Rupert Murdoch Tweets Support for Gun Control
Conservative media baron Rupert Murdoch has Tweeted his support for gun control:
Rupert Murdoch ?@rupertmurdoch
We have to do something about gun controls. Police license okay for hunting rifle or pistol for anyone without crim or pscho record. No more
I guess this makes him a short-sighted, liberal, tree hugger.
Or are some things too important to remain in the septic tank of American political polemics?
It’s been interesting since the Colorado massacre the number of Tweets, comments on some blogs, posts and Facebook posts that sarcastically say gun control couldn’t have changed this, or since the theater was a declared gun free zone, why, see did that do any good? All of those are smoke screens…shell games.
Those of us here in San Diego remember well that terrible day of July 18, 1984 when an armed-to-the-teeth James Huberty burst into a McDonald’s in San Ysidro near the San Diego-Tijuana border and opened merciless fire, murdering 21 people of all ages and injuring 19 before his destructive life was ended by a sniper. Those of us (like me) who covered it as part of our jobs in the city’s news media — and the one year after story where we had to go back and see how families were doing a year after their loved ones were murdered (they were not doing well) — were also never the same.
Yes, guns don’t kill people, people that lax laws allow to have guns kill people — people who may be nutcases, people who aren’t properly cleared, or people who have in their possession weapons that real hunters or legit gun collectors (legit gun collectors would pass any future required screening) would not have kill people.
Guns don’t kill people: lax laws that allow unstable or clearly criminal people to have weapons that empower them to live out their fantasies, or vent frustrations stemming from personal issues in hails of life-snuffing bullets, kill people.
Laws that allow innocents sitting in a McDonald’s eating their lunch in San Ysidro in 1984 as they gaze into the faces of friends or loved ones or parents or kids or a pre-teen kid riding outside the restaurant on his bike to be shot dead help kill people.
Laws that allow kids and teenage lovers and sailors and families sitting in the assumed-safety of a movie theater to have their lives snuffed out in an obscenely terrifying finale to their lives help kill people — laws that allow one person to buy 6000 rounds of ammunition online in a short period of time along with four guns legally without raising an eyebrow help kill people.
And anyone who points to the fact that lax laws are allowing people with guns to kill people — bigtime — is painted as wanting to take all guns away.
Nope: the reality is, no one is talking about taking all guns away.
Just
make
it
much
tougher
for
criminals
and NUTS
to
get
guns.
But it will now be interesting to see if “Fox and Friends” blasts Murdoch as being a tiresome “librrrruhl” for suggesting maybe its time to tweak some laws before yet another nutcase tanks more lives. You know the answer to that one already…
And also don’t hold your breath on a)those who call for controls to face anything but attempts to politically obliterate or demonize them or twist their words calling for controls or b)any kind of action given politicians’ timidity in face of big bucks that would pour into the campaign coffers to defeat them if they seriously, aggressively pressed to seriously to finesse some laws. The outlook for that is bleak:
In the aftermath of the massacre, during which suspect James Holmes allegedly used a range of firearms, the issue of gun control has re-emerged into the national spotlight. But while a small number of political leaders, like New York City’s Michael Bloomberg and New Jersey’s Frank Lautenberg have vocalized their support for it the political climate for any kind of legislation is forbidding.
Laws can be changed to make it tougher for unstable people and criminals to get guns.
That would take some political guts.
But there’s a shortage of political guts.
So the human guts left by the bullets — enabled by lax laws tacitly endorsed by timid politicians in both parties — on the floors of places like restaurants, schools and theaters will continue.
As will the tears shed by future brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, classmates, lovers, relatives, and friends.
P.S. Mr. Murdoch: Bravo.
UPDATE: Businessweek:
President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney have spoken little about gun control in their campaigns for the White House and showed no sign of shifting course after one of the deadliest shootings in recent U.S. history.
“It’s not one of the issues that either candidate has shown much inclination to discuss,” Don Kettl, dean of the school of public policy at the University of Maryland, said. “There are more downside risks than upside gains in talking about it.”
LEGAL NOTICE ON CARTOON: The copyrighted cartoon above by
Olle Johansson, Sweden, is licensed to run on TMV. Reproduction elsewhere without licensing is strictly prohibited. See great cartoons by all the top political cartoonists at http://cagle.com. To license this cartoon for your own site, visit http://politicalcartoons.com
Share This
Getting Fox News on the side of stricter gun controls is almost essential for the political process to begin. Reps need the political coverage from Foxs’ talking heads…and those heads take orders from Murdoch.
I agree with Joe in spirit. In practicality, this:
is not practical or effective.
How many of these large-scale shooters had criminal records? Any?
How would you determine who is “nuts” or not? Most of these guys flew under the radar or showed no outward symptoms of “nuttihood” that millions of other, non-violent folks also show. AND the level of invasive questioning/background checking/databases that would be involved to prove someone is not nuts would clearly violate everyone’s right to privacy or 1st Amendment rights (would you like to be put on a “nuttiness watch list” simply because you were considering dropping out of college?).
In my view, keeping guns away from “nuts” is not practical. The only thing that is vaguely practical is the removal of high-capacity firearms and other weapons that have no value for personal protection (like tear gas, clearly a mass-effect weapon). Then when the nuts come out, at least we have a prayer that the casualties will be low.
On the other topic of Murdoch, is this a case where his personal fortune will no longer be tied to the right-wing cause (he’s dropping ownership of some Fox outlets), he can speak freely?
Joe — What changes, specifically, do you think would have headed off the tragedy in Aurora?
The “Just DO something” approach is the fastest invocation of the law of intended consequences of all.
Would Rupert Murdoch’s suggestions would have kept this from happening? “Police license okay for hunting rifle or pistol for anyone without crim or pscho record.
Clearly we don’t have all the facts about James Eagan Holmes. But thus far, there’s been nothing at ALL that suggests he has a criminal or psych record.
And speaking of psych records… that’s a VERY scary kettle of fish. Would mental health counseling be enough of a record? Or would it require a diagnosis? Would “depression” or “ADHD” be enough?
And what impact would that then have on the very tentative progress that’s being made on people being willing to seek help at all?
Don’t get me wrong — I’m horrified, I think there are probably places where things can be tightened. But doing something, anything, is not going to move us in a good direction either.
Poli… what Murdoch actually tweeted was pretty stupid. Never the less, his opinion that something needs to be done will allow Republicans the opportunity to enact sensible law without worrying about the wrath of Fox News.
ShannonLee, if that’s what’s needed to get a substantive dialogue started, then I like his tweet a lot! (however dumb…)
I garee with all that has been said above. I also believe that this problem is much greater than many believe. The time has come to create a bipartisan commission to look into gun control, ammunition control, the constiutional rights of Americans and come out with proposals that most legislators would be hard to go against.
But adding to Polimom’s questions concerning metal health, I wqould add a couple more.
Once a sane person had obtained a license as proposed by Murdock, would this license have to be renewed yearly? (I suggest that people are not born insane, but that develops over time).
If the license does not require renewal, how is one identifed as being insane so the license can be wirthdrawn?
What happens if they refuse to give up the license and are the guns confiscated?
How do we monitor the purchase of ammunition? Do we have a registry like the drug stores use to identify the purchase of pseudophedrine to control meth production?
Everyone can demand “gun control”, but short of banning all guns, this is a problem that will take many smart minds to solve. (And that in itself leads to another question for discussion. Do these minds exist in D.C. today to put something logical together?)
Assault weapons with high capacity magazines are good for one thing and one thing only – killing a lot of people really fast. Anyone who wants one is suspect in my book.
Agreed Ron, unfortunately most of them call themselves “Constitutionalists.”
Seconded, although with a caveat that some gun fetishists simply like to fire them. Not a good enough reason to keep them legal (they can go to a certified range and rent one for an hour to get their rocks off if they wish).
Oh God. You’ve reminded that we are still beholden to the two-party system to solve this. We’re screwed. Game over. I propose that we all arm ourselves heavily, get generators, stock up on MREs, and prepare for the riots that will surely accompany the collapse of America.
Ron, anybody who wants one is suspect of what?
Meanwhile Murdoch tweeted this back to someone:
@BassoonCPA who says I’m a conservative. Have made most enemies by fighting for radical change in many areas. Eg class ridden UK.
Murdoch is looking for something else to talk about.
This wins him points from those who want to broil him in hot oil.
The right could care less about what he says — Fox is independent and fair and balanced and so forth.
The game of thrones is never far from Murdoch’s mind.
Dont be fooled.
Could Murdoch demand Fox cover this story from his perspective? Perhaps. But he wont do that. He’s too clever to invest in this idea beyond a few tweets.
Also: gun control not likely to change after this incident.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gun-control-legislation-unlikely-following-colorado-shooting-20120722,0,2960563.story
While the AR15 used may meet the fed definition of assault rifle it used a lower power civilian cartridge and aside from looks, and the high cap mag, actually has less power than many real sporting firearms. The situation with high cap mags is a different on but I do believe they do have a real sporting use also.
@EEllis
What sport except hunting people. It doesn’t seem to me that hunting anything else would be very sporting.
@EEllis
So just how powerful do you think an easily concealable weapon (just over 3 ft. long) with a 100 round clip have to be to be considered an ‘assault weapon?
Is it ‘different’ when you’re shooting at 300 people sitting in a small 50′ x 150′ multiplex theater auditorium?
“While the AR15 used may meet the fed definition of assault rifle it used a lower power civilian cartridge and aside from looks, and the high cap mag, actually has less power than many real sporting firearms.”
Sure, the cartridge used is lower power than many sporting weapons but it’s powerful enough. Weapons originally designed to be fired in full auto require training to stay on the target even in 3 shot bursts, as the gun wants to ride up, this is why small arms are chambered for cartridges with lower recoil. Also smaller cartridges allow the use of greater magazine capacity. And btw, ammo is available on the civilian market that is more destructive than what the military usually uses. Bottom line: There is no legitimate practical sporting use for weapons like this.
I agree with Z.
My 2cents: We are a country where too many of us want bigger every things. The 7-Eleven mentality of 32 ounces of soda, containing 32 ounces of sugar, a Big Mac, a Whopper, a Sixteen Plex Movies, giant SUVs, 70inch plasmas, multi-billion dollar political campaigns, oodles of prescription pain killers, droves of Ritalin addled kids, etc.
Any wonder why some people want weapons and magazines capable of maintaning the American way of life. BIGGER.
Yup we are exceptional, but not for the right reasons.
It’s totally phallic…
“What sport except hunting people”
Well just target shooting and activities like groundhog shooting. People who are serious shooters go thru thousands of rounds on a weekend and that equals a lot of 10 round mags
The deffinition of assualt rifle was never about damage. The term was coined durring/after WWII to describe a weapon that used an intermediate round, meaning not a rifle round, that could fire full auto. The .223 is a rifle cartrage and I don’t believe it had full auto capabilities. People use the word because it sounds scary but it’s inexact. An automatic rifle would normaly have more firepower but assault rifle seems to be the prefered phrasing. Not that it really matters for this discusion anyway.
Interesting how many have opinions on this subject. Here. On the web. MSNBC. etc etc.
The problem is there are not enough Americans demanding a change for a change to occur, or even for an attempted change to occur. And fewer actively supporting a change.
If a politician sticks his/her head out and introduces legislation or votes for legislation to control any arms, a small group of individuals headed up by the NRA will insure the defeat of those politicians. Those that talk of arms control will still stay home and not vote, just like so many do today while those in the minority will become the majority because they do vote.
Apathy.
“There is no legitamate sporting use for this gun”
That’s just silly. That gun fires a .223 varmet round with a semi auto action. There are hundreds of firearms that do the same the difference is this looks military.
And then there is the actual definition…
assault (from dictionary.com)
noun
1. a sudden, violent attack; onslaught: an assault on tradition.
2. Law . an unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt or offer to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a stone or club in a threatening manner.
3. Military . the stage of close combat in an attack.
4. rape1 .
rifle (from dictionary.com)
noun
1. a shoulder firearm with spiral grooves cut in the inner surface of the gun barrel to give the bullet a rotatory motion and thus a more precise trajectory.
2. one of the grooves.
3. a cannon with such grooves.
4. ( often initial capital letter ) rifles, any of certain military units or bodies equipped with rifles.
assault rifle (from dictionary.com)
noun
1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.
Well, EE, when I was attempting to bag a groundhog, I took one shot and when I missed, I chalked it up to my poor marksmanship. To pepper a varmint with semi. or auto fire, is for less sporting hunters than I would want to be.
Full disclosure: I never did kill anything, and I’m kind of glad of that.
However, in the Army, I became a better shot, but one round at a time carefully aimed; as was pointed out by someone, on semi and auto, your weapon will walk up the target. Not cool, and neither are big magazines, and sloppy shooters even in a war.
Groundhog shooting is often done by setting up a few hundred yards away and firing hundreds of rounds over the day one at a time. You would neverf use automatic fire you try for headshots.
Do you take them home and put ‘em in a pot with ‘possum, squirrel and taters or do you just leave ‘em lie hoping the other varmints get ‘em?
They are considered a pest and are often poisoned so you may be trying to make some point but honestly you just come off condesending and classest to me. My apologies if I miss read you.
Barry Goldwater said that it would take 40 years for any gun control measures to have any impact in America. That was 48 years ago.
We have to a least try. If only to establish nothing else than we will no longer allow the gun manufacturers who are the backbone of the NRA to decide whether or not it is time for us to quit killing each other it would be at least a small step. A small but positive step.
I personally don’t believe that the widespread availability of guns is the cause of the problem. It is more of a symptom of the problem. There is a dark violent streak deep in the American psyche. We have to try to get it out into the open, to try to understand it and get rid of it. It shows up not only in horrible incidents involving individuals like this one but also in collective ones like the Iraq war.
If it takes a nearly useless treating of the symptom rather than the cause action like banning misnamed assault weapons and large clips and violent movies and toy guns I say go for it. We have to try something. We have to start somewhere.
“Interesting how many have opinions on this subject.”
What I find even more interesting is how people often feel compelled to venture opinions on subjects they have little understanding of. Kind of funny in a way, but also frustrating as it tends to muddy the waters. Ah well, human nature I suppose.
there seem to be a lot of morons asking questions in order to not understand but just shake the dust, but in my opinion and ignoring those for the moment, taking rupert as a wise mind in any way shape or form is not only incomprehensible…. when every grandmother and child and person of sincere heart (who hasnt brought their gossip and criminal empire to the presses of the USA and UK) has the same response to all that has occurred, asks same questions, makes same statements, but without wanting to be in the limelight as is Rupert’s usual. He has supposedly stepped down, (I;ll believe he is not malignant puppetmaster of his creepy empire when its proven unequivocally) but as is usual with the moneymongers … he may not be there on paper, but he is still wanting to be Daddy.
@dduck, thanks for being thoughtful and telling stories from your own life. It is great to read commenters who put their own skin in the game a bit. It magnifies how/where they’re coming from for readers.
I am just hoping Murdoch has had a change of heart. Maybe someone he cared about was going to a premier…maybe movie watching was something he enjoyed as a child… who knows.
and of course this could all just be cover for his current problems and an attempt at some good publicity.
We will see how Fox News behaves over the next couple of weeks.
I’m sometimes a total idiot. For some reason I was saying groundhog when I meant prairie dog. I didn’t snap until I was rereading some of the posts. My comments do not make sense with groundhogs and those of you who were reading and thinking “what the hell” please excuse my “brain fart” as my brother like to call it.
EE, I am not sure if what I shot at was a groundhog, it was 60 years ago in Vermont and these little guys stuck their heads out of holes.
Being a NYC kid, I don’t know if that is the correct name. Same premise though, one shot and he was gone, rechamber a round and wait for a better shot, same with targets, which is all I shot at while at Ft. Dix. I still say, you only need multiple rounds fired in rapid succession for killing human beings, and that is usually done in wars. I accept the fact that some people are worried about slippery slope gun laws where limiting the magazines and tougher registration would lead to eventually to a total ban on all guns. I think that worry is legitimate even if I don’t believe so. If that is your worry, than I understand.
Here in NYC, where the freedoms of smokers has been heavily regulated, I really enjoy the air a lot more. This on top of the cleaning up of vehicle exhausts and the curtailment of building incinerators makes for a clearer view and healthier lungs and sinuses. It was pretty nasty way back when to blow your nose and wipe the layer of greasy soot from your window sill.
Sorry for rambling, blame dr. e.
Prairie dogs only live in the western US. Groundhog live in families which might have 20 members and prairie dog live in colonies which can have thousands. They devastate large areas of grass land leaving it devoid of vegetation and covered in holes that are dangerous to livestock. Most ranchers welcome shooters as a way of controlling population. Some even offer bounties for every groundhog killed. This has become a legitimate sporting activity. Outfitters are even starting to offer prairie dog tours where they contact and coordinate with ranch owners for out of town shooters. In areas there is a surprisingly significant positive economic impact to the area. As to the need for different types of guns. When you do go out shooting you fire hundreds of rounds. Most bring several rifles because they shoot so much the rifles get to hot to use. An AR 15 style rifle in .223 is a favorite tho people who buy one just for dogs usually get a model with a longer barrel for greater accuracy. Check around add 3″ inches to the barrel and instead of being a man killing assault rifle it would be the “varmint master”
As to your comment about the dead dogs. The standing rule is not to touch or go to near dead prairie dogs. For some reason their fleas are supposed to be common carriers of bubonic plague. Basically you just leave the bodies and scavengers, and other prairie dogs, take care of them surprisingly quickly.
bounties for every prairie dog killed was what I should of said.
If you don’t collect the PD bodies, how do you collect the bounty? If you do collect and give the farmer the bodies, what does he do with them?
Does not look to me that shooting prairie dogs is a very cost effective means for removing prairie dogs….
but then some of the other methods don’t go ‘bang’–’bang’–’bang’ …
http://www.unitedwildlife.com/AnimalsPrairieDogs.html
Coming from a rural family with a long history of gun usage the shooting of prairie dogs with an assault weapon would have them rolling their eyes and saying a few cuss words… Much like the city hunters that buy biggest Ford trucks… gear up with the most expensive items and the biggest high powered rifles then drive around and shoot deers from out of the cab and call that hunting….
Just like the ranchers where i grew up came to the point of leasing out the rights to shoot deer on their land to the city hunters… guarantee that many of these land owners consider the leasing of their land as more varmint baiting for those that come with AR15 assault weapons than for effective varmint extermination…
I really don’t believe the justification of not regulating assault weapons because some ‘YaHoos’ wants to shoot prairie dogs with them is a good justification to not regulate assault weapons.
I did a search…. the fastest growing hunting in the West is for Prairie Dogs, the land owners are charging between a 120.00 to 400.00 dollars a day… at the price i bet they are not in the business to exterminate them because some cow might put their foot in the hole… at that kind of profit they are doing whatever they can do to harvest the PD….
You don’t get near the bodies. Fleas from the pd are possible disease carriers. If, and as OS mentioned it’s starting to become a business now so bounties are fading away, you had made an arrangement with a land owner then usually at the end of a day he would walk the field and count or just throw out a number and say “What do you think?” and work it out. People weren’t doing it for the cash but the bounties were cheaper than other forms of pest control and gave the shooters money for gas and ammo.
If you come from the country that you know someone with a ruger mini. The gun fires the exact same round and can use the same size mas so who in you family call a ruger an assault rifle? The .223 is a varmit round and that’s prairie dogs are. .22 works great in close but for 300 yards and greater you pick a larger round.
Yep and good for them. They have taken a negative and are making money off it. Where they used to soot a colony till they couldn’t find anymore dogs now owners will move shooters to different colonies to enable sustained and continued hunting. Of course sometimes they just need the dogs cleared and they will still shoot them out.
E.Ellis i come from a family whose motto with hunting is; If you kill it you eat it… so i doubt if any of them are going after the Prairie Dogs… Most of them have switched from rife to bow hunting due to it being a more ethical and challenging hunt…I will ask them about this topic….
Thanks for the discussion…
If they run out of PDs will they switch to cows?
Now, from my vague memory, I seem to remember that bagging a crow showed you were a great shooter. I recall the farmerIi worked for saying that all you had to do was say out loud that you getting your rifle and going after crows, that they would fly away, and that was hundreds of yards away. He was right.
Agree with sparrow. And seriously, anyone who doesn’t have the confidence they can kill with one shot has no business hunting in the first place. Any btw, the Ruger mini 14 IS darned close to being an assault rifle. Decide for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14
This is some strange logic you can’t hunt unless you are already an expert shot, as if being a bad or even so so shot should somehow disqualify you. “Hunting is evil but you must be great at it” is what kind of logic? Not to mention in this case we are talking about moving targets the size of a fist hundreds of yards away, not to mention you would still be firing hundreds of rounds even if you did meet the absurd standards of someone who knows squat about it.
Now on to the ruger, it is damn close to what people incorrectly call an assault rifle. Police depts use, well used to, versions of this gun for swat teams. Rural cops still carry them. They also happen to be one of the most popular, if not the most popular, “ranch” guns around because of it’s versatility and value. That gun will never be banned but the same gun in a different stock is an assault rifle? Any one who knows guns knows how pointless the ban was and that it will make no difference at all so why would they support crap like that?
EE, target practice should always precede, and usually does hunting and other uses of any weapon, in other words skill. One shot at a time, you are trying for accuracy first, speed second. This increases the chance of a hit: spraying to me is not hunting because it minimizes skill and control and you might miss anyway.
I don’t think that is strange logic for most of us.