The Aurora killings have unleashed a powerful wave of emotion across the United States.
Perhaps it was the photograph of the clearly desperate Irish American Tom Sullivan as he appealed for help to find his bartender son Alex that personified the awful event best.
In that father’s anxious face was every parent’s utter nightmare, the reality that his beloved son was missing and probably killed because as a society we have failed to live up to defending our own people from such madmen as the killer, James Holmes.
Surely we can do better than allow a lunatic to purchase 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet and buy as many guns as he wants from a gun store.
Even Rupert Murdoch, whose publications and Fox News fuel the gun lobby, said there is a need for better gun laws.
Sure, the NRA supporters will trot out the usual rhetoric that people kill, not guns, but if guns and ammunition were not so easily available perhaps that six-year-old little girl would still be alive today and her devastated mother, also badly injured, would not be mourning her.
There are some realities that are plainly wrong. The notion of the Second Amendment giving blanket rights to gun owners is one of them.
Sure, hunting and self-defense are two American staples and there are, no doubt, millions who enjoy hunting and feel the need to have a personal weapon.
But that is not the same as allowing semi-automatic rifles that can fire 100 bullets a minute and mow down defenseless people.
It is not the same as ordering thousands of rounds of ammunition over the Internet with no checks or balances on what can be bought, or reporting to local police that some weird guy has just gone and done that.
How much freedom is too much?
Close to 9,000 lives are lost due to firearms in the U.S. every year. The total number of homicides in Britain is about 600.
The difference? British people cannot have unfettered access to guns, and there is no powerful crackpot lobby insisting, despite all realities to the contrary, that such access should be encouraged.
We wonder how the NRA honchos get to sleep at night when such a massacre happens? Are they able to wash their hands of the whole issue and pretend they have no responsibility?
We are not saying to ban all guns, especially if people feel a need to hunt or have one for personal protection.
But surely the madness that multiple gun sales, Internet ammunition deals, complete access to every possible form of death dealing rifle and automatic machine guns imaginable is way too much for civilized society.
We hope that in 100 years people will look back and wonder how on earth this country took so long to get sensible and enact sane gun laws.
Unfortunately in recent years the trend seems to be the opposite as the NRA dances its deadly dance of more guns that lead to more killings.
It is past time sanity returned and gun control laws were enacted. The faces of the dead in Aurora are just the latest example of what happens when bad people access guns with no difficulty whatsoever.
It is time to shout stop.
33 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.seanomelb | Jul 31, 2012, 07:16 PM EDT
The answer must be "blowing in the wind" eiriamach.
eiriamach | Jul 31, 2012, 11:53 AM EDT
JFK, RFK, MLK, Reagan, Giffords and the Tucson Mall patrons, Stephen Tyrone Johns, Trayvon Martin . . . Aurora, and still counting . . . "Yes, ’n’ how many times must the cannonballs fly / Before they're forever banned?" (Dylan)
eiriamach | Jul 30, 2012, 09:30 AM EDT
ciaradexy, thanks for the heads-up re Georgieporgy/ Wounded/ Kev. I'm not surprised. There've been lots of imposters commenting lately, and it's likely to worsen, panic-driven, until the US election in Nov. Those I find most annoying (but also transparent) are the uber-orthodox males posing as females who rant against feminists, "libbers," abortion, contraceptives, etc. etc. Fortunately, Georgie the super sexist couldn't survive 5 minutes as a female imposter.
ciaradexy | Jul 29, 2012, 03:18 PM EDT
No doubt George/Wounded/Kev408 will blame migrants into Ireland for this.
eiriamach | Jul 29, 2012, 08:52 AM EDT
@rpmschevy, I mentioned the 1993 Waco siege to show how difficult it would be to enforce gun control where it is most needed. The 51-day Waco siege left 86 casualties, including federal agents and Branch Davidians, men, women, and children. I did not suggest that Christian-identity cults were responsible for the Aurora shooting (although they have been responsible for bombings and fatal shootings at women's health clinics). The NRA lobby uses crazy "Christian" slogans, like "God, guns, and guts made America free," to keep patriots buying guns and resisting gun control. I don't think any single line from the bible has gotten as much traction in a political fight as the one in which Jesus tells his disciples to sell their cloaks to buy swords. Cultists imagine a 21st century Jesus handing out assault weapons so that Christians can bring heathens to their knees! How literally do the cultists take the bible verse? Few people noticed in 2010 when ABC News revealed that Trijicon, a gun manufacturer with a $660 million contract to make rifle sights for the US Marine Corps and Army, had been inscribing citations to New Testament passages on the sights of high-powered rifles used in Iraq and Afghanistan. The manufacturer believed that having Jesus in their gun sights would help our soldiers shoot straight. The gun lobby plays "the Patriot Game" Christian-cult style.
patrickesq | Jul 29, 2012, 12:18 AM EDT
Thank you for this editorial. The need for better gun controls and the types of guns/weapons that can be sold to individuals is quite obvious. We need some leaders to promote and fully support legislation to implement these reasonable limits on assault weapons.
seanomelb | Jul 28, 2012, 10:13 PM EDT
rpmschevy is correct they do charitable work and they love guns. Of course there is a rider on their international charity work,flogging bibles to those who want sustenance.Christian zealots are enablers of mass murder with their love of guns
weeknocky | Jul 28, 2012, 07:16 PM EDT
I have two revolvers, two rifles and a shotgun. I have never fired any of them at a human. I grew up hunting deer and rabbits for food. I am involved in law enforcement and AK-47 rifles do not belong in the hands of civilians. They are not hunting weapons...period. None of my children(all adults) own any weapons and have never expressed a desire to own one. Automatic weapons and high calibre weapons belong in the hands of military and law enforcement. Count me on the side of anti-NRA.
tundish45 | Jul 28, 2012, 06:52 PM EDT
JBRATREE glad to see you agree the whole polite society thing is bogus.
JBRAFTREE | Jul 28, 2012, 06:41 PM EDT
YES tundish!!!!!
tundish45 | Jul 28, 2012, 06:38 PM EDT
@jacke47 | Jul 28, 2012, 06:28 PM EDT Wait a minute here. Earlier in this thread it was asserted by shop tom "the large majority of gun deaths in America is do (sic) to gangs and illegal drug activity" So if all those bad guys are armed and know all the other bad guys are armed...doesn't the idea of an armed society being a polite society not work?
jacke47 | Jul 28, 2012, 06:28 PM EDT
What gibberish. Why don't you state the stats that the highest percentage of gun crimes is in cities where gun 'CONTROL' is the strictest thereby assuring that only those who intend harm by weapon will be accommodated. When killers, muggers and their like are uncertain whether one is armed, they are likely to pick more promising targets. You can keep your Hope and Change. I'll keep my God, guns, freedom and money, thank you!!!
tundish45 | Jul 28, 2012, 06:09 PM EDT
@rpmschevy | Jul 28, 2012, 04:54 PM EDT. Wow. You seem a little extra excited there. You packin?
seanomelb | Jul 28, 2012, 05:30 PM EDT
The NRA are a corporate body which enables crazies to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Like drug cartels they enable a product which kills people.Drug are banned why not assault rifles!!
EphraimKibbey | Jul 28, 2012, 04:37 PM EDT
As a gun collector and target shooter, I have supported many of the NRA's efforts to protect the second amendment but I am now convinced that they are at odds with their own membership. The recent survey of NRA members showed 70% support for many reasonable gun control laws. Many of the current laws would eliminate some of the criminal access to firearms with the closing of a few loopholes. I was especially alarmed when the NRA made the vote to hold Eric Holder in contempt a counted one for their reports. The ATF agents that were not allowed to testify by Issa explained that these guns got across the border because Arizona prosecutors refused to arrest the straw purchasers who were reselling them. The ONLY reason that I can see for the NRA to have involved itself is as a lobbying arm of the firearms industry who want to sell as many of these assault rifles to the Mexican Drug Cartels as possible. The argument that the AR-15's .223 round is a common hunting round and is not as a potent as that of an AR-47 or M16 is specious as a weaker .22 long rifle traveled from a kid's rifle through a heavily wooded park and killed a woman tending her garden on the other side in our town not so long ago and the Aurora shooter managed to wound people through the wall in the next theater. Class C firearms (Fully Automatic machine guns) may be purchased but they are subject to a federal tax and some local laws forbid them.
JBRAFTREE | Jul 28, 2012, 03:19 PM EDT
You delete comments from me, a combat veteran, so I'll not respond to this.
jflanagan | Jul 28, 2012, 03:15 PM EDT
No one outside of the military and law enforcement has access to FULLY automatic rifles. Even if you banned semi automatic rifles, unless you can find and confiscate every semi automatic rifle in the world (impossible to do unless you give up all rights to privacy and property), bad people will still have the ability to get them. Even though I have not had a gun in my hand since 1969, I don't see the reason to waste time, money and political favors getting a law passed to ban them. More than twice as many people were killed by hand, fists and strangling, than rifles last year. Should we ban hands also? I understand the anguish, sorrow and feeling of helplessness. It is my wish that some solution may be found in the near future but placebo legislation is a waste of time.
Getlin2 | Jul 28, 2012, 03:02 PM EDT
First of all you lied when you wrote that there is unrestricted acceess to fully automatic machine guns. I am a retired police officer and I still have my guns. If there were a couple of responsible gun owners in that theater there might have been a different outcome.
butlerreport | Jul 28, 2012, 02:39 PM EDT
A typical knee-jerk reaction. Why the issue with 6,000 rounds? He used 66. The implication is that he could have used 6,000 rounds forgetting that to carry that amount would require a pneumatic life. While the UK lacks guns, Britain had 14,000 stabbings in the first 6 months of 2011. Concentrate on the criminal and what he did - his motivations etc and don't divert blame to the gun. The 2nd amendment was put in place for a reason - I suggest you research it.
peterson | Jul 28, 2012, 02:27 PM EDT
Hitler banned gun ownership and confiscated them forcibly and that was followed by removing Bibles the same way.
Nicomax | Jul 28, 2012, 02:26 PM EDT
Understanding a large majority of Americans agree that that there needs to be some regulation on the sale and use of fire arms, then at what level should such restrictions be applied? We once had a national law restricting the sale of assault weapons, but congressional inaction let it expire. It should be returned. Is their any level of political courage left that would allow that to happen?
Pittsburghkid | Jul 28, 2012, 02:25 PM EDT
All the victims had one thing in common, none of them had a gun. If one victim would have had a gun, then there would have been less victims. During the American Revolution, Americans had more experence with gun, and were better marksmen. The British citizen were not permited to hunt or own guns. American guns were designed for long distance killing of game. The Last battle America fought with the British was the Battle of New Orleans. The British were routed, because of the Markmenship of Andy Jackson's troups. America will give up guns, when Ireland becomes free of the EU.
eiriamach | Jul 28, 2012, 01:16 PM EDT
I agree that sales of automatic and semi-automatic weapons, along with ammunition for them, should be banned except to law enforcement and military. The Second Amendment was clearly not adopted to protect private home ownership of military weapons. Armories were built to house weapons intended to protect citizens. However, we'd still have the problem of para-military groups that stockpile weapons in their own arsenals out of fear that they will need to take up arms against their own government. These people on the lunatic fringe, often encouraged by fundamentalist Christian-identity preachers, pose a more deadly threat than even the Aurora-type shooter. They'd defy federal gun-control laws. Having seen no statistics on the recent surge in gun sales, I don't know who's buying weapons now, but I'd guess that anti-government paramilitary extremists are again stockpiling them. They're difficult groups for the feds to deal with. Remember the bloody 1993 Waco siege between the Branch Davidian cult and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms? The cult members had M16s and high-powered rifles. Casualties (from the siege and the fire) included infants and whole families, and the death toll was high. Could a gun control law be enforced on such groups without more massacres?
shop tom | Jul 28, 2012, 12:51 PM EDT
Those who keep babbling without knowledge about "assault weapons" should excuse themselves from this discussion because they have already proved their ignorance on the subject. As far as the deer populations decimated, that comment is entirely baseless. What goes unmentioned is that the large majority of gun deaths in America is do to gangs and illegal drug activity. Banning guns for law-abiding citizens will not stop those deaths and will leave far too many people at the mercy of criminals. Tragedies like Aurora occur because someone gets in in their defective head to cause evil. There is no stopping that kind of person. Unless, of course, there is someone with a gun. Something that the theater patrons weren't allowed to do. BUT the killer knew that fact, insuring that he would be unopposed.
Murph46 | Jul 28, 2012, 12:21 PM EDT
Keep your Irish opinions IRA and SAS have guns.Our Constitution says we can have guns because we had to defend against Brit's,Your doesn't so you are subjugated!
tundish45 | Jul 28, 2012, 11:33 AM EDT
How about allowing single shot, bolt action rifles and shot guns for the hunters? It sort of levels the field and requires the hunter to be a lot more focused and skillful. Can't take a shot unless you are absolutely set. And an outright ban on civilian hand gun and ammunition sales and possession. All this blather about a guy with a Baretta standing up to evil government is contentless gas. And the protection angle...look at posts below about leaving the US if you are afaid of guns. Why not the gun advocates move someplace else where everyone is armed. Like .... ? Where??? Iraq? Afganistan? Pakistan's border area? Plenty of jobs there for armed people.
CherylJean | Jul 28, 2012, 11:31 AM EDT
Granted, we possibly need better gun laws, but if someone gets it in their head that they want to kill, what's to stop them from using bow and arrows, knives, or even martial arts. Again, we're back to guns don't kill people, people kill people. Kind of a vicious cycle, huh?
tabyrnes | Jul 28, 2012, 11:18 AM EDT
Why were studies like the following never mentioned by those who want to control guns So, how often do Americans use firearms for self-defense? Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead.
dev4 | Jul 28, 2012, 10:56 AM EDT
people who do not like the gun laws are free to leave move to brit land and become subjects. bet the royals have no problem owning guns
dev4 | Jul 28, 2012, 10:27 AM EDT
Tell me Irish. Were there strict gun control laws on the books in Northern Ireland in the 1960's and 1970's? Did they work?
racallahan | Jul 28, 2012, 10:23 AM EDT
All this did was increase the number of people filing for carry permits!
TheOldPerfessor | Jul 28, 2012, 10:15 AM EDT
The right to bear assault weapons is brought to you by your friends at the Republican Party. Funny enough, in the years where they were banned, gun worshipers were not exactly hurting. America still had as many gun deaths as the rest of the world put together. Deer populations were decimated. But that wasn't enough for our Republican brethren.
JimmieM | Jul 28, 2012, 08:48 AM EDT
Its sort of like a kid who flaps his arms knowing that if he flaps long enough he will take off and fly....It would be nice if he could .... but he can't and won't same with guns and bad people. you want to live in a world where only bad people and governments have guns?....you think governments are made up of good people? ..... This is planet Earth...third from the Sun.... not some pie in the sky place where you can just flap your arms and fly.