadrunner with many other forms of portraying violence is like comparing apples and oranges, they're both fruits, but quite different in all other respects.
I don't think there's any doubt that the prevalence of violence portrayed by humans,and by other forms creates a tone, atmosphere that influences some people. I don't think we can prevent that by laws or prohibition.
When individuals obsess compulsively on any one thing, be it violence or whatever else, there is a potential for problems -- some are more serious than others.
I do think it is possible to specifically delineate a set of weapons that it would be best were not available for the general public to own. I don't think that is being done properly now, but then we have to contend with the lobbying of the firearms manufacturers just as we do other powerful groups more than willing to make money at the expense of the common good.
Too many people have abdicated their moral and ethical responsibilities in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.
I spent a number of years using guns, learning to properly care for them and respect them. They had a purpose and were not randomly used to kill animals for sheer joy. If everyone treated them in that manner we wouldn't be having this debate, except to take them from those who use them inappropriately.
I think comparing a cartoon like Roadrunner with many other forms of portraying violence is like comparing apples and oranges, they're both fruits, but quite different in all other respects.
I don't think there's any doubt that the prevalence of violence portrayed by humans,and by other forms creates a tone, atmosphere that influences some people. I don't think we can prevent that by laws or prohibition.
When individuals obsess compulsively on any one thing, be it violence or whatever else, there is a potential for problems -- some are more serious than others.
I do think it is possible to specifically delineate a set of weapons that it would be best were not available for the general public to own. I don't think that is being done properly now, but then we have to contend with the lobbying of the firearms manufacturers just as we do other powerful groups more than willing to make money at the expense of the common good.
Too many people have abdicated their moral and ethical responsibilities in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.
You could remove guns and these nut cases would still find a way to take lives. The problem is the person not the gun !!
I think these issues are the symptoms and not the disease. Gun ownership wouldn't be such a hot-button issue if we lived in a healthier culture. In smaller communities, the unstable member would be known by everyone. He could not hide behind his anonymity; his discontent or outright contempt for humanity would be known. Modern culture breeds this kind of lunacy. Taking away guns is not the answer. The answer lies in how we live, how people suffer alone in our midst, how we glamorize violence.
Post a Comment