So we can add 26 more to America's gun violence body count, this time, 20 first graders and seven adults mowed down by another reclusive lunatic. And its becoming so frequent, we're all becoming inured to it.
I wonder how many Americans were annoyed Sunday night when NBC cut away from the 49ers-Patriots game to broadcast President Obama's remarks at the memorial service in Newtown, Connecticut?
Last Friday, it was the same footage we always see: grim faced first responders and panicked parents rushing to the scene; surviving school kids shivering in terror, and another police chief trying to make sense of the insane.
Those first graders thought they were safe in their Sandy Hook classroom, no doubt giddy over the approaching Christmas holiday; baking cookies with mom, wrapping presents with dad, sledding with their friends. Then the shooting started, their little bodies cut to pieces by high powered bullets shot from a semi automatic assault weapon with a 30-round magazine.
These are the images we need to see, not the sterile, "here-we-go-again" footage we're accustomed to and, yes, indifferent to.
Let's see those victims so we all know what bullets really do. Let's be as shocked and sickened as those first police officers on the scene were at the sight of those dead babies and the women who gave their lives trying to protect them.
What's that? You don't think it's appropriate? Guns don't kill people? What about your Second Amendment rights?
Columbine. Virginia Tech. Tucson, Aurora. Now Newtown. Innocents slaughtered with weapons that should have never been in the hands of their maniac killers. Do the rest of us care enough now to enact sensible gun control laws? Is our outrage, at long last, enough to finally tip the scales?
Or will we just change the channel again.
Follow us on Twitter!
Statistics are your way of telling the victims and the families of victims, that it's not as bad as it seems.
No.
This is a discussion about solving a problem with statistics, logic and reason, not minimizing the problem.
Let's imagine a conversation between you and me. I'll start.
CCG: Lib, do you wear a seat belt?
Lib: Of course.
CCG: Why?
Lib: Because seat belts save lives.
CCG: How do you know?
Now, it's your turn to select the correct response.
Lib: Because 1) I was involved in an accident and the seat belt prevented me from being thrown from the car, or 2) because of studies, based on statistical analyses, done by the government, the auto industry, think tanks, and the insurance industry.
CCG: But, Lib, what if you were wearing a seat belt, had an accident, the car burst into flames, and the seat belt had you trapped for the few precious seconds you had before you were engulfed in the flames?
Now, I'll answer for you, but feel free to correct me if my answer is incorrect.
Lib: Well, the chances of a seat belt saving a life far outweigh the chances it will cause your death.
CCG: How do you know that?
"Your willingness to "normalize the numbers is a callous approach..."
This is a very emotional issue and everyone in the U.S. is weeping for the folks in Newtown.
No, it's not callous, but realistic.
EFFECTIVE policy to address any issue must be based on logic, reason, and, if available, accurate and meaningful statistics.
On the other hand, folks who simply want to push an agenda are free to throw around numbers willy-nilly and hope something sticks.
There is a difference.
See my Friday column.
If baseball bats or fertilizer trucks or frying pans or toilet seats or foot stools were used in 70% of all homocides and in nearly all mass murders, then this moronic idea of yours would have value. Your statemnt has no value come back when you have anything worthwhile to say.
Your willingness to "normalize the numbers is a callous approach to tens of thousands of deaths in this country where a gun was the weapon of choice.
I am certain that the parents of the 20 dead children in CT would be more than happy to "normalize" the numbers, in order to make any study look more acceptable.
the manner of the Timothy McVeigh massacre?
You are placing the blame for this on the instrument and ignoring the perpetrator, without whom it would not have happened.
Further, a revolver kills just as dead as a so-called "assault weapon."
Rethink your position,Sir, The one you are pursuing is ludicrous.
I hear what you're saying about the number of mass killings and firearm deaths, but you're citing absolute numbers. The U.S. has a large population. The numbers need to be normalized on a per capita basis.
Nevertheless, thank you for the adult conversation.
I understand your desire to eliminate the 2nd amendment and create a gun-free society. I'm afraid the utopia you desire just won't happen, notwithstanding the success you correctly cite regarding Japan.
Dave Kopel has written much about this subject in relation to Japan. To be fair, Kopel is on the gun rights side; I've yet to find research for gun control as extensive.
A few excerpts from his writings are in order...
"...Japan may be a gun-banner's dream, it's a civil libertarian's nightmare. Japan's low crime rate has almost nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with people control."
"Japan's lack of crime is more the result of the very extensive powers of the Japanese police, and the distinctive relation of the Japanese citizenry to authority."
"Having lived together for several thousand years without significant immigration, the Japanese have developed the world's most homogenous and unified society. America's ethnic diversity causes tensions and crime..."
"Partly because the Japanese are so unified and homogenous, they accept and internalize social controls. It is this attitude of obedience and impulse control that matters most in the low Japanese crime rate. Guns or not, the Japanese are simply the
world's most law-abiding people." [note that we witnessed this in Japan's response to the tsunami - patiently and politely waiting in lines to receive aid]
You get the idea. It's a cultural thing.
You, Armstrong, Cobb County Guy, and the rest of you reactionaries are providing the cover that will allow another mass shooting to happen. Stop telling me about your "gun rights." I'm sick of it.
When they wrote the Constitution, the framers were talking about single shot muskets and a "well regulated militia," not 30-round assault weapons. If they knew about such killing machines, THEY would have written the gun control laws.
I will be happy to discuss.
There is no genocide in England or Japan, both countries have very strict gun contol laws.
Try for a few minutes to stay on task, take an extra dose of ritalin.
All the examples put forth, of mass killings done without guns, are certainly relevant to any discussion about banning guns as a method of stopping mass killings.
Using such aa horrendous happening, as the Newtown massacre, to further a political agenda is beyond contempt.
I'm sure you know this; I don't understand why you appear to be ignoring it. This is a worldwide problem. It is not unique to the U.S. You DO remember the killings at the youth camp in Norway, right? Does Dunblane, Scotland, ring a bell?
Google "mass killings worldwide" and peruse the long lists of other killings in Finland, Germany, Australia, Azerbaijan, et al.
By the way, Republicans are NOT making excuses. Republicans are interested in EFFECTIVE measures, just as you are.