The Commentariat -- Dec. 17, 2012
Brought forward from yesterday afternoon's Commentariat: "My column in the New York Times eXaminer is titled "Praise the Lord & Pass the Ammunition," & is a critique of Ross Douthat's & David Brooks' responses to the Newtown massacre.
In the coming weeks, I'll use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens -- from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators -- in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this. Because what choice do we have? We can't accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage? That the politics are too hard? -- President Barack Obama, in Newtown, Connecticut Sunday evening. Full transcript here.
** Joseph Califano, in a Washington Post op-ed, urges President Obama to draw "from the experience of Lyndon B. Johnson -- the last president to aggressively fight for comprehensive gun control -- ... Demand action on comprehensive gun control immediately from this Congress or lose the opportunity during your presidency."
** Michael Moss & Ray Rivera of the New York Times: "... recent efforts by the [Newtown, Connecticut] police chief and other town leaders to gain some control over the shooting [in woodsy areas] and the weaponry turned into a tumultuous civic fight, with traditional hunters and discreet gun owners opposed by assault weapon enthusiasts, and a modest tolerance for bearing arms competing with the staunch views of a gun industry trade association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which has made Newtown its home."
Ann Flaherty of the AP: "Democrats say meaningful action in the wake of the school shootings in Connecticut must include a ban on military-style assault weapons and a look at how the nation deals with individuals suffering from serious mental illness. Several Democratic lawmakers and Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman said it was time to take a deeper look into the recent spate of mass shootings and what can be done to prevent them." ...
... AND How about This? Kevin Robillard of Politico: "West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin -- who has an 'A' rating from the NRA and is a lifetime member of the pro-gun rights group -- said Monday that it was time to 'move beyond rhetoric' on gun control. 'I just came with my family from deer hunting,' Manchin said on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe.' 'I've never had more than three shells in a clip. Sometimes you don't get more than one shot anyway at a deer. It's common sense. It's time to move beyond rhetoric. We need to sit down and have a common-sense discussion and move in a reasonable way.' ... All 31 senators with an 'A' rating from the NRA declined to appear on Sunday's 'Meet the Press' to discuss gun control, according to host David Gregory." CW: apparently the nation's leading tough-guy he-men are not brave enough to stand up to D. Wussy Greggers without their firearms. Here's a Manchin 2010 campaign ad:
... Thomas Kaplan of the New York Times: (Dec. 16, at 9:54 pm ET) "New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, joining Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and other elected officials, called on Sunday for Congress to pass tougher gun laws in the wake of the Newtown shootings."
E. J. Dionne: "If Congress does not act this time, we can deem it as totally bought and paid for by the representatives of gun manufacturers, gun dealers and their very well-compensated apologists.... What, minimally, might 'meaningful action' look like? We should begin with: bans on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons; requiring background checks for all gun purchases; stricter laws to make sure that gun owners follow safety procedures; new steps to make it easier to trace guns used in crimes; and vastly ramped-up data collection and research on what works to prevent gun violence, both of which are regularly blocked by the gun lobby.... We must act now to curb gun violence, or we never will."
Michael Grunwald of Time doesn't think gun control legislation will pass with Republicans controlling the House & effectively controlling the Senate with their filibuster: "... politics is more than gaffes and memes. It's life and death. And if this massacre really is different, if Americans decide they really do want to do something about guns, they'll need to elect different politicians to Congress."
Let's Play "Ask a Philosopher." Firmin Debrabander in the New York Times: "... an armed society ... is the opposite of a civil society."
... Ben Armbruster of Think Progress: Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) "suggested that had the teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary been armed with assault rifles, they could have prevented Friday's massacre and saved lives.... Pressed by ["Fox 'News' Sunday"] host Chris Wallace on why ordinary citizens need semi automatic weapons that shoot 5 bullets per second, Gohmert said that any restrictions on fire arms could lead to the slippery slope of full prohibition and said that American amass weapons to protect themselves from the government." With video. ...
... Robert Parry on why "Republicans -- and particularly Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush -- hold primary responsibility for the kinds of horrors that have claimed innocent lives in places like Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Columbine, Virginia Tech and so many other locations whose names will long be associated with butchery."
This story, compiled by Josh Marshall of TPM, on Nancy Lanza's motives for stockpiling guns & ammo -- if the elements are true -- is pretty illuminating. What I found most revealing with the interview of the sister-in-law, which is in the embedded video. She appears to be comfortable with the survivalist thing & parrots the NRA talking points. It appears to me these people were reinforcing each other's fears, likely with a little assist from the National Geographic Channel. (No, I'm not kidding.)
According to NextGov.com, "A petition asking the White House to immediately press Congress for tighter restrictions on gun ownership became the most popular ever posted to the White House's We the People website after less than 48 hours online Sunday." CW: at 9 am ET today, the petition has 140,287 signatures. There should be more. If you haven't signed, please do so here.
Lori Montgomery & Paul Kane of the Washington Post: "House Speaker John A. Boehner has offered to push any fight over the federal debt limit off for a year, a concession that would deprive Republicans of leverage in the budget battle but is breathing new life into stalled talks over the year-end 'fiscal cliff.' The offer came Friday, according to people in both parties familiar with the talks.... Boehner's offer signals that he expects a big deal with sufficient savings to meet his demand that any debt limit increase be paired dollar-for-dollar with spending cuts." ...
... Jonathan Weisman & Jackie Calmes of the New York Times (Dec. 16 at 3:52 pm ET): "Speaker John A. Boehner's latest offer to President Obama to allow tax rates to rise on incomes over $1 million has already changed the terms of negotiations to avert a fiscal crisis in January, and both sides on Sunday expressed new optimism that a deal could be reached this week." ...
A ONE TRILLION DOLLAR Deficit! Paul Krugman: "Federal debt was higher at the end of the Clinton years than at the beginning -- that is, the deficits of the Clinton administration's early years outweighed the surpluses at the end. Yet because gross domestic product rose over those eight years, the best measure of our debt position, the ratio of debt to G.D.P., fell dramatically, from 49 to 33 percent.... You should recognize all the hyped-up talk about the deficit for what it is: yet another disingenuous attempt to scare and bully the body politic into abandoning programs that shield both poor and middle-class Americans from harm."
Nicholas Confessore & Monica Davey of the New York Times: "Where the big-spending conservative groups active in this year's presidential race had little to show for their millions of dollars, the state efforts were strikingly successful. While Mr. Obama was winning onetime red states like Virginia and swing states like Michigan and Ohio, Republicans made large gains in state offices in many of the same battlegrounds. Starting next year, Republicans will have one-party control in almost half of the state capitals in the country."
CW: I'm pretty sure John Kerry would be great at posing with his hand on his nipple.A New Cabinet Just Like the Oldest Cabinet. David Sanger of the New York Times: "President Obama is leaning strongly toward naming John Kerry ... as secretary of state, according to administration officials and friends of Mr. Kerry. But the announcement will be delayed, at least until later this week and maybe beyond, because of the Connecticut school shooting and what one official called 'some discomfort' with the idea of Mr. Obama's announcing a national security team in which the top posts are almost exclusively held by white men."
News Ledes
New York Times: "Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, who went to Washington at the birth of his state in 1959, dominated public life in the Hawaiian islands for more than 50 years and became a quiet voice of national conscience during the Watergate scandal and the Iran-contra affair, died on Monday in Bethesda, Md. He was 88. A statement by his Washington office said he died of respiratory complications at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. His last words were 'Aloha,' the statement said." The Washington Post obituary is here. The Honolulu Star-Advertiser obit is here. President Obama's statement is here.
AP: "South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is announcing a replacement for U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint ... at noon Monday...." ...
... Update: "South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley picked U.S. Rep. Tim Scott to be the state's next U.S. senator Monday, making him the only black Republican in Congress and the South's first black Republican senator since Reconstruction."
Guardian: "A bomb dropped by a Syrian air force jet killed and wounded scores of Palestinians on Sunday in the largest refugee camp in Damascus, sending thousands of residents fleeing for other areas of the capital now besieged by civil war."
Guardian: "Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood has claimed victory in the first round of the country's bitterly divisive constitutional referendum, with opposition forces complaining of large-scale rigging and violations."
Share Article
Reader Comments (34)
I just read this post by Jim Fallows of The Atlantic, and here's what I wrote:
“I am crazy frustrated with the current debate, the language in which it is framed, and above all the idiotic assumption that people can legislate or petition to change something which they can't be bothered to understand or know anything about.” – Your correspondent
Jim, I am not fond of being called idiotic, as your correspondent has described me. If you had asked me 5 minutes ago what a Bushmaster was, I might have guessed it was brush-hogging equipment or a designer beer. Whatevah. I don’t think I have to “understand or know anything about” guns to oppose laws that allow an ordinary citizen to have access to machines (of whatever type they may be) that allow him to kill 26 people (all of whom he shot multiple times) in a matter of minutes.
The argument that you must be an expert to have a moral judgment about the abuse of firearms is -- well, if I may borrow your correspondent’s characterization – idiotic.
Ask your gun-owning friend if it’s harder or easier to shoot from a high horse. And do compliment him on his ability to shoot from the hip. Evidently it takes an expert.
Regards, Marie
Update. Fallows' response: "His point is, again, that this is like complaining about convertibles after a truck crash."
engage my fellow citizens — from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators — Gee and no mention of politicians, the NRA, gun manufacturers, laws. More cowardly bullshit.
@Marvin Schwalb. I think you're misinterpreting the President, though it's certainly possible you're right & I'm wrong. But this time I think he'll get off the dime. I think he feels responsibility for the deaths of those children.
I see no reason for him to "engage" gun manufacturers, because every restriction is a restriction on their profit line, so they have no incentive whatsoever to be of assistance.
But I do think the Administration should engage the NRA. Once they come up with whatever (fairly lame) proposal they think will fly, they should invite whoever is the least crazed person in an NRA leadership position in for a pow-wow with whoever in the Administration has written the draft proposal. That person should go over the proposals point-by-point & ask at each point what objections the NRA has. If the answer is ever "Obama is going to take away our guns & turn us into a communist dictatorship," then the Administration staff person should thank him for his input & show him the door.
Marie
I am truly confused by Michael Moore's tweet? WTF does he mean? Seems to me he is suggesting that if Adam Lanza's mother were "carrying" a gun, she could have killed HIM before he had a chance to kill her, all the students and all the teachers. Maybe I am reading it wrong, hope so.
After all, Ms. Lanza WAS a gun owner and enthusiast (as the MSM likes to say). And Michael Moore is an NRA member. Will somebody please enlighten me?
Kate: Sarcasm
and brilliant mimicry
@CW: Even I got a little choked up reading that response and shook my head at Fallows even highlighting it. I guess that's why Canadian regulations don't just ban assault rifles, for example but name them by manufacturer and model. I can just see the idiot who wrote that explaining to the officer "But this isn't a truck it's a Ford F-150. That law doesn't apply to me."
Reading between the lines I gather that a class was trapped in a classroom and slaughtered. How often do we read of students trapped in a classroom while shooters wander the hall and teachers attempt to block the door? After so many such incidents is it not time to install bars to secure class doors from inside, and emergency exits either directly outside via crash bar locked doors for ground floor rooms or, if on an upper floor, from one classroom to the next via emergency exits? At least give the students a chance to flee.
When terrorist took down the World Trade Center, I didn't hear the chicken hawks say, " It was the act of a few crazy people and there is not much we can do to stop them from doing it again"
As we all know, they were ready to ACT NOW.
Why is it now different?
The President's comments were moving. It sincerely felt like he had come to a place of serious resolve after "reflecting" for the last few days on our responsibility for the protection of our children. In the early days after the election, the President seems to be voicing significantly stronger resolve in many areas. I want to believe he will demonstrate that resolve toward Republican idiocy, promulgating sensible gun regulations, attacking voter suppression, etc etc. I have always believed the President is a dangerous adversary because he is wip smart and he has a bottomless capacity to persevere. Let us hope that gun regulation is one of the things in which he will persevere.
For me, Obama is a really charismatic speaker. I know that especially in matters of Faith, there are lots of effective religious speakers - to each his own. I listened to most of the various clergy and thought Obama's comments were heartfelt without being cloying, or condescending ( thank-you for not using the standard sing song cadence). His comments were respectful, spiritual and rightly framed the murders as "evil", just as they should have been.
I hope monumentally deficient persons like Gohmert, et al will find themselves severely and loudly ridiculed for their dim-witted pronouncements.
Okay, we are beginning to get some family data on the shooter (and his mother). This from Caroline Bankoff at New York Magazine:
..." Her former sister-in-law, Marsha Lanza, told reporters that Nancy was part of the Doomsday Preppers movement, whose members believe they need to prepare for the end of the world."
She apparently also stockpiled food and supplies in her home to help prepare herself and her son for Doomsday. While she socialized with a few others for dice and card games in their homes, she never invited them to her house. She also had a vast and varied gun collection "for protection!" Hmmmm........
This crazy kid had a pretty crazy mom.
An amazing and terrifying piece by a single mother with a high-functioning and violent mentally ill son:
http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/
Noppers, gun control laws ain't gonna work.
Because gun violence is only a part of the real problem: We are a violent nation. From Saturday morning cartoons to the computer games to the reality shows to the military-industrial-complex seducing us with jobs, jobs, jobs, to fear mongering about the poor of the world coming after our TV sets, our one response is violence.
There's more to the litany of our violence: solitary confinement in prisons, more people in prisons than any other country, our government's indulgence in drone strikes, torture, surveillance, rendition, an out of control JSOC and CIA. And a justice system that offers little real justice.
We have to do something to quell the violence in our make-up before we can succeed at limiting guns.
The wide spread already distributed guns (long- and hand- ) is what makes gun control laws ineffectual. We need a different approach to the violence in this country than just limiting weapons or their appearance or their accessories or their accessibility. We must also acknowledge that the Second Amendment was adopted and exists because in Revolutionary times as now, the people fear a government that has all the weapons.
AS wacky as it may sound, maybe we ought to limit the weapons available to police to assure the rest of the population that their hunting rifles are enough.
@ Waltwis.
Late, so no time or brain to respond to all your provocative comments.
In order, though, and briefly:
If our laws and their enforcement actually communicated that violence would not be tolerated, they would have an effect. Witness the change in race relations promulgated by civil rights legislation. My father used to say you can't legislate morality, but he was not correct. The relationship between legislation and behavior is more complicated than that and to the degree laws impose new but sensible standards, they can become internalized. Not killing innocent victims in large numbers seem sensible.
About the violence embedded in and communicated by our own government's behavior here and abroad, totally agree. Much more than our laws dictate culture.
What makes the gun laws we do have ineffectual is we do not have the resources or the interest to enforce them. We treat guns with a wink and a nod, the same way the police used to treat drunk drivers. Of course the Supremes who cannot read the Second Amendment don't help.
And lastly, that "well regulated militia" part too many Supremes ignore makes the protected gun owners an arm of the government, not a group of self-appointed Minutemen who like to run around the woods plotting to blow up federal buildings.
No doubt the NRA and Fox do all they can to stoke paranoia, and while some paranoia about our increasingly militarized police force is not without merit, I believe I'm still more likely to be attacked by a criminal or a mentally unbalanced person with a gun than I am by police misusing their weapons.
The future according to Douglas Coupland. Some funny. Some not funny at all. Some well on their way.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/a-radical-pessimists-guide-to-the-next-10-years/article1321040/
An option to gun control, wich many say is impossoble due to how many are already in circulation, is maby manditory insurance. Each wepeon must be insured. This insurance would pay out for medical treetment for injured people, and death binifits for those killed. If a gun is stollen, and not imiaditly reported, the policy holder must still pay. Rates could be set based on type of gun, proven storage, wether the owner takes classes, stores ammunition at home, gun locks, and other criteria. Wepeons found that are not insured are to be immediatly destroyed and the indivudal fined.
This doesent "infringe" on anyones "right" to own a gun. But does meen that they will have to take a bit more responsability. Just like having a car.
Feinstein's bill would exempt more than 900 types of weapons and would not apply retroactively, meaning existing owners of assault weapons could keep their guns. Ah, a bill with teeth. And with slight modifications, as gun manufactureres did before, a gun could be made legal.
33,000 people are killed in the United States a year with firearms. Obviously not yet enough to galvanize politicians into meaningful action.
President Obama: "We can’t accept events like this as routine."
Can we not? We accept as routine the deaths of thousands every year at the hands of drunk drivers.
@D.C. Clark . I can't recall a case where a drunk driver drove into a kindergarten class and killed all the students. And we do have serious laws to prevent drunk driving. Are they perfect? No. But they have greatly reduced the number of incidents. And the reason for the improved situation is that we did not accept drunk driving as routine.
And remember it is a crime to drive drunk, even if you harm no one and it is a crime to sell alcohol to a drunk person in most States. Is it a crime to sell a gun to a person whose mental state puts lives at risk?
And lastly it is impossible to have a life without access to a car but I am quite sure we could manage if we had absolutely no access to a gun.
And Marie, I hope I am wrong about Obama but I am very skeptical because I know a lot of people just like him. All talk and no real leadership.
@D. C. Clark: true. The CDC published these findings in October:
"In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.... In 2010, over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.3 That's one percent of the 112 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year."
Nonetheless, @Marvin Schwalb makes some excellent points. Ferinstance, "The number of teenagers who are drinking and driving has dropped by 54% in the past two decades, according to a new report released Tuesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
Marie
What set him off that morning I wonder––something clicked––something inside exploded or was it a carefully executed plan that he had been cooking up having been on a low simmer before he brought it to a boil. Seriously disturbed he lived with a mother who was preparing for the ultimate financial collapse of a country by stocking up on food and guns. The two of them plotting and planning for an ending they never envisioned.
I join the "idiotic"–– ignorant of the intricacies of guns I nevertheless know that we must begin a "serious" conversation about control and then do some serious legislating for some stringent laws.
@ D. C. Clark:
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD has had a huge impact on drunk driving. For years cops gave drunk drivers a chance, letting them sleep it off or driving them home or calling a cab. MADD has made them afraid to be lenient and now you go to jail in many states.
The “gun control won’t work” argument is troubling on a number of fronts.
First, it seems to assume that in order to “work”, gun controls must prevent nearly all gun deaths or a substantial number of them and most importantly, that they must guarantee that no more mass murders or gun assaults like those at Newtown, Aurora, Columbine….take your pick….will take place.
This sort of argument wants to throw up its hands in the face of what is considered, by some, to be an impossible, unstoppable force of nature. “Oh my goodness, they want to hold back the tides! Are they crazy?
In fact, no they aren’t. Since about forever, the people in the Netherlands, much of which is below sea level, have been trying to figure ways to stay above the water. After a terrible tidal surge in 1953 claimed several thousand lives, the Dutch said, enough of this. The storm surge barriers they constructed have been holding back the tides successfully for years now. Will it always work? Very likely against a massive 100 year tidal surge or a North Atlantic tsunami it may not, but is that a reason for the Dutch to have given up in 1953?
So, is the NRA stronger than ocean tides? Apparently so if you consider the blank cowardice on display by NRA acolytes in congress.
More to the point though, is the question what would gun control laws actually accomplish.
First, like the Dutch response, it makes a clear statement: “Enough is enough”. It says that some things are not going to be stood for any longer. Conversely, not legislating any laws regarding control of gun sales, licensing, and ownership makes an equally clear statement. It says “We give up.” It also says that we can’t really do anything about it anyway and we’re okay with that.
So, are we? Are we okay with that?
But aside from making a statement (Which is an essential element in any public program to change things. Too bad no one told Thurgood Marshall in Topeka, KS, that it was no good for him to take a public stand against segregation because it would never work. And in some cases it hasn’t. But it has accomplished much of what he and many other civil rights supporters hoped it would do.) it starts the process of attempting to make it much more difficult for those wishing to kill as many as possible to accomplish that grisly goal.
Most of the gun deaths in America don’t fall into the mass murder category. But they often stem from two things: a dangerous situation arising from the heat of the moment and easy access to deadly weapons.
So no, gun control won't stop all forms of weapons assault and murder, but even if it can cut it down to a measly 10,000 a year, would that not be a good, worthwhile thing?
Simply saying “it won’t work” is not just a bad argument, it’s giving in to a form of moral laziness.
IMHO.
To quote a remark made concerning whether or not it was politically viable or smart to go along with civil rights: "If not now, when? If not us, who?"
To reiterate points made by Ken and carlyle: After the Shirt Waist factory fire in 1911 Senator Robert Wagner became galvanized by putting forth efforts to reform labor laws which eventually became the landmark National Labor relations Act in 1935 that bears Wagner's name. At the time the Communist Party, still denouncing FDR and the New Dealers as "social fascists," opposed the Wagner Act which explicitly protected and encouraged industrial unionism in factories, mines and on the docks (see "On the Waterfront").
@Ken. My husband is a clinical social worker and has worked, with various populations throughout his career from the chronically mentally ill to severely behaviorally disordered children. He has always said "change the behavior and the feelings follow". It is akin to your father's legislating morality - behavior change follows.
There has been a myriad of research on gun violence and its correlates. This current article, which has links to 2 previous Atlantic articles, discusses the geography of gun violence in the context of factors which correlate to gun violence. There is some debunking of common beliefs too. I think it demonstrates that mass murders as in Newton are likely outliers. Any outlier in frustrates the media who must find a neat motivation for the acts and then cram it into public understanding as fact. Its how a lot of wrong headed beliefs are perpetuated and important progress is stagnant. First, there has to be a set of legislated behaviors that are designed to sensibly regulate ownership and use. Then real change over time can occur when we focus on the factors that are correlated to gun violence.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/
"The National Rifle Association is a mighty thing. But it is still no match for the political power of parents in America." - Andrew Cohen of The Atlantic in his piece titled "Guns, Parents and Sandy Hook: Time to Take The Bullet". http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/guns-parents-and-sandy-hook-time-to-take-the-bullet/266315/
I hope that this is true but I am very concerned because my daughter, a "Libertarian" 42 yo mother of three posted this on her Facebook Wall: "Can people please stop using the death of 26 people, 20 of them first graders to further their own ideological agendas? You have no right."
I cannot respond to my daughter since we are just in the process of ending her 10 year estrangement from me (and I have never met my three grandchildren). But I will share my cri du cœur with this august group of commenters because I want my voice to be heard. My starting point is the James Fallows and Jeffery Goldberg articles that Marie referred to earlier.
I was raised on a farm in Texas where I had access to my family's 22 cal rifle and 12 gage shotgun, which we used to control the varmints that threatened our chickens and other livestock. After college I served in the US Army for 21 years. While serving in Korea and Vietnam I carried loaded weapons 24/7, sleeping with a 45 cal pistol under my pillow and a shotgun beside my bed. I practiced marksmanship regularly, remained proficient and qualified annually on my assigned weapons and supervised the soldiers in my command on the same requirements. I knew what a "Bushmaster .223" was as soon as it was reported as the killing weapon at Newtown.
Since leaving the farm in 1957, I have never owned a personal weapon, never felt the need to own one and will never have a gun in my home or car. I had a sibling and a cousin take their own lives with the guns they kept in their house. I knew a family that was destroyed when their 10 yo son killed his younger sister with his father's handgun. I know no happy stories resulting from ownership of a gun.
My recommended course of action to address this national epidemic of gun violence is that we concerned citizens must push our leaders and representatives to "well regulate" our self armed individual militias. Guns should be regulated the same way as automobiles and drivers. Licensed operators (through showing qualification to operate said weapon), registered and required liability insurance. I support the right of cash business owners, hunters, sportsmen, marksmen and collectors to own and use weapons. But weapons such as the AK47 and Bushmaster .223 have no legitimate purpose and should be banned. All current weapon owners must meet the automotive type license, registration and insurance requirements to retain legal possession.
I have always felt and held the opinions stated above. Since Columbine and after each following act of gun violence, I have asked myself "when are we going to stop this?" After the vigils, mourning and polite handwringing over each incident, the silence grew louder. I hope this time is different. No parent should ever again hear that their child has been murdered by a madman or hear their child say "I'm OK mommy but all of my classmates are dead."
@ Jerry Newman:
"But weapons such as the AK47 and Bushmaster .223 have no legitimate purpose and should be banned, All current weapon owners must meet the automotive type license, registration and insurance requirements..."
This sounds like a well reasoned starting point that only a wing nut could oppose.
Marie,
Nice job smacking those fools Douthat and Brooks. Just two more reasons the NY Times has been going downhill.
I remain hopeful that there may be at least two reasonable, thoughtful, conservative writers out there somewhere who could fill the role of these two nincompoops. There have to be others who could take over for these idiots. Brooks' stuff at this point is just same 'ol, same 'ol: moral laxity caused by hippies and both sides are to blame....yadda, yadda, yadda.
Are there no conservatives who can make the case for that ideology without 1.) making shit up, 2.) cherry picking vague "evidence" to support their case, 3.) strutting their insufferably vain yet largely nondescript credentials as an a VERY IMPORTANT and SERIOUS INTELLECTUAL?
Douthat is a more puerile, fatuous situation. He is using the pages of the NY Times to work out complicated and weird personal issues surrounding sex, religion, and adolescent fantasy worlds. Can't he do this sort of thing largely out of sight on some obscure wingnut blog site and leave serious opining to the adults? When his voice changes and he learns to construct a decent argument, maybe then he can come out of his room.
I mean, if your answer to what do we do about gun violence is to suggest that we all travel through this vale of tears, bow our heads and accept that slug in the noggin just like Jesus, it really is time for someone at the Times to revisit this experiment in Young Ross as Big-time Commentator Altar Boy.
Just sayin'
On the other hand, the reason these guys still have jobs at the Times ,may be that, in today's conservative landscape, the only other alternatives are propeller-beanied droolers.
A distinct possibility.
Back to Adam Lanza's mother--and the heart breaking post by Liza Long, "I Am Adam Lanza's Mother." I was suspicious from the first, because it was...well....so victimy. But a therapist friend sent me this blog today, which confirmed my suspicions. Read it and decide for yourselves.
http://sarahkendzior.com/2012/12/16/want-the-truth-behind-i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-read-her-blog/
I would note that Sarah Kendzior, who wrote this blog, has been the subject of quite a few vicious attacks by "the mommys." Another "mommy war" in the making. It seems many people, especially women, want to demonize the crazy kid and see the good mommy as completely victimized. This is rarely the case, IMHO. One needs to look at family dynamics to see the bigger picture. Otherwise it is seeing just one side of that apocryphal elephant.
From Caroline Bankoff’s New York Magazine piece:
"Nancy was a good mother, kind-hearted," said her former sister-in-law. "She wasn’t one to deny reality. She would have sought psychiatric help for her son had she felt he needed it."
So… being a Doomsday Prepper isn’t denying reality?
The Guardian newspaper did some research on the number of guns sold in the US this year. Unfortunately, in this bumper year of massacres, there seems to be a new record for gun sales. The numbers for Kentucky are beyond belief.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/dec/17/how-many-guns-us
@cowichan's opinion--
Thank you for the information and link that you provided so quickly on the previous thread regarding Canada's firearms laws. I was rather surprised at what was NOT on the list of proscribed weapons.
Can I conclude that my autoloading Beretta AL-390 and Remington 11-87 & 1100 trap/sporting clays shotguns would be legal in Canada?
I also gather that there was a provision/process for "grandfathering" of proscribed weapons that were lawfully-owned prior to the date that the law went into effect. Is that true?
If so, does this mean that there were no confiscations of firearms in Canada, with or without fair compensation?
I'm asking because I'm trying to develop in my own mind the basis for a renewed, rational, national discussion on gun control in the US, other than "ban & seize 'em all."
The latter sentiment--expressed by some in this forum--is not a starting point for rational discussion about guns and gun control, it's a declaration of war on some 80,000,000 (mostly) law-abiding Americans that will guarantee that such a discussion will never take place.
@Zee: Wikipedia has a long and informative article on gun restrictions in Canada, with a list of specifically prohibited weapons. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the article or whether it is fully up to date. Your Remington and Berettas do not appear to be on the list of specifically prohibited weapons. And unless they have been modified for fully automatic fire or in other prohibited ways (e.g. shortened barrels), they appear to be legal in Canada, provided, of course, that the owner has them properly registered and has complied with all the numerous safety, storage and transportation requirements. Here's the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada
@Calyban--
Thanks for the helpful link.
Everything that I see there regarding proscribed weapons seems consistent with the RCMP link provided by @cowichan's opinion.
Christy Wampol's discussion http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-stone/ on the decline of young men is worthwhile, though she seems to ignore that many young men are just fine.
Recovery of our troubled young men starts here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/nyc-nurses-aid-low-income-first-time-mothers.html?ref=nyregion
This is not a problem with young men that pops up all of a sudden at adolescence, though symptoms become more acute in adolescence. Instead of investing in prisons, we need to invest in babies and their families. There is no time better to break negative cycles than when a child is born and the natural impulse is to be a better person, a better parent.
Can't do it if you don't know how and there is no one to show the way......