Americans have to bend on permissive gun laws or we will break; 11,000 murders a year is too damn many
(Disclaimer: I am not for the banning of guns but rather for the rethinking of who is responsible enough to own one. Dylann Roof had a criminal record but had no problem getting his hands on a gun. This is all too common and we need to find sensible solutions to the problem. No other developed country has gun crime like we do and Americans are all too happy to ignore that fact.)
Another mass shooting. Another hate crime committed by a White Supremacist. Nine dead. Many more lives shattered by the senseless act of hatred and violence.
Nothing to see here, right? It’s America! This happens a few times every year. Boring!
No.
This is becoming harder to endure. As I look to the east at developed countries in Europe, it only gets harder because their countries virtually never go through this. Ever. It’s utter bullsh*t that Americans have been programmed to go through it every few weeks or months like it’s nothing. This year alone, we’ve had 133 people die in mass shootings.
And what will make it even worse, like rubbing the proverbial salt into the wound, is the predictable aftermath of it all.
Here’s what our next week looks like <pulls out crystal ball>:
The President will make a speech on how deplorable this act of violence is, and how lawmakers need to rethink permissive gun laws.Already done.- The right wing lawmakers and pundits will whip their base into a frenzy saying that Obama is coming for their guns after all these years.
Fox News will act confused as to why this is being labeled a hate crime. Oh look, they already did that.Scratch this off the list.- The NRA will make a speech on how a law designed to allow settlers and colonists to own their own muskets is the greatest law the world has ever seen even though people no longer have muskets and our country’s gun problem has gotten entirely out of control. But Wayne LePierre will ignore that last part, because he always does, and instead blame video games and the media, because he always does.
- Gun sales will skyrocket because gun nuts will worry Obama is going to outlaw guns.
- Your right wing friends and family will immediately start posting bald eagle memes with guns on them about the Second Amendment because they have no class or respect for the dead. Especially not for a bunch of church-going innocent black people. Because Second Amendment lovers also seem to be severely racist as a rule.
- Lastly, we’ll see a bunch of racist Fox News hosts say, “Well, how come we never talk about black on black crime?” in order to divert attention away from the fact that another scrawny white kid committed another major mass murder and this time, in the name of racism. We’ll see a bunch of Foxbots following their lead and saying much of the same on social media.
- Instead of making any progress on gun laws, gun laws will be relaxed even more because lawmakers seize upon these opportunities to derail the debate and instead play on people’s paranoia that we need guns in order to prevent crimes like these even though guns are very rarely ever used in self-defense.
That’s the playbook people. Everybody take their places, we’re running through the script again. Just another mass murder. Just another racist being racist, again. Nothing to see here because this is just America.
We’ll never see progress on gun regulation. Eleven thousand murders a year isn’t enough to make a change, I mean, zero death from marijuana a year is enough to make it illegal, but 11,000 or so people dead from gun murder is like, phhbbt, nothing.
According to Gun Violence Archive, for 2015, we are already at the halfway mark to 11,000 this year:
And this is why the world is laughing at us.
Featured Image via Pixabay
Interesting list there Jenna, but it’s only half complete. Where are the entries from you lefties talking about passing unrelated gun regulations that stand just about zero chance of keeping this type of thing from happening in the future? Why aren’t you talking about the fact that this type of legal-gun-owner blaming is precisely what is keeping gun owners from coming on board with any new regulations? You can only b*tch and moan about the NRA so many times before we stop listening to you entirely. As you say, We’ll NEVER have new gun regulations the way we’re currently going. Your problem is that you’re placing 100% of the blame on gun rights advocates, which is a huge mistake, and unfortunately, a common one among gun grabbers.
If you’re so “sick of” losing this fight, maybe you should think about changing your tactics, because we gun rights advocates are clearly winning at almost every turn.
Might there be a bit of a fallacy to insert “legal”-gun-owner, if you’re arguing against regulation?
If I can walk up to a flea market in my state and pop cash down on an assault rifle and ten banana clips, what exactly would earn me a “legal”-gun-owner label?
I’d like to answer your question, but your post really doesn’t make any sense. If you can legally purchase an “assault” weapon in the way you are claiming, then you are a “legal” gun owner, are you not? I don’t get what you’re saying.
Correct.
So if everyone is “legal”, how exactly can someone be “illegal”?**
People packing guns are simply people packing guns, so why pretend there’s a “legal”-gun-owner differentiation? Isn’t that the libertarian dream anyway?
**(This question does actually have an answer. They “become” illegal after they open fire on the public. Quite poor catalyst that.)
It really sounds to me like you really don’t know this issue very well. I’m not sure if you’re talking about gun purchases, “assault” weapons, concealed carry, open carry, or constitutional carry. I think it’s probably some mixture of all these hot button issues.
Just FYI, no state has what we call “constitutional carry” yet (although Indiana is currently trying to become the 1st). That means that if you have a permit to carry concealed, you are a “legal” carrier. If you don’t have that permit and you carry anyway, you are “illegal,” get it?
It sure sounds to me like you’re trying to make the “every gun owner is a ticking time bomb” argument. This is a mistake. Let me share with you the words of a liberal DailyKos user, no friend to the NRA:
Such imagery and language does not lend credence to nor enlist support for finding viable solutions to the problem of gun violence. Rather it is divisive, belittling, serving only to demonize gun owners and delegitimize gun ownership. Such labelling, framing and language is every bit as much fear mongering as anything spouted by the NRA-ILA.
http://www.dailykos.Com/story/2015/02/27/1364204/-RKBA-No-such-thing-as-a-responsible-gun-owner
Straw man, followed by quote demonizing said straw man. Rather common, but nice effort.
I don’t think “every gun owner” is anything in particular. I try to avoid generalities as they “generally” reveal simple-mindedness.
It’s true I don’t know the issue well. Where I come from and where I live, very few people aren’t gun owners, including most people I’m related to. It’s pointless to follow the issue closely when politicians are vying only to out-gun the other Gun Guy.
Far as I know, you want a gun, you buy it, then you carry wherever you want, as long as there’s not a sign on the door…which some probably ignore anyway.
I have no problem with “gun owners”. This kid wasn’t a killer because he was a “gun owner”. See, those nine people weren’t gonna show up at his house. He was a killer because he was a gun “carrier”.
That, I’ve got a generalized problem with. I personally don’t know a soul who carries a gun who doesn’t have a fantasy of “saving the day”…which of course means shooting someone. Anecdotal yes, and impossible to research probably.
But it’s quite easy to ask the question, “How afraid are you to go shopping? To a ball game? To church?”
This is the whole deal. Fear. Do the relative number of random victims really justify this fear? I say no.
But…the relative numbers who have PERSONAL issues with other people are significant. (Just look at the percentage of victims who know their shooters.)
So, now I’m at the grocery store. You’re packing, and that husband who’s pissed at you for bangin’ his wife confronts you. Now you’re “protecting yourself” by whipping out that gun and I’m in danger.
It’s far, far statistically smarter for me take my chances with spree killers, and for the gunslingers to lose their guns the moment the metal detector goes off.
Nobody’s “taking away” anybody’s guns. PBO’s been in office for 7 years and that’s still true. But I think the scared-stiff and/or fantasizing gun-toters is debatable. Because more people die as a result of that culture than are saved by it, based on the data that I’ve seen.
So what you’re saying here, is that you’re boning my wife?!!? LOL
My argument isn’t actually a straw man, you’re making the argument that anyone who carries a gun is just an accident/attack waiting to happen, which is exactly what I’m talking about. The truth is that concealed carriers are not the problem in this country, as confirmed by multiple law enforcement experts, one of whom recently cited statistics that show that legal concealed carriers are responsible for fewer crimes involving guns than are even police officers.
The idea that a concealed carrier is going to act violently just because he’s carrying, and that he wouldn’t do so were he not armed, comes from a place of ignorance and fear, and is not supported by the facts.
I also have to dispute the assertion that “more people die as a result of gun culture than are saved by it.” Remember back in 2013 when President Obama commissioned the CDC to compile research on gun violence after Sandy Hook? Among their many findings from the report they submitted was information on defensive gun uses. They report that “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals”
http://www.nap.Edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=15
I’m fine with most of your points, but the problem (and the straw man) is “anyone who carries a gun”.
It’s not anyone. But it’s a minute percentage. Thus, unquestionably the more thousands or millions who pack heat, the more the statistical likelihood of the OK Corral at the city park little league fields.
It’s simple math. Let’s say the George Patton look becomes so en vogue that 20% of the population starts wielding pearl-handled revolvers. Safe guns, revolvers. Good choice.
So let’s say 1/10 of 1% of these 80 million citizens is nuckin’ futs. So let’s say that these 80,000 time bombs go bonkers one day every five years. Well, we’d have about 45 incidents every day.
Truth is, we’d probably have the 45 incidents anyway. We probably do today. But what I want is for these incidents to happen at the damn house. Not at the damn Walmart or on campus somewhere.
(Cuz if it’s truly cool, the 18 year olds will come in there at above 20%, right?)
Yes, saying my issue is that I don’t trust “anybody” is a straw man. I guess maybe 80% of Americans own a smartphone. But I figure a small percentage use it for bullying or for sending their neckid pics out somewhere.
That doesn’t make “anybody” with a cell phone a problem. But what is unquestionable is that when the trend got going, errrrbody had to have a smartphone. Even the ones who use poor judgement.
Why would guns be different when they become this romanticized Must-Have consumer device? Especially since we treat a drivers license as a FAR greater difficulty to earn than a gun?
(And you can’t say it isn’t possible, because the right has been romanticizing it since PBO took office. Look no further than than the girl who posed like a suicide bomber in front of the Hobby Lobby.)
All it’s gonna take now is some famous designer to come out and say he’s anti-gay and doesn’t work on Sunday’s, and he has a “new look” with his logo on it, a Limited Edition S&M .357. And all the Southern girls (who are all 100% mentally stable, lemme tell you), will “have to have it.”
Ok, you make a fair point, and I withdraw my strawman argument. I just have no idea as to how to keep these incidents “in the house” instead of at the local Walmart. Are you talking about banning concealed carry? If so, you should realize that in our current political climate, that’s simply not going to happen anytime soon. Illinois recently became the last of the 50 states to legalize it, and CA recently was forced to move from “may issue” to “shall issue,” setting a precedent for similar moves around the country. Increased training requirements and background checks for concealed carry? Now you’re talking!
There is a great deal of truth to what you’re saying, and we will always have that tiny percentage of wackos who will find ways to guns, knives, bombs, etc and hurt others. Figuring out what to do about it without taking away rights from the other 99.999% of people, that’s the really hard part.
Appreciate the positive conversation, P&R. No question it’s not going to happen, that’s pretty clear.
However, I’d say this deal has far more potential for enforcement than load limits and other “ownership issues”. States-rights takes away any hope of keeping guns away from people. If illegal in KY, just drive to TN and buy your M-Howevermany.
But carrying is quite different. Say California decides any auto or foot transport of weapons must be in a lockdown case or whatever. Regardless of what state I’m from, if a detector or traffic stop finds a weapon, it’s destroyed by CA that day. I’d wand em anywhere, anytime on public property. White, black or Icelandic. (I’m sure SCOTUS would disagree.)
Anyway. I’ve been around for 40 years, and just 10-15 years ago, nobody had a gun on their person. And I think it’s baloney that Columbine-type incidents are what has made it cool. Violent crime was far higher in number 40 years ago, but nobody felt like they needed to do the job of police, judge and jury. And they didn’t even have cell phones to call the police then!
It’s purely a romanticized ideal mostly from people who grew up on Westerns. (Which portrayed a “way of life” that was never a way of life in the West or anywhere else.) And its young folks following their lead, cuz who wouldn’t want to be carrying a gun at 18 I suppose.
It’s fear combined with false bravado combined with limp rebellion against a diversity that white guys were able to avoid in years past.
And what those guys need to understand is, even though they aren’t apt to shoot up a place based on their own ethnocentric rhetoric…people like Dylan Whatsisname or the Joker theatre freak or the school-shooter cowards…they are. Nobody can convince a thinking person that rhetoric isn’t playing at least some part of their actions when they have their mental break.
But the cat is out of the bag now, and these folks see a way to get their name in the world, whereas before they woulda just committed suicide, most of em. (I love that one of the channels I turned past last night pixeled out his face. We shouldn’t give them name or face one minute after they’re in custody or dead. It ought to be “the 20 yr old murderer” from Swamptown” at very most.)
When “clearly winning” includes mass shootings, and you want to call out folks for “fixating on the size of your junk”, it really is easy to appalled at your arguments and then to ignore whatever sense you are trying to make.
What a waste.
Mass shootings aren’t “wins” for gun rights advocates numbnutz, and the argument we’re talking about here is what to do about these mass shootings. Try and keep up.
Hmmm, so you consider it WORSE to call someone out for fixating on gun owner’s junk than it is for those people to fixate in the first place? Um, ok. How about your side stop talking nonsense about penis “extensions” and “replacements” and start working on proposals that actually have a chance at stopping shootings like this?