Small Sacrifices

Manny Francisco, Manila, The Phillippines

In this country, we love our kids; we love sports; we love money. But what we worship is guns. Don’t believe me? Think I’m being unfair? Ask yourself – what brings about an incredibly intense reaction from the public faster than a move to restrict, in any way, access to guns or ammunition?

Ask any politician who has ever tried to introduce legislation, or even tried to open the discussion, concerning guns.

The NRA, with their “any gun, any time, anywhere” agenda, has their millions of members and advocates on speed-dial, and they will arise with a mighty vengeance if their beloved guns are seen to be threatened in any way. And so we continue to pretend that carrying guns into schools, and churches, and any other place, is somehow what the Founding Fathers intended when they began the Second Amendment with the words “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…”.

Somehow you never hear that part of the amendment, only the fun part about having guns.

Why didn’t they just say “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? Could it be that isn’t what they meant? Unfortunately, they didn’t write “The right of children to go to school without having to worry about some lunatic who has legal access to any type of weaponry coming in and shooting, shall not be infringed”. So we continue to sacrifice our children and our fellow citizens to the idea that gun ownership is sacred.

I’m not anti-gun. I don’t own one, but I’m not saying no one should be able to. Hunters should be able to hunt. But this domino theory idea that restricting semi-automatic weapons would lead directly to the banning of hunting rifles and shotguns has cost us mightily.

No hunter needs a 60-round magazine. Not everyone who wants a 60-round magazine is going to march into a school and blow little children away. But unfortunately, our refusal to have any meaningful restrictions on guns means broken people can legally get semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, and do what they will. Any gun, any time, anywhere. Amen.

LEGAL NOTICE ON CARTOON: This copyrighted cartoon 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

  

Author: Harry Boswell

Share This Post On

23 Comments

  1. Let’s start small by banning larger magazines.

  2. Because the only thing that stops guns is more guns!

    Because the only thing that stops terrorism is more terrorism!

    Because the only thing that stops torture is more torture!

    Because the only thing that stops fire is more fire!

    Because the only thing that stops flooding is more flooding!

    Because the only thing that stops poison chemicals is more poison chemicals!

    Because the only thing that stops lying is more lying!

    Because the only thing that stops oil spills is more oil spills!

    Because the only thing that stops rape is more rape!

    Because the only thing that stops fraud is more fraud!

    Because the only thing that stops racism is more racism!

    Because the only thing that stops evil is more evil!

    Because the only thing that stops war is more war!

    Because the only thing that stops cancer is more cancer!

    Because the only thing that stops unemployment is more unemployment!

    Because the only thing that stops poverty is more poverty!

    Because the only thing that stops violence is more violence!

    Because the only thing that stops insanity is more insanity!

    Because the only thing that stops drinking is more drinking!

    Because the only thing that stops wingnuts is more wingnuts!

    Because the only thing that stops diarrhea is more diarrhea!

    Because the only thing that stops disease is more disease!

    Because the only thing that stops gambling is more gambling!

    Because the only thing that stops sex is more sex!

    Because the only thing that stops tragedy is more tragedy!

    What’s funny is how many of these are actually VERY SERIOUS POSITIONS to have that invoke a lot of chin-stroking.

    I put some ridiculous ones in there. Because it is ridiculous. More guns to stop guns? It’s insane. It’s a tautology. Anyone who says that should be laughed at.

    Conservatives are all for the status quo.

    But our gun laws are unconstitutional.

    This is not a well-regulated militia, and it is not formed for common defense.

    It is for fetishism and gun worship, and needs to be exposed as the unregulated sickness it is.

    We are the only nation in the world that allows this. We are the only nation in the world willing to accept murdered children, who were dreaming of school off and Santa Claus.

    But the NRA and 2nd Amendment, which has proved to be remarkably vague and useless, is more important than these children.

    As conservatives say, Freedom isn’t free. It demands sacrifice. It gets it in blood. And the price, in my view, is much too high, the vague paranoias of conservatives notwithstanding.

  3. Bub Skint,

    I appreciate your list, which is largely composed of double-speak and paradoxical thinking, but yes, the last observation—that the only thing that will end tragedy is more tragedy—definitely has merit. You would think that, at some point, even hardened NRA ideologues will have to soften on this issue since even grade schools have now been added to the list of potential danger zones.

    I have no objection to the use of reasonably lethal handguns, which have only ten round clips or so, being used for self defense in ones own home, but this whole thing about ordinary citizens being allowed to use assault weapons or carry concealed weapons anywhere, is certainly lunacy! And while concealed hand guns owned by those who are trained how to responsibly use them, have the potential to stop such senseless assaults on defenseless children—Really! how much firepower does the average person need?!

    Although I understand that there are some restrictions placed on the acquisition of assault weapons under current law, the widespread use of “gun shows” is a serious loophole many people can use to get around the law—actually enabling them to buy heavy weaponry out of a dealers trunk, for cash—thereby making it not directly traceable by any official receipt, or subject to a background check. And, tragically, purchases from shows like these in states that border Mexico, have allowed drug runners and other mafia-like organizations to obtain the necessary heavy weaponry needed to enforce their empires and deliver illegal drugs across the American border. So, in the name of personal freedom, we are participating in the gangland-type murders of thousands of Mexicans, and making it easier for criminals to deliver destructive drugs to our doorsteps! One can only hope that, someday, the members of the NRA will lose their paranoia about restricting the use of ANY kind of ballistic weaponry, in favor of using reasonable background checks and basic regulations to prevent their abuse!

    Just how far should we be expected to extend the use of heavy weapons under the guise of self defense? Will we have to give up our battery of Machine guns, our flamethrowers, our bazookas, or our anti-missile-missiles? Should I raise a stink if the law prohibits me from possessing chemical weaponry or atomic bombs stored in my basement? After all, when the apocalypse arrives don’t I have the right to self protection, by personally nuking the state of Texas?

    Come on! Lets just exhibit some sanity about this issue, so that some of us—say grade school children—can attend their schools without fearing a devastatingly violent attack! Shouldn’t we dare to draw the line somewhere, and pass laws that will actually prevent such travesties? So please, members of the NRA, won’t you discard your paranoia long enough to allow some sanity in?

    It is truly one of the enigmas of this terrorism era, that the Bush administration rapidly became willing to suspend some of our basic individual liberties—except for the purchase of lethal weaponry—enabling any potential terrorist to gain the means to kill large numbers of innocent people with, basically, “no fuss, no muss!”

  4. Let’s start small by banning larger magazines.

    Why? It made absolutely no difference the last time we did it. Is it suddenly going to be effective the second time around?

    but this whole thing about ordinary citizens being allowed to use assault weapons or carry concealed weapons anywhere, is certainly lunacy!

    Why? Ordinary citizens do not legally own assault weapons because there is no such thing. It’s not a term that identifies weapons but some made up political term that means various things as the political winds blow. Assault rifles must be able to fire fully automatic and to own a firearm in the US that is such you must register the gun and inform the ATF of it’s location, pay extra taxes, and follow a whole host of regulations. Assault weapons at various times have been called such because of the number of parts made overseas, they look scary, because they have black composite stocks rather than wood, and other arbitrary things. This case doesn’t involve assualt weapons, rifles, or concealed handguns so why should this event have some earth shacking impact on those things? I understand wanting to protect kids but why focus on things that would of made no difference and wont make anyone safer?

  5. I agree HB…exactly where i stand on guns…if a gun permit is given to anyone there should be an extensive education, training, and evaluation… a minimum age limit of 30 for all permits, younger might could have permits if they are under direct supervision of older experienced gun owners.. …the ‘twenty somethings’ at least needs greater evaluation…why does an urban twenty year old need access to guns? Gun ownership should not be a right but at most a privileged for those who are mature and stable. We don’t let people behind a car with education and testing.

    We have modified the amendments to the Constitution before, and we can do it again.

  6. EE, we disagree. Mega-magazines offer no benefit except to put more bullets into the air at a faster rate, so what is the downside to outlawing them, except for the NRA’s position of a slippery slope to full banning of firearms. Target shooters are interested in accuracy and hunters with fairness, so they don’t need them. Who’s left? I say people interested in killing multiple humans.

  7. DD we do disagree because I hold to a different standard. To ban something, pretty much anything, I think you need to show some benifit to the ban not just “It won’t hurt anything”. In addition there are other forms of shooting besides target and hunting. Combat shooting is a sport just like cowboy shooting and other forms. To deprive anyone of just about anything you should be able to show some benefit and with the former ban we have evidence that there was absolutly no benefit so rebanning as a kneejerk responce would be just that, kneejerk. In addition it would be even less effective now than previously. The most popular self defence/police round was the 9mm which could have 15rd in a normal mag. Due to the ban, as well as other factors, larger more damaging calibers became much more popular than before. Unintended consequinces and all of that.

  8. EE, No you don’t have to show a “benefit”, you just have to say you don’t want something to be legal. There are laws on the books that seem arbitrary to some, like machine gun restrictions along with pot which may have medicinal value.
    Bur, we will go around on this forever, because you see “some” value to mega-magazines to a very small portion of the population that; “Combat shooting is a sport just like cowboy shooting and other forms.” I can’t fathom. Do they actually shoot each other or what.
    Here’s a good example where deaths of children was minimized by the lack of firearms: Man Stabs 22 Children in China, it happened yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12......html?_r=0
    How many of those 6-11 year-olds, none of which died, would have died if he had either a handgun, a semi-automatic rifle, or a SA rifle with a mega-magazine.
    I think it is reasonable to assume MANY would have died.
    There are too many guns in America, but I don’t see a way out for now so I would at least push for a ban on meg-magazines, no matter what some think “that it didn’t work” the last time. At least it is something with very little, if any, “downside”.

  9. EELLis,

    I’ll accept your definition of automatic weapons. Since I have never been inclined to own one, and dislike guns in general—I stand corrected on that point. However when it comes to deciding how much firepower the average person needs, such definitions are more like comparing apples to oranges—suffice it to say that, powerful weapons can cause a whole lot of damage!

    Although technically the shooting may not have involved automatic weapons or CONCEALED handguns, and the shooter used weapons that were legally obtained by his mother, we still cannot afford to ignore the fact that if NO ONE was allowed to purchase high power weapons, or those which can fire a LOT of rounds, the shooter would not have gained had access to his mother’s high powered weapons.

    As far as conceal and carry laws that allow ordinary people to carry weapons at all times, and which are applied to include using them anywhere—I call this lunacy, because that is exactly what it is!

    In my youth, I ran around town quite a bit and did much barhopping in some of the more “colorful” areas of my community. On many occasions, I witnessed terrifically violent fights that often included assaults with a cue ball, a glass, or anything handy. I shudder to think of what might have happened if some of the antagonists had also been allowed to carry guns. Yes, training and background checks to certify their responsible use would help, but I would rather know that no guns were present, than even one, whose owner intentionally or unintentionally, drank way too much and became antagonistic towards someone else. If you doubt that, then ask yourself how many times you have heard about “model citizens” that became inexplicably involved in violent crimes. If you think bringing back the wild west—even though somewhat regulated—is better than common sense restrictions on the use of dangerous weapons, then I’ll meet you at the OK corral tonight—just make sure you enjoy yourself first by drinking all of the liquor you desire.

    I’m sorry to be sarcastic, but this entire issue has been hyped and re-hyped by groups like the NRA for years. I am completely sick and tired of having to argue against the free use of deadly weapons, as if my common sense was not enough to justify extreme caution about possessing the means to kill other human beings!

    I also agree with dduck, about the importance of banning guns with high-round magazines. Congresswoman Gifford almost died along with other unfortunate victims of the shooting in Tuscon primarily because the shooter had multiple guns which fired a large number of rounds. A citizen with a license to carry, arrived on the scene too late to do much good, but if the shooter had been unable to squeeze off a large number of rounds, his carnage would have been greatly reduced, and, the citizen with the license to carry a concealed weapon might have arrived on time and, been more effective in preventing much of the tragedy!

  10. we still cannot afford to ignore the fact that if NO ONE was allowed to purchase high power weapons, or those which can fire a LOT of rounds, the shooter would not have gained had access to his mother’s high powered weapons.

    The guns are not particularly high powered being unsuitable even for hunting deer so while I don’t want to digress to much basically if you know what you are doing it doesn’t take much to hurt and kill lots of people and nothing short of waving a magic wand and making the second amendment and 300 mil guns disappear will change that.

    As far as conceal and carry laws that allow ordinary people to carry weapons at all times, and which are applied to include using them anywhere—I call this lunacy, because that is exactly what it is!

    That you call it lunacy when it has been conclusively shown to have no negative affect on crime shows that it’s you that has the issue. The people who are likely to shoot someone in a bar fight carry legal or not and no law affects that. Also you don’t hear of model citizens committing crime very often. It’s the scumbags who do. The ones that can’t legally carry because they can’t pass the background check. The incidence of violent crime (and crime in general) committed by CHL/CWL holders is substantially lower than the rate in the general population. What else could one realistically wish for in the CHL-holder demographic?

  11. I also agree with dduck, about the importance of banning guns with high-round magazines. Congresswoman Gifford almost died along with other unfortunate victims of the shooting in Tuscon primarily because the shooter had multiple guns which fired a large number of rounds. A citizen with a license to carry, arrived on the scene too late to do much good, but if the shooter had been unable to squeeze off a large number of rounds, his carnage would have been greatly reduced, and, the citizen with the license to carry a concealed weapon might have arrived on time and, been more effective in preventing much of the tragedy!

    Wait a second are you for or against CHL? Maybe it would of made a difference or maybe because he had limited rounds he would of had a handgun with a larger caliber that would of caused more deaths but a lower number of victims. Or maybe he would of just practiced since you can reload in under a second. Who knows the what if game is endless what we do know is there was no upsurge in gun deaths, violence, or gun crime when the previous ban on hi cap mags expired.

  12. EEllis.. “since you can reload in under a second..”

    What can you reload in under a second?
    EEllis.. what can you reload in less than a second?

    You can’t reload anything.. no one can. NOTHING .. not anything can be reloaded in under a second.

    What is it with you(pl).. why is it you(pl) can’t make a case without resorting to embellishment, distortion, and misrepresentation.

    If the shooter had been limited to a six shot revolver instead of a .223 semi-automatic rifle, he wouldn’t have been able to kill 20 children and 6 adults in less than two minutes (with his eyes closed). True or Not?

  13. You can’t reload anything.. no one can. NOTHING .. not anything can be reloaded in under a second.
    What is it with you(pl).. why is it you(pl) can’t make a case without resorting to embellishment, distortion, and misrepresentation.

    Umm you are just wrong. True I have spent a bit of time working on my speed for work and IDPA matches but anyone can learn to do a reload in virtually no time at all. I would imagine that most active shooters have several pauses between shots that take longer than a reload would. The standard practice is to shoot, drop empty mag, insert fresh mag, chamber round, shoot. Elapsed time 1-3 seconds. Even faster- shoot until last round has been chambered from the magazine, Mag is now empty, gun is not. Press release, drop empty mag, insert fresh mag, continue shooting. Depending on your dexterity, elapsed time under 1/2 second. Even shooting a revolver you can get it down to less than 4 seconds with just a little work.

  14. If the shooter had been limited to a six shot revolver instead of a .223 semi-automatic rifle, he wouldn’t have been able to kill 20 children and 6 adults in less than two minutes. True or Not?

    Not true

  15. EE, I hope not all the wannabee shooters out there are paying attention to your advice and practicing to be more effective killers.
    Or, they may be learning about homemade bomb making on the internet.
    Either way you are preaching speed and efficiency of dispensing death at the expense of innocents.
    Very sad.

  16. Either way you are preaching speed and efficiency of dispensing death at the expense of innocents.
    Very sad.

    What, there is a problem with acknowledging the amount of time it takes to reload? I realize people are emotional but statements like yours are BS. OK you want to lash out and do something but you get pissy when I tell you what you are advocating won’t ave any significant effect on violent crime including spree killings. So while I have actually written about a possible change that could have an effect you insult me for not agreeing with your ineffectual demonstrations of sorrow and and for trying to keep the discussion reality based. I have to say normally you are better than that. I’m disappointed.

  17. And, I am very disappointed in you EE, you show no evidence of common sense on this issue. You say you can speed load a revolver and kill 20 kids in 2 minutes. To me, and yes I am now attacking you for being callous, but worse, only being concerned with protecting what, a new law that you said that didn’t do anything good last time. WTF is the harm then?.
    So what is your point? It just sounds like apologies for a few people playing some kind of game or competition with magazines of over fifteen rounds.
    And, don’t give me that BS of ineffectual demonstration of sorrow, crap, I am talking logic when 22 kids in China live because the killer had no firearms and the kids in Sandy Hook ALL DIED.

  18. you show no evidence of common sense on this issue.

    Hah, by not accepting kneejerk reactions as reality. I don’t believe I am.

    You say you can speed load a revolver and kill 20 kids in 2 minutes. To me, and yes I am now attacking you for being callous, but worse, only being concerned with protecting what, a new law that you said that didn’t do anything good last time. WTF is the harm then?.

    One I responded to a question on if it were possible. Do I think it callous, yes but the question surely more than the answer. Two it’s not about protecting a new law it’s about injecting reality into the discussion. Want something done? Well try making it something that will make some small difference rather than something that accomplishes nothing, but make some people who should clearly know better fell like they are succeeding when actually doing nothing. To me you are complaining because I refuse to let people dwell in some fantasy. Who is worse the person pushing the idea that does nothing but make you feel good or the person suggesting ideas that could have some effect. WTF is the problem with reality?

    don’t give me that BS of ineffectual demonstration of sorrow, crap, I am talking logic when 22 kids in China live because the killer had no firearms and the kids in Sandy Hook ALL DIED.

    Unless you think you can wave some magic wand and get the 2 nd amendment and 300 mil guns to disappear you are full of it. Heck you aren’t even asking for that rather you think the big solution is some ineffectual legislation that will have no effect and are upset because I continue to say so. Wow I’m impressed.

  19. EELLis,

    Today I heard Mayor Bloomberg calling for common sense gun laws and, stating the the Crime rate in New York city has steadily fallen because of basic regulation by the city. The use of statistics though is always suspect because those who base their arguments on cherry picked stats can usually find support for their own bias.

    In that sense the discussion about the fact that it can take very little time for a knowledgeable gunman to reload, in order continue his carnage, even with smaller capacity magazines, ignores the fact that it doesn’t take more than one bullet at a time to kill one person. If someone has a smaller capacity magazine, and is NOT allowed to possess large amounts of ammunition, or multiple weapons in order to be able to kill MORE people (one at a time) there is an undeniable limitation of the damage that they can do. The definition of a large power weapon need only be that, it gives the antagonist the power to kill! and I do NOT think knives, swords, boxing gloves, or a boomerang etc. can even pretend to equal the powerful and–as you described, the efficiency of—a loaded ballistic weapon! But our concern should not really be defined even a matter of how EFFICIENTLY one can kill–only the fact that one can—and often, much more easily than with any other kind of weapon!

    You say, it is only the scum bags who actually abuse the right to carry concealed weapons. So are you calling every soldier with PTSD and a gun,a scum bag when he instinctively attacks his wife and children in the midst of a psychotic break? Remember that ordinarily that soldier would never even consider such a terrible thing—but it happens anyway.

    I think that anyone—including the pope—can do destructive things with enough liquor or drugs their systems, even though violence does not characterize their normal personality. Dangerous minds are dangerous minds even when becoming tragically unhinged by the nightmarish memory of a roadside IUD explosion–often without ever intending to do harm.

    Mayor Bloomberg, also mentioned the fact that, when the shoe bomber was stopped short of bringing down a jet airliner, our entire security check point system was rapidly altered—requiring travelers to remove their shoes and being allowed only to carry small containers of liquids on board. But when we lose innocent lives at Columbine, Virginia tech, Aurora, churches, courthouses and children in an Amish community, and eventually 20 first graders in Connecticut, we barely respond as we should—by eliminating the easy access to the guns that enabled mentally ill people to turn our worlds upside down!

    In this respect, I see nothing wrong with allowing our schools to be unobtrusively protected by trained people with guns who can repel harmful invaders. But should we allow virtually anyone to carry concealed weapons in a bar or some other potentially volatile place?—absolutely not! President Bush allowed some of our basic freedoms to be put on hold, but not our easy access to guns–thereby enabling domestic terrorists to possess them too! A powerful gun is one that can kill and , even if I own a handgun kept in my home for self protection, I do not need to shoot an intruder thirty or more times to protect myself! Insanity is insanity no matter how it’s defined or how it is expressed!

  20. If someone has a smaller capacity magazine, and is NOT allowed to possess large amounts of ammunition, or multiple weapons in order to be able to kill MORE people (one at a time) there is an undeniable limitation of the damage that they can do.

    That is true but we are not going to get any legislation passed that limits the amount of ammo or number of guns you own. Magazine size maybe, a few other small things perhaps, but rather than pretend that somehow we will turn into England I prefer to deal with reality.

    You say, it is only the scum bags who actually abuse the right to carry concealed weapons. So are you calling every soldier with PTSD and a gun,a scum bag when he instinctively attacks his wife and children in the midst of a psychotic break? Remember that ordinarily that soldier would never even consider such a terrible thing—but it happens anyway.

    Well no I don’t say that but what does a domestic attack and carrying concealed have to do with each other? By the way that isn’t how PTSD works and while I don’t think you meant anything many would find it offensive.

    Dangerous minds are dangerous minds even when becoming tragically unhinged by the nightmarish memory of a roadside IUD explosion–often without ever intending to do harm.

    So this pertains to what exactly? You want to remove the right to bear arms from all solders who return from combat? What about police and firefighters because they also can suffer from PTSD? By the way PTSD is a stress disorder. Trouble sleeping, nightmares, nervousness, depression, etc. It does not cause psychotic breaks by and of itself.

    Mayor Bloomberg, also mentioned the fact that, when the shoe bomber was stopped short of bringing down a jet airliner, our entire security check point system was rapidly altered—requiring travelers to remove their shoes and being allowed only to carry small containers of liquids on board. But when we lose innocent lives at Columbine, Virginia tech, Aurora, churches, courthouses and children in an Amish community, and eventually 20 first graders in Connecticut, we barely respond as we should—by eliminating the easy access to the guns that enabled mentally ill people to turn our worlds upside down!

    Well quick lets outlaw guns in schools! Oh wait… we already did that. The problem is none of the things that have any realistic chance of happening will do what you want.

    In this respect, I see nothing wrong with allowing our schools to be unobtrusively protected by trained people with guns who can repel harmful invaders. But should we allow virtually anyone to carry concealed weapons in a bar or some other potentially volatile place?—absolutely not! President Bush allowed some of our basic freedoms to be put on hold, but not our easy access to guns–thereby enabling domestic terrorists to possess them too! A powerful gun is one that can kill and , even if I own a handgun kept in my home for self protection, I do not need to shoot an intruder thirty or more times to protect myself! Insanity is insanity no matter how it’s defined or how it is expressed!

    We don’t allow virtually anyone to carry concealed. First that is a State issue and none of the Feds business and nowhere that I know allows felons, people under domestic violence restraining orders, gang members, or those adjudicated mentally ill to carry concealed. Also where do you know that legally allows people to carry in bars? Every State I know has laws against it even with concealed carry. Personally I couldn’t care less how many times you need to shoot someone because that is not the only reason for having higher capacity mags and it doesn’t make a dang bit of difference to crime or general violence.

  21. EE, I’m about to give up on this discourse with you, because it has all been said. But I still don’t understand your position. Is it that a ban on mega-magazines could not pass and, or, would be ineffectual on future attacks, or something else?

  22. Hello EELLis,

    You have a point about the reality of our situation concerning the freedom to possess guns in America, indicating that we will have a difficult time passing any effective legislation. However, I think there ARE some concrete things that legislation can fix.

    Firstly, and most offensive to most people, are loopholes in the laws that permit the sale of weapons at gun shows without background checks and without the need to use a traceable check or credit card that can give law enforcement officials vital information about the purchaser.

    Secondly, we can make sure that background checks are used more effectively in order to raise warning flags about shooters who may not yet have committed any crimes, but none-the-less have histories indicative of mental illness and are given a pass anyway.

    I believe you missed my point when I brought up the issue of PTSD in relation to the mental instability that causes some soldiers to commit tragic crimes because their minds have been traumatized and damaged by war. I did not bring this up as an argument against conceal and carry laws, but rather to counter your claim that it is only the “scumbags” that act violently while drunk. My basic point is that, state of mind plays a definite role in sparking violent crimes, and even honorable people are susceptible to heinous actions when their mentality has been altered by alcohol or various other mind drugs. PTSD represents the proof of this, in that, even good soldiers, or even war HERO’S can have their minds altered by horrific experiences in war–therefore not everyone who uses guns, irresponsibly are merely scumbags that don’t care to obey the law.

    In my home town, a soldier who returned from the Mideast, DID kill his wife, child, and even the family dog, while in the throws of a flashback. He may not have had a conceal and carry permit, however, he did have a gun. But again, my point has nothing to do with the idea that every soldier returning from war should be denied the possession of a gun—only that good men also can commit horrific crimes with the presence of chronic stress and the availability of powerful weapons.

    Similarly, my point about the shoe bomber was not intended to imply that even stricter laws should be passed which limit the possession of guns—possibly without success—but rather that, we were extremely motivated to take effective actions to prevent a repeat of such a threat, but when if comes to our own children, even after the carnage that happens over and over, we have failed to take a good look at our gun laws, nor altered them effectively as a result.

    When I used the phrase “virtually anyone to carry concealed weapons,” I did not intend that statement to ignore the many people who are obviously a danger when using weapons. However, referring to my previous statement about mood altering drugs or life experiences, I was attempting to point out that many people who ARE considered to be responsible citizens are also NOT beyond the realm of possibility for committing violent crimes. And, although many states may not allow the possession of concealed weapons specifically in bars, I understand that such universal conceal and carry laws ARE being seriously considered by gun advocates. I also think that such laws do apply in certain states, but would have to do some research to verify that—which I may do after leaving this post. We would also do well to consider that, even though your point concerning the fact that you do not know of any cases where, felons, people under domestic violence restraining orders, gang members or those adjudicated as mentally ill, are allowed to conceal and carry, the fact is that such people obtain guns anyway, and, people from all of these demographic groups have, and probably will continue, to commit acts of violence involving hand guns—unless we take steps to eliminate the loopholes and repair the flaws in our system, which currently has only failed!

    I don’t think anyone in the NRA or elsewhere, really wants children to die, or is deliberately opposing all positive solutions, but obviously, violent gun crimes still happen, and often it is because many people, in any of these dangerous categories which you mentioned, is still able to buy or gain access to, lethal weapons anyway!

  23. EELLis,

    I researched the conceal and carry laws by going to this website among others. Here is a paste of that URL.

    http://www.publicintegrity.org.....ing-easier

    Apparently the State of Ohio now DOES permit concealed weapons in bars, and others permit alcohol as long as the person with a permit does not become legally drunk (wanna bet that it still happens?) other States (I think Arizona, although the link can verity that to you) do not even require any permit to carry concealed weapons. Many other states are also in the process of loosening their restrictions.

    There you have it!

Submit a Comment