The end of a blistering summer this week and the rising price of gasoline don’t matter to the families of 10 people gunned down in a Boulder grocery store three years ago.
The same for families of the four people gunned down outside a strip of nightclubs in Birmingham, Alabama this week. Crowds were just out enjoying the weekend when four were killed and dozens others injured by gunfire.
And little in the news would make any difference for the families of the four people gunned down by a fellow student at Apalachee High School in Georgia several days ago.
All of those people just want their friends and families back.
So much about these most recent mass shooting stories in the news is the same. Mass shooters easily get guns, often assault weapons or guns modified to look and fire like assault weapons.
In the case of the 14-year-old Georgia boy who killed two students and two educators at his school, his own father bought the boy the AR-15-style rifle.
The family of the King Soopers shooter, Ahmad Alissa, had long known Alissa was mentally ill. So ill, that his father thought he was possessed by an evil spirit.
Despite that, it was easy for Alissa to get a gun restyled as an assault rifle, complete with huge, illegal magazine, able to hold enough ammunition to inflict the very collateral damage he did, killing 10 and injuring almost 40 others during his rampage.
He was convicted of the murders this Monday. His attorneys failed to persuade a jury that he was insane at the time of the shootings.
There is no doubt that these deeply disturbed people should not be permitted to have access to guns. Neither should the people less or more disturbed who shoot hundreds of Americans every day.
Each time someone guns down people in a store, a school, a theater or even a town square, past victims and families are terrorized again, along with the rest of us.
These past surviving massacre victims and their families remember back to the “thoughts and prayers” they, too, received from people like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and a long, list of sordid fellow Republicans and Democrats alike who offered nothing else to stem the plague of gun violence in the nation.
The nation has for years been awash in political leaders who gaslight the nation by insisting that it’s not the guns.
Of course it’s the guns.
It’s the guns, the lack of mental health care, the lack of education, the poverty and our national obsession with violence. But more than anything, the easy access and promotion of handguns, assault rifles, tactical gear and more are what have led to the shooting of more than 117,000 Americans each year and become the leading cause of death among children and teens in the country.
Facts compiled by Brady United from the Centers for Disease Control reveal just how much it is the guns in this country:
Every day, 321 people are shot in the United States. Among those:
• 111 people die from their gunshot wounds
• 210 survive gunshot injuries
• 95 are intentionally shot by someone else and survive
• 42 are murdered
• 65 die from gun suicide
• 10 survive their suicide attempt
• 1 is killed unintentionally
• 90 are shot unintentionally and survive
It’s the guns that are killing us from an industry that makes billions promoting a misguided revision of history, implying that founding fathers of the nation somehow supported our right to murder each other by the tens of thousands each year.
The only thing preventing the nation from escaping endless shootings and massacres is signaling that those who refuse to act against the gun industry to protect Americans will be removed at the ballot box from power.
Few things are as certain in this world as the absolute guarantee that if a majority of American voters push back against elected leaders refusing to budge on gun control, gun control will come swiftly and widely.
But until those who refuse to succumb to our national fate as withering victims of gun massacres and violence become the majority on Election Day, the gun industry, their lobbyists, their bullies and their lackeys will continue to offer thoughts and prayers to the tens of thousands of shooting victims they do nothing for each year.
“Misguided revision of history” is like, as S. J Perelman said, calling Lake Michigan “moist”.
The Supreme Court’s rulings on the Second Amendment, starting with the Heller case, have nothing to do with the actual purpose and meaning of the amendment. And due to their gun mania, we not only have an obscene number of firearm homicides, we are forbidden form doing what the majority of Americans want.
This is a death wish on steroids.
The mere fact your side wants to ban gun ownership is reason enough to keep it, Jeff.
No, it is not the guns! Guns have been around since our founding. The gun violence we are seeing today is relatively recent in our history. Something has changed in society during the last 50 years. I would point to the social revolution brought on by left-wing liberals and all of their “anything goes” attitudes. We have seen the near death of personal responsibility for one’s actions, a sense of entitlement in youth and the inability to cope with the slightest stress without retreating to “safe zones.” Traditional religious values are on the decline. Depression is widespread. Rioting and stopping traffic has become “freedom of speech.” Political violence is considered justifiable. We are a sick society and are getting sicker. Miserable individuals no longer just contemplate taking their own lives. They want to make the world that they blame for their misery pay for it – and pay for it in a way they won’t forget. More gun laws won’t change this widespread social disease.
The point I would make is that there are certain firearms, “assault rifles”, and accessories, high cap mags, that amplify a disturbed individuals ability to carry out mass killings. I agree that there has been a degree of moral decay and it is for that reason that there is the opinion that weapons designed to maximize human casualties have no practical use for ordinary citizens and a ban of these specific weapons would have minimal consequences with regard to restricting freedoms. Day to day life for those who may own these weapons would really look no different other than no having an option to shoot them recreationally.
Kirk, you have stated the pro gun ownership policy exactly correct. A weapon needs a person to pull the trigger, to keep the theory simple.
Just as a side note to the editorial is that politically on national level it has been proven that anti gun stances are not good for a campaign. For that reason, my hopes is that the Vice-President makes this a major issue. Just as the Sentinel Blog has brought it up.
You don’t get to decide how I protect myself and my loved ones. PERIOD!
I understand that you rely on principle when speaking out against assault weapons bans. I just hope you acknowledge that some rely on pragmatic arguments that focus on if there is a practical use for assault weapons and the potential they have to cause mass casualties in the hands of the wrong person
I understand that you rely on principle when speaking out against assault weapons bans. I just hope you acknowledge that some rely on pragmatic arguments that focus on if there is a practical use for assault weapons and the potential they have to cause mass casualties in the hands of the wrong person
Actually, yes we do. There are many weapons society doesn’t allow you, or me, to possess, no matter how much you want one.
If you don’t like that, leave society. And the U.S., or any other nation where they restrict the type and availability of certain overly dangerous weapons.
Prohibiting sale of “assault style” rifles and high cap mags only restricts recreation. Theses rifles were designed for military use as they amplify the ability to kill/wound enemy combatants. They are totally impractical for home and self defense! They are cumbersome and the rounds they shoot can easily penetrate through an entire home causing damage/injury/death to unintended targets. The average number of shots fired by a citizen in gun related incidents is 2.5-3 shots. What are the other 27 rounds for? Perhaps allow an agricultural permit for nuisance animals but aside from that those living in urban or suburban settings have no practical use for them.
“Prohibiting sale of “assault style” rifles and high cap mags only restricts recreation. Theses rifles were designed for military use as they amplify the ability to kill/wound enemy combatants. They are totally impractical for home and self defense! They are cumbersome and …”
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. It is not until the second half of your fourth sentence that you state something that is potentially accurate.
1. “Prohibiting sale … only restricts recreation.” I assume you are referring to AR style rifles, which have uses other than just recreation. In many instances, they are good for self defense.
2. “… designed for military use …” The AR-15 rifle was designed for the civilian market as a varmint rifle by a company named Armalite (hence the “AR” designation). The military saw the rifle and asked Colt to make a military version.
3. “… totally impractical for home and self-defense.” They are one of a number of choices that can be practical in those situations.
4. “They are cumbersome…” They may be a bit more cumbersome that a handgun, but they are easily maneuverable.
Your statistic regarding the average number of shots fired in a gun related incident is relatively accurate. However, that is an AVERAGE. Many, if not most, home invasions involve more than one invader. Those additional 27 rounds would be for those additional invaders.
Finally, with respect, I would ask why you think that you should be allowed to make decisions like these for other people? If you don’t think an AR is a good home defense firearm, then don’t buy one for that purpose. If you don’t want to own STANDARD CAPACITY (30 round) magazines, don’t buy them.
But please don’t tell others how they should live their lives.
America doesn’t have a gun violence problem. 76% of the violent crimes, including 53% of all murders are committed by black males aged 15-36. That’s only 6% of the population! If America got rid of that demographic we be safer than Switzerland. Remove suicide and accidents and you have only a few hundred dead a year out of 400 million. And armed society is a polite society. Only TND will save America
So when do we start legally slaying the black population?
And who decides who should be killed? You?
Certainly I understand the arguments for restricting assault type weapons. However, I would like the media to speak honestly about how most mass shootings occur. As stated previously, most of the shootings are young black males shooting at each other. Different race gangs are also shooting at each other. The media will not touch that and the cultural issues involved. Since our legislature has paralyzed and thereby reduced the police, we have less protection. It is a little late to try to take weapons away from the public when you have already created a dangerous environment for the public. The lax attitudes demonstrated about black crime was painfully evident during the George Floyd riots. The criminals certainly won’t be affected by the efforts to take weapons away. If the government and the media had some credibility and we trusted them, maybe you could talk about taking away weapons. Certainly, the Sentinel has not given us faith that they will be objective and give us accurate facts. The idealism and unrealistic approaches to use of force demonstrated by our legislature and the media really don’t help us in a real world.