If we don’t change, firearms tragedy will return
January 5, 2013 at 6:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
We’ve witnessed another national tragedy. Again, the hope and future lives of the innocent are taken away. They are gone from us forever, except for their names. Appropriately, we hear calls for change. Inappropriately, we hear the same old hard-rock ideological opposition to any change. Could limiting gun technology give responders the few seconds that might save lives? We need to explore that option. Could better means of identifying the profiles of those likely to commit horrible crimes allow for even a few preventions in the first place? We need to re-examine the options we might have to protect the innocent from the dangerous. Is there any basis for associating our fascination with violence in many forms with the potential for influencing minds that cannot put appropriate perspective on gratuitous acts of violence in games, movies and elsewhere? We need to better understand whether there is a connection.
Continue Reading
Problem with society is not the firearms, it is dealing with issue that bring on the tragedy.
Our system punishes the innocent as it is unwilling to deal with with the problem. Bullying is up, teen suicide is up, dysfunctional families are up, drug usage is up, but how do we deal, just throw money at the problem or give the ill more drugs and say to the rest of society now we can mainstream the problems.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
12
No credible person can argue that our country has not been slowly becoming a very violent place. Mostly inner cities but not always. We love our violence. At least for entertainment purposes. We crave it. Forget the statistics. Let’s all acknowledge that we live in an increasingly violent society and that it really doesn’t matter where we are on some list we found on wikipedia. There. That issue is settled. Now lets move on to the real question which is, why? Guns you say? Really? Guns are why we are seeing more and more violence?
Do you know why they put explicit warning labels on video games, music cds and rating on movies? Because there is a clear consensus among resonable minds that certain images and messages could be harmful to young developing minds. How many understand that those same warning labels and ratings do absolutely NO good at all. I won’t even mention what you can get on the internet.
Now put those kids in a world in which they become isolated, maybe a broken home with divorce, no real friends to speak of, a society that has no real moral compass anymore, throw in a bully at school, maybe a parent who has “no time”, more and more time spent taking frustrations out on a video game where they can “shoot and kill” to get the high score, watch a good “shoot em up” action movie and when they do go out they have wires in their ears pumping in the latest hip hop lyrics.
But wait you say, that’s not your typical kid. Most kids can handle all of the above with no ill effects. Well maybe, maybe not. I’m not so sure. What I do know is that most will NOT go out, find a gun and kill people. That, so far at least, is not the norm. We are however, seeing it more and more frequently. Wonder why? Because of more guns?
Guns are not the cause of gun violence anymore than cars are the cause of traffic fatalities and all the useless statistics which show our country to be a violent society (as if we didn’t know) do not address the reason why that is. But we know don’t we? We know why. Violence is entertaining.
For years the progressive humanists have been crying out for a godless society. We are now beginning to see what that looks like. Unfortunately, it’s going to get much worse. Might as well microwave yourself some popcorn and go rent the latest Tarantino.
Ask any farmer…… “you reap what you sow.”
As Always,
Red
Like or Dislike:
19 
7
Really? Just dismiss facts like FBI Crime statistics that violent crime has been on rapid decline for 15 years and is lowest it’s been in over 40 years…because facts go contrary to your rant and premise….whatever…
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored”
– Aldous Huxley
Like or Dislike:
8 
10
Fastone – You like statistics. Take a look at these charts and statistics complete with footnotes and let me know how gun laws have helped in other jurisdictions
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#36
My point when I said “forget statistics” is because everybody wants to argue over numbers and I readily acknowledge the problem. I don’t need statistics to know we are an ever increasingly violent culture. Also point being is that gun violence is a combination of factors (social, economic, political, geographic) all of which are variables that render comparison to other jusrisdictions inconclusive at best and even misleading.
One example: Gun violence per capita is mostly centered around the inner cities. The UK has less big cities and an entirely different culture with respect to urban living. Gang warfare I don’t even count. Those nutjob bangers are always going to be shooting each other no matter what we do. They’ll get their fire power from the homies south of the border. The L.A. Gangs alone could skew statistics.
Getting back to statistics they are (can be) very misleading. Everyone that gathers statistics usually has an agenda.
Take a look at the charts here:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#36
then tell me where I’m wrong.
There is no mathematical formula to solve this extremely complex social ill. Study the charts and graphs till yer blue in the face, but I maintain that guns are not the “cause”. The collective “we” have asked for a completely godless society and now we are starting to see what that looks like.
As a country we have sown weed seed all over the garden and now we scratch our heads and wonder how come we have so many weeds choking out the flowers. This is not rocket science. It’s closer to botany. Go figure.
As Always,
Red
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
Actually, many of the people who gather statistics are trying to understand what is going on. Many of the crime statistics are gathered by the FBI, which does have an agenda — but that agenda is understanding and trying to reduce crime.
The JustFacts folks have accumulated a lot of stats, though they do not seem to be making much of an effort to put some of the statistics into context (as far as I can tell, it appears they are all amateurs, so this is not surprising).
They also admit to starting with a conservative/libertarian bias, so its hard to take what they say as meaningful. For example, they include many graphs purporting to question whether handgun bans are meaningful based on showing stats in particular cities where crime went up or down. Of course, since they do not factor out the overall crime rate in the country (which peaked in the 90s and has been falling ever since), all conclusions from the graphs are meaningless.
These folks also include most of the since disproven studies about purported numbers of times people have defended themselves with guns. These were popular in the early 90s and then completely debunked in later years.
There has been a lot of really good, peer-reviewed work on understanding crime, not sure why this particular conservative group is one to look at.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
Red~ You said just forget statistics then launched into tirade how violence is on drastic increase, but that isn’t true at all and as pointed out the FBI Justice Bureau of Statistics points soundly to what should be dismissed is your argument that we’re getting more violent as violence is lowest it’s been in 40 years and no fluke, it’s been rapidly declining for 15 years.
You’re using rhetoric from the media and TV citing increase in violent crime and gang bangers in inner cities but that’s just media propaganda to keep you fearful Also the profile of all the mass killings in schools btw are white adolescents in predominately white rural area’s.
You said~”Gun violence per capita is mostly centered around the inner cities.”
~Shakes head~ Where most the poor live…but for some reason with your transparent bias you’ve displayed I don’t think you are thinking of socio-economics as root cause of violent crimes.
You said~ “The UK has less big cities and an entirely different culture with respect to urban living”
You just making things up now that you think sound good? BTW…they have totally different culuture on guns..and laws against them…HELLO?
You don’t have to agree with me, I can’t make you right but the facts don’t support your supposition that we are becoming a more violent society, they support the very opposite.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
Apparently, part of the reason we don’t have better statistics and information on how guns affect us is because the NRA has shut down research. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/08/opinion/halpern-gun-research/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
Afraid the stats might not support their arguments??
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
Fastone is right again. Just listened to a podcast about this. Violent crime is way down. Also Baltimore’s last police commish presided over dramatic drops in gun violence in a city once considered the murder capital of the US. The way he did it was to shift focus from the failed war on drugs and instead have his officers focus on gun offenders. They would approach a group and instead of looking for dime bags would look for weapons and prosecute offenders. Carrying an illegal firearm became very risky. Stabbings have gone up some.
Like or Dislike:
5 
8
hey middleman – newsflash: the propoganda machine is currently at full speed. everybody is spinning the facts right now. so you hear a podcast and think, by God, that settles it. not very compelling for me. but hey whatever works for ya.
red
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
Red when I heard the podcast about Baltimore’s police commish I then researched newspaper articles and checked statistics from government reporting agencies. Seemed like his tactics and the results were factual. Makes sense to me too. I guess that works for me. What is compelling for you?
Like or Dislike:
4 
7
I’m sure gun control will be expanded in the near future. Gun control is only part of the issue. What about mental health? How do we identify people who are dangerous to society? What about educating people to lock up their guns? The media has jumped on the gun control band wagon. Let’s not forget to look at the entire issue. Remember…3000 people died on 9-11 without a single shot being fired.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
11
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
14
How many of them were up to no good? Subtract them from the equation and get back to us with the correct number of victims. Don’t ask us to feel sorry for a lowlife slug who was killed through no fault but his own.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
M.M. ……I think we need to look at our gun laws. Maybe we do need to do more complete background checks. We can look at banning high capacity clips. It goes beyond gun control. They can start with guns….but they should look at mental health. How do we identify those who need of help before they become dangerous? How about making sure people secure their guns? Everything should be looked at.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
The existing background checks would likely work if there weren’t loopholes you could drive a truck (full of guns) through.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
Way over 9 times the deaths caused by guns this past year, were caused by the knife. This has been true for every year that recorded stats are taken. Yet knives are bought and sold everywhere without so much of a background check. You can by whole sets of knives, and keep them loose in a kitchen drawer, and nobody blinks an eye.
Just think, with the “ban reasoning” that means, had axes been banned 200 years ago in this country, Lizzy Bordon would not have murdered [?].
If fertalizer, gas, and rented trucks had been banned, Tim McVeigh would not have murdered 168 people in that building [?].
Yeah, blam the object in stead of the person. You`d hate to have personal responsability come into play here.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
11
That’s my thought too. Tragic things happen with all manner of various implements. Just the other day in this very newspaper there was a guy sent to prison for murdering someone with a baseball bat. We’ve got an ever increasing number of consumer items restricted or locked up behind the counter of retailers from cold medicine, to spray paint (remember the “huffing” problem ?) We can’t possibly prohibit or restrict everything that could and is sometimes used in a dangerous manner if the user is intent on using a product for nefarious purposes.
Improper use of guns is certainly a problem, I don’t deny that, but my overall point is just that while guns do seem to be the weapon of choice for murder these days….if the criminal didn’t have access to a gun, they would undoubtedly find something else to use whether it be a knife, baseball bat, posion, a vehicle, a rock or any of a thousand other items.
Those commiting criminal acts can be just as resourceful as the next guy, they may be considered crazy, but that doesn’t always make them stupid…..if one weapon isn’t available, they will find some other way to accomplish their goal….then what do we restrict or ban next ? It’s a people problem, not a problem with the inanimate object they are using. Once again, we are intent on treating the symptons rather than the root problem.
Guns are certainly used for
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
6
You’re definitely right, but just to play Devil’s advocate….
If someone showed up at my kid’s school intent on killing as many as possible I would much rather he be carrying a knife than a semi-auto rifle with multiple high capacity magazines.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
21
Fastone, a couple comments/questions….
Your quote: “Music doesn’t kill people….guns do.” If the guns are killing people, when someone murders someone with a gun, why do we put the human on trial and if found guilty send them to jail for a long time ? Why not just destroy the gun and say “problem solved” ? You know why as well as I do…..the gun isn’t the problem, the human pulling the trigger when the gun is aimed at someone is the real problem.
I certainly agree that you don’t need a military style assault weapon to defend yourself or your home. However, I think the problem comes with deciding how to limit a right that is stated in the Bill of Rights. I think most people could agree that you don’t “need” those type of weapons, but where is the line ? I believe many worry that once the regulations start, it’s a slippery slope to limiting more and more of their “right to bear arms”. You have to admit that once the govermnent starts to control something…..rarely are there not more and more restrictive regulations….regardless of what issue we’re talking about.
I guess my root thought is I still don’t understand logicially why when there’s a car accident and people die we don’t usually blame the car, but somehow with when a human pulls the trigger and shoots someone…..we seem to blame the gun and think the gun is the problem in the equation ?
If all guns were outlawed, confiscated by the government and by a large degree of confidence you could be assured that this had in fact happened, what percentage of murders/deaths by gun that were committed last year do you think would still have happened ? Criminals are resourceful and while it may not be as effecient, if they want to kill you, they will find a way.
Like or Dislike:
20 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
22
Actually fastone, you misintrepreted one of my points.
Your comments: “To answer your question….that if we confiscated all the guns how many murders would still take place?…the premise being because criminals can still get guns. The fallacy with this argument is that not all the murders with guns have been done by criminals.”
I can understand why you may have assumed this is what I meant…but it’s not. My point was not the very valid argument that “if we outlaw guns, only criminals will have guns”, but rather if we did indeed manage to confiscate and destroy ever single firearm in the US…..literally ever single one of them, we had a populace free of any guns of any sort, do you think the thousands murdered with firearms each year (with any type of gun) would basically go to zero ? This is my main point….while using a gun if you’re intent on killing people does seem to be a very effecient way to do the deed……it’s not the only way. In short order, the paradigm would shift and people intent on killing others would find another way. Perhaps not quite as effecient, but just as deadly none the less. If either a crazed lunetic, wronged spouse, a drug cartel or an employee you just fired wants you dead, I don’t think they will be at a loss for long as to how to dispatch with you.
It’s a people problem…..not due to inanimate objects in our possession.
With regards to the car situation, you state:
“I like the car analogy though but for this argument~~> How come when we say we have to get tougher on drunk drivers to save innocent lives…everybody doesn’t go off the deep end and start hollering that the government wants to take away everyone’s cars?
Well the easiest reply, but certainly not the only reply, would be to mention that nowhere in the constitution does it state that you have a “right” to own and/or drive a car. Whereas firearms are specificially mentioned.
I will say that I agree 100% with your last statement quoted below:
“if people and companies did the right things instead of doing things that harm people and cost innocent lives…then we wouldn’t need to regulate them.”
I’ve said this before and I’ll stay it again, with ALL rights, come responsibilities. You cannot have one without the other. While out rights are in many cases virtually absolute, that doesn’t mean we should not excercise some internal control to use them wisely and prudently. We always hear a lot of crying about “it’s my right to do or get this or that”…..many times on the courthouse steps with lots of signs involved. Sadly enough though, you never hear anyone fessing up to the “responsibility” part of the equation.
Whether it’s free speach, or firearms, there are rights…..and responsibilities involved. The rights are codified in law (Bill of Rights), the responsibilities part resides in your own hands/hearts/minds…..and unfortunately we have a lot of people whose lack of responsibility hurts a lot of others in various ways and who should hit the “reset” button every now and then.
Like or Dislike:
13 
4
Jessica~ Sorry misconstrued your point about taking away guns. I don’t buy though that if there were zero guns at all in country that it wouldn’t impact homicide rates. Sure, some are still going to find another means but I think a lot of the violence with guns is in heat of moment and used to vent rage, and easy access to them would prevent that in a vast majority of situations. It’s impossible regardless of what do to remove all threats of violence and nobody is saying we should or can..but the gun advocates are using that argument that since we can’t, let’s not do anything. This whole topic on guns is not fueled at it’s base level with any amount of common sense and instead by delusional paranoia. Actually fear of a lot of things is a huge problem in this culture on lot of topics.
Headline on NBC news this morning is that gun advocates feel they have their backs to the wall….WTH!! Nobody is advocating taking away everyone’s guns…why do the gun nuts freak out and act like that was even said or what is being advocated? Again…delusional paranoia?
“Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure. “………Helen Keller
Like or Dislike:
2 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
17
When you click dislike because someone is quoting facts at you its time to get out of the discussion. I know the facts don’t discuss the silly talk like knives kill more people than firearms (firearms are the weapon in over 2/3 of murders). But hey, why let facts get in the way of misstatements??
Like or Dislike:
2 
8
So we’ll see you in the next discussion then?
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
I have yet to see you EVER include even one fact “smart”imus. As I have noted before, your handle perfectly captures the notion of irony.
Like or Dislike:
1 
8
That is ironic! Smartimus may not be too strong on fact, but opinion? He’s got that down!
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
Some scattered thoughts..
1) With 300 million guns, and billions of dollars of accessories, who will compensate gun owners if types of total bans are enacted. Banning the transfer of grandfathered weapons (Feinstein proposes), would make legal gun owners investments worthless. A friend of mine’s father sold his collection of guns as part of his retirement for well above 50 grand. Think people like him might be upset? They weren’t all shotguns and deer rifles, either.
2) Biden speaking of using “Executive Order” as a way of banning and later confiscating legally owned weapons as a way to bypass Congress is a statement that will only create more distrust of the government and increase the frenzy of gun sales. Check out a Sporting goods store lately, everyone and his brother are scrambling their ‘new toy’. As a responsible gun owner, I myself am a little disturbed by the sheer enormity of the amount of guns being bought today. How would they ever conceive that people will just hand them back?
3) In regards to the severely mentally ill doing some of these horrible crimes. Here are two ways that would prevent this from happening without hiring a million more social workers.
a) A national database for persons committed under a 72 hour hold to a hospital or otherwise committed by their counties for either CD or mental health. A person would have the right to appeal a denial. This database would be confidential and only used for gun purchases. With most hospitals and govt information now electronic, it would be rather simple to set this up.
b) recognize the social experiment of “community based mental health” has some significant flaws and there were some benefits of mental health”institutions”. Some people are too mentally ill or chemically dependent to be able to function in society. For them, institutions are the most humane choice and also in some cases protect others in society.
4) When will the media allow us to have the conversation about the role and the responsibility the media plays in the murders that always follow when a terrible event happens and the media then sensationalizes it for weeks. It always seem soonafter you read about more of these these tragedies. What responsibility does the media have with this. The power of the media is more powerful than a gun. If we infringe on the second amendment, shouldnt we then infringe upon the first amendment? What amendment would be next to go after we took care of those two?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
20
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
15
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
12
C’mon conservatives, lots of facts in the post above, time to click “dislike.” Conservatives don’t like facts.
Like or Dislike:
3 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
17
I thought that I’d read just about every leftist fairy tale, but I guess I must have missed one.
Like or Dislike:
14 
6
Actually its from a law school professor who writes for conservative journals.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
Boy it is amazing the brazen ignorance in this thread. Amazing. Now consider these same people have guns. Makes you want to lock yourself indoors, watch tv and eat crappy food. (if you can’t beat em, join em).
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
Watch the Alex Jones interview on Piers Morgan and it gives you some idea of how deep the paranoia and ignorance runs. The moment anyone tries to bring up murder rates in other countries these folks do anything possible to change the subject. I don’t think that we are that much more violent that Canada or England, we just pay a price, because when things do happen here, the presence of guns ensures more extreme consequences.
Going back to Newtown and the incident in Guangshan China the same day, the Newtown killer killed 20 kids and 6 adults, the Chinese killer injured 22 with his knife (but no deaths).
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
And 11 people died from guns in Japan in 2008. Only 2 in 2006. 12,000 Americans suffered the same fate in 2008. Why? With the second amendment we are not going to ban guns, obviously. Some better regulations and strict gun offender laws would be in order.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
middleman, that’s 12,000 from murder but 20,000 more from accidents and suicides.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Answer this question: Of all the mass shootings in the US, how come none have occurred in urban schools in the middle of some of the highest crime/murder/illegal firearm ridden areas of the country?
Then watch this: http://youtube.com/#/watch?v=Wx9GxXYKx_8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DWx9GxXYKx_8
Like or Dislike:
0 
0