On Friday morning the NRA posted on their Twitter account (later redacted), “Good Morning, Shooters. Happy Friday. Any weekend plans?”
Mass murders are becoming America’s dark signature, a signature added to the greater narrative of gun violence in our country.
With untold millions of guns in the US, the 2004 end of the ban on assault weapons, the dangerously vague “Stand Your Ground” laws, unregulated Internet sales of ammunition, current NRA pushes to allow guns in businesses and restaurants that serve alcohol, and even colleges—the gun has become a predominant strand in the complex DNA of our society.
It’s a fait accompli. The laws are on the books. The Second Amendment has been protected and any arguments against its interpretation are moot.
“The quiet loner,” mentally ill or disturbingly vengeful, with an arsenal enough to kill and maim a roomful of theatergoers, a classroom of students, a subway of commuters, or random pedestrians in DC, finds his tools easily.
As the media descended on the town of Aurora, Colorado—a scene that is quickly becoming stock footage—I decided to look for a 90-round drum magazine for an AR-15—Assault Rifle-15— like the one used in Aurora, Colorado. In less than 10 seconds I found this:
“Take your shooting to the next level with this high capacity magazine.” $140, no problem. Maryland, to its credit bans the sale, transfer or receipt of any over-20-shot firearm magazines.
All the arguments for and against gun control become white noise muted by the echoes of 70 gunshots in a Colorado movie theater. And once again, like the brief outcry over the Virginia Tech slayings, little traction will be made in talking about making our world safer, election year or not.
FBI-NCIS background checks for gun ownership cites 130,000,000 applications for the years 1998-2011, a fraction of the picture if you include previously owned guns, loophole-legal gun show sales and flat out illegal transfers of guns impossible to estimate. The number of guns in the US today could range from 250 million to 400 million.
As WBEZ radio in Chicago recently reported, “while some 2,000 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001, more than 5,000 people have been killed by gunfire in Chicago during that time, based on Department of Defense and FBI data.”
Few politicians dare to address the issue of guns and violence. Those that do are passively neutral or clash with contrarian defiance.
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), and ardent gun-control advocate, stated to ABC News that “now is a bad time to press the issue politically.”
Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) declared large magazines a Constitutional right. Banned during the Clinton administration, the ban on assault weapons and large ammunition clips expired in 2004.
Former Pennsylvania Governor, Ed Rendell, safely perched outside of electoral politics, said to ABC News, “We’re terrified of the NRA. We Democrats are as bad as the Republicans. Everyone is scared of the NRA,” Rendell said Friday on MSNBC. “There are some things worth losing for in politics, and to be able to prevent carnage like this is worth losing for.” At least he spoke up.
President Obama’s outline for steps to reinstitute the ban on assault weapons and large ammunition clips after the assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Gifford using high capacity (33-round) magazines for a Glock semi-auto handgun, faded into oblivion. Six were killed, a dozen wounded.
As Jen Psaki, Obama’s campaign spokeswoman, said on Air Force One responding to a question about an administration review of assault weapons and high capacity magazines in light of the Aurora, Colorado shootings, “we’re still learning what exactly happened here…so it’s too early to say how this will play.”
The learning curve must be steep. It’s been 45 years since the Texas Bell Tower Sniper killed 16 people, wounding 32.
Two days ago, NYC Mayor Bloomberg challenged both President Obama and Governor Romney with a national debate. Citing that Romney, in 2004 had already enacted a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons (specifically the AR-15), Bloomberg sees the Republican presidential candidate now as unsurprisingly mute on the subject and that Obama’s promise to renew the assault weapon ban simply faded away.
Currently there is no call to action.
A recent poll conducted through CNBC found that “43% of people felt that gun laws should be made stricter and a 55% majority believe that laws should stay the same or made more lenient.” Majority rules.
Like the acceptance of alcohol into the American culture—an estimated 70 alcohol related deaths per day in the U.S.— guns have been woven into the American psych, its behavior and pathology. Federal and local gun laws have bolstered Second Amendment rights and while the majority of the population—hunters, gun enthusiasts ranging from collectors to target shooters—embrace legal and safe practices, we are still left with a statistic like this:
“Number of Murders by Firearms in the US during 2009: 9, 146.
Is there something to do or do we just mourn? What is the next level?
Melinda Bookwalter says
“Six were killed, a dozen wounded.”
People, steps, bills??
When is the “right time”?
People are killed, can’t do it then; memory fades, won’t do it then.
Repeat, repeat.
mary wood says
How can a citizen possibly be kind as the Spy warns, in the face of this legal permission to kill one another.? It is an outrage that violence has become as American as Apple Pie. I think a debate, face to face, between the two candidates as to their suggestions as how to end this slaughter should be held immediately. Thank you Jim for this editorial.
Stephan Sonn says
We mourn for what we thought was a just society
because “we” have left the closet and become again the Wild West
When Senator Johnson Of Wisconsin advocates munitions hoarding
we remain silent for fear it will get worse if we speak up,
… And “they” have guns.
Gren Whitman says
Shouldn’t the conversation be less about gun rights and more about massacre control?
Melinda Bookwalter says
“Massacre control” is an oxymoron.
Stephan Sonn says
Wrong Melinda, you are far too literal.
The next stage is hiding in plain sight and Gren branded it.
M. Troup states it in the raw in his bullets comment.
MB Troup says
If we take the angle of “what’s necessary for the maintenance of a civil society,” I think it is valid to ask where 80 rounds per minute enters into that framework. Courts have long maintained that self defense applies to the degree that the defensive response is necessary to discontinue the offending behavior. So where does 80 rounds fall into that framework? Then the argument will be made that the people should, in the interest of needing a “well regulated militia,” be able to secure weaponry available to police and military. So then we outlaw this type of firepower to prevent tyranny. But will North Korea, Russia, and Iran do the same?
Unfortunately, the toothpaste is out of the tube on this one. I like Chris Rock’s idea. Guns are free. Bullets are $1,000 apiece.
DLaMotte says
How sickening our society has become that we cower in the face of the NRA. Shame on us. Violence will happen but why do we make it easier
with legally available assault guns and clips that hold dozens of rounds?? Really, are we mad or what!?
Stephan Sonn says
What if we engaged in a logistics effort
that monitored from a large ammo supplying.
as it is in transaction or shortly thereafter…
Like fertilizer purchases are to terrorists,
ammo in quantity is to lone, mass kill gunmen.
What if the NRA helped sort out the rogues?
Suicide bombers come from virtually nowhere
but mass lone killers have a paper trail, don’t they.
Will May says
Even if you break the Constitution and ban all the guns, people will be killed. Today, August 3rd, there was a report here of a man in China who killed 8 people all at one time, with a knife.
joe diamond says
I can’t help but think there must be some way to take the second amendment apart and reassemble it so it makes current sense. It makes two statements. The first is the states want to continue to have enough fire power to resist a central government that became too intrusive. The Civil War resolved how that works. The states now have well regulated militia.
The second protection is a guarantee that individuals can keep arms for self protection. This was considered essential at a time when most citizens lived in rural areas far from established police protection. The remedy considered adequate at the time was a single shot musket or pistol. So could it be said that since citizens now live in cities the need for enough armament to overpower the old militia firepower might be unnecessary and excessive? Dangerous? Do we not have the technology to limit the range and rate of fire of modern weapons? How much lethal force is needed for self protection? This is where I think we need to look.
Joe
Stephan Sonn says
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t there a bit of Adam Smith
in the motivations for the framers of the second amendment?
In that context, was not the government to be feared
as a tool of the home born aristocracy like ned to King George.
Wasn’t there a fear that money and government
would unite on this Side of the pond?
Maybe there will be a Koch republic
with the militia actially on the Tory side
joe diamond says
I can see that…………the separation of powers written into the constitution was clearly a distrust of concentrated power. I had not considered Adam Smith and his writings to be a factor in the second amendment…but I can see it. To the extent that a central (national) government starts to run up debts to fund wars and other things the money to pay for them has to come from somewhere. Local militia might have been seen as a way to resist that tax man. For sure they were used as an extension of state power, including resisting national trends a local governor did not agree with. The military-industrial complex of recent times certainly would have been resisted early on if its’ eventual power could have been seen.
Time to do a little reading, Thanks,
Joe
Gerry Maynes says
How hipocritical, we have a sitting Prsident who sold weapons to Mexican Drug Gangs declares executive Pviilledge after 15 people have been murdered including a US Border Agent and not a cry! Heck! for all wer know our President could be guilty of Murder for providing the murder weapons. We will never find out. as far as amending the Bill Of Rigths, which are ineliable and handed down by God, are you nuts! Who knows what would happen? Freedom of Speech get on your Nerves, Just change it to mfit your needs. Only DEmocrats can say whats on their minds! or Freedom of Religion get in your way of your g roups attendance on Sunday, Well Amend Them!~ Make your religion the official religion and close every other one out, that will take care of those who think man came from Apes. CanT understand why we have to waist time with tghe legal process to condem murderes, when a good hunk of hemp and a tree could save tax payers so much tax money You get the picture. What is realy needed is a way to get the n uts off of the street and to Medical help before this happens again
Stephan Sonn says
Interesting mixed bag of opinions you have Gerry
but you need an infusion of pragmatism.
The last of the Democratic purists were
Mc Govern or maybe Carter.
And if you want to talk Republican
Romney is a preppy shape-shifter
rooted in banality of Bain.
Purists are not the stock of good presidents
but they persist in thinking so.
Steve Payne says
“How hipocritical, we have a sitting Prsident who sold weapons to Mexican Drug Gangs ”
The government never made any sale to anyone. This whole story is to give some cover to the fact that almost 100,000 guns have been bought and resold to straw purchasers (legally it turned out) in the southern border states.
https://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/
Stephan Sonn says
OK Steve
I was at the shallow end of the pool when I oversimplified your input.
Reading the details and sequences paints another picture.
Now I have to ask you, what was your intended point?
If you wanted to show that all of this is a Keystone Cop saga
with all sides taking bows and curtsies as they trotted out their soapboxes, you made your point.
If you are trying to say that this entire gun industry syndrome
is a failing of rational civilization you made your point.
If you are trying to say Obama is a perpetrator or willing participant in all this madness,
he is in no more control of these events than you are.
This whole thing has the guile and forethought of a runaway horse
and there is no target that can’t extricate itself in the confusion and fog of war.
If I have not made your point, please give it another try.
Steve Payne says
Stephen,
My reply was to Gerry Maynes,
The point is that the House has been making a huge deal over Fast and Furious. It’s true that the ATF started but the existing gun laws stopped them from arresting people when their sting worked. Something they didn’t anticipate.
I do think the existing gun laws are failing the people. The background checks only apply to gun dealers so in some states I can go in and buy 20 guns and resell them 60 seconds later in the parking lot as an individual to another individual with no background check perfectly legally.
I’m not anti gun at all. I’m anti crazy and the people that are always defending these few laws that let people buy assault weapons with 100 round clips and deal privately in large quantities of guns without any regulation at all is getting people killed.
Stephan Sonn says
So I totally agree with you. And the article referenced shedding light on all this was
as complete as it was complex. Thanks for articulating,
Have you noticed that the opposition is now legitimately stupid and viciously inaccurate.
I would never have said that in all the elections I have voted in since 1964.