Jan. 22 last month was packed with headline news.
Colorado joined 21 other states suing the nascent Trump administration for an executive order attempting to do an end run around the Constitution and end so-called birthright citizenship.
Also, the Trump administration announced it would permit ICE immigration raids at schools, hospitals and churches. Top headlines included continued death amid the Gaza War and Panama officials were irate over unexpected Trump talk about taking back the Panama Canal. There were stories about Pete Hegseth, a possible Costco strike, the aftermath of Trump pardoning Jan. 6 insurrectionists and plenty about the weird weather.
Do those stories ring a bell?
One story that slipped into obscurity Jan. 22 even before it made significant headline traction was how a beloved Baltimore teacher’s aide was fatally shot after watching her grandchild play basketball in a school game. A fight broke out at the Tunbridge School. The game was called, and the gymnasium cleared. A short time later, as Anntoinette Tunstall-Jennings and others drove away, someone drove up to the car and opened fire, killing Jennings and injuring others inside the car, including children.
Many people remark about the tragedy that we live in a nation where school-related shootings no longer capture or keep the attention of the American public.
Even less memorable for many people are shootings unrelated to schools.
The Brady Center reports that:
Every day, an average of 327 people are shot in the United States. About 23 of those people are under 18.
Among those:
• 117 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
And amid the fading headlines about tens of thousands of Americans injured or killed by guns is a country awash in political leaders who gaslight the nation by insisting that it’s not the guns.
Of course it’s the guns.
Science and data makes it clear that the uniquely American crisis of gun violence is caused by 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.
Once again, Colorado lawmakers are faced with yet a new gun bill that hopes to at least reduce some of the stories about people shot dead that fade from headlines and memories before the next shooting occurs.
Prime sponsor state Sen. Tom Sullivan, a Centennial Democrat, says that Senate Bill 3 has a real chance at reducing gun deaths in Aurora and across Colorado.
The bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic guns that have detachable magazines.
Gun industry officials say it would force the closure of most Colorado gun shops and intrude on the constitutional right to own a gun.
It’s nonsense.
These so-called assault weapons serve no practical purpose for anyone who buys them. They are essentially deadly toys created to soothe some unmet psychological need or criminal exploit. These are weapons designed for military use.
The utter nonsense people like former U.S. Rep. Ken Buck promoted about these weapons, that they are an important tool for farmers and ranchers, used to shoot “raccoons,” is bizarre to any sensible farmer or rancher. Real ranchers don’t need a replica assault rifle to put down an ailing cow or scatter coyotes hovering around sheep or calves.
Coming from ranchers and farmers in the Arkansas Valley in southeast Colorado, I can tell you firsthand how ridiculous and dangerous real agricultural workers would appear wielding the same gun they used in Afghanistan or Vietnam.
These are places where gun racks in the back windows of pickup trucks have real guns that serve a real purpose. They don’t fulfill any psychological need or make you feel safe from other people driving pickup trucks with guns in the racks.
There’s no getting around that there will always be people who believe that if they stash their gat in their skivvies or socks they can outgun bad guys out there itching to rob or terrorize them.
Just ask the cops. It almost never, ever happens like that. That’s why cops wear their guns in holsters.
Besides the oddballs that like to hold and shoot a rifle that goes “pow pow pow” fast and then reloads with a fresh magazine for more “pow pow pow,” the real menaces that just love these weapons are real-live criminals and mentally ill shooters.
Sullivan’s bill doesn’t shut down gun shops. It doesn’t outlaw assault-style weapons, which should be outlawed.
It just pushes Colorado farther down the road of sensible gun control by removing a weapon that serves no legitimate business, self-protection or even sportsman-like purpose.
Gun violence is far worse in Aurora, the state and the nation than the credence we give it in headlines. Only by pressing ahead with needed gun reforms can we get to a point where seriously enforcing these needed laws moves the needle and saves lives.
As an American, you are 26 times more likely to be shot and killed than anyone who lives in another westernized nation. That’s what you need to know.
Follow @EditorDavePerry on BlueSky, Threads, Mastodon, Twitter and Facebook or reach him at 303-750-7555 or dperry@SentinelColorado.com
Mr. Perry cites President Trump for attempting to do an end around the Constitution by ending so-called birthright citizenship. Then, in the next breadth, suggests we violate the Constitution by restricting gun ownership rights. This is just like a Democrat to drag out the Constitution when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn’t.
We all find mass shootings and gun violence in this country abhorrent. But individuals who want to send a message through mass killings will always find a way. For example, driving vehicles into a crowd at high speed has become popular of late. And semi-automatic pistols, that are popular for home defense, can be just as deadly as rifles at close range, such as in a supermarket.
The true causes for the uptick in violence in our society are extremely complicated and seemingly impossible to solve. So we do things that make us feel like we are addressing the problem (like outlawing plastic bags). These “feel good” solutions are just that – they simply make us feel better without truly addressing the problem.
I totally disagree with Kirk’s reply to Mr. Perry. I’ve probably run more ammo through a gun than most who live in Colorado. I come from rural Iowa, where the hunting culture was once very strong, with large deer taken every year. I never had to own an assault weapon or a handgun. To me, they are useless for hunting. I always thought assault weapons acted and looked like weapons of war. And as for high-capacity magazines, their purpose is to dispense bullets rapidly. Hunters I grew up with rarely needed more than two shots to kill a deer and didn’t think too much of a hunter who emptied a 7-shot clip every time a deer was in their sights. However, the real issue is this: the leading cause of death among children and teens in the country. I’m an old man now and don’t hunt and no longer own a gun, but I have a teenage granddaughter and I worry about her safety – so should all of us that have young loved ones! The problem is the access to guns.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting. Protecting our children and families is just as important as protecting our Second Amendment rights. The bill is not going to keep criminals from getting assault rifles. You decided that you did not need a handgun or “assault weapon” to defend yourself or your family. That’s your choice. My choice is to use the best available options to protect my family. Why would you deny me that right? I’m not talking about the sport of hunting, I’m talking about defending my children.
You are so flawed and biased on your opinion. The facts are if you get rid of guns you have broken the Constitution and put every single American citizen at risk from foreign and domestic enemies. Take away guns and free the criminals. You will never get their guns and leave Americans unarmed. You are a blithering brain surgeon surgeon.
If Dave Perry were around in 1912 he would have advocated the banning of icebergs.
Hey, 100% of DUI related deaths are caused by alcohol intake. Let’s ban that too. Oh wait, we once did, and it was it a debacle for thirteen years.
The answer is education and holding people accountable for their actions. Let’s hold parents accountable for gun related killings committed by their children. Let’s not, however, take away every citizen’s right to protect themselves by every means possible. Criminals are not going to abide by any gun laws, and there’s no way I’m giving up my right to protect myself and my family with my firearms.
Lastly, assault rifles can be very effective platforms for hunting and protecting livestock.
No, the answer is to understand the Constitution. If you’re going to claim a constitutional “right”, anyway.
How, well put Publius. I imagine Mr. Perry took more than a few seconds to understand this statement and how it relates to gun ownership.
I further think that there are still many commenters out there who are still wondering and have moved on.
Why do Commrad Perry and his ilk get to tell people what kind of firearms they can use to protect themselves, their families and their property? The reason cops went from .38 special revolvers to semiautomatic pistols is because criminals were illegally obtaining and using state-of-the-art firearms and had effectively outgunned law enforcement. That’s the same reason everyday folks started using the AR platform. It’s a rifle platform that levels the playing field. Now, people like Perry and Sen. Sullivan want law-abiding citizens to use muzzleloaders, clubs, knives, rocks and sticks for self-defense. They know criminals will continue to use high-capacity magazines and “assault” weapons. It makes no sense and SB 25-03 isn’t going to make Colorado any safer.
You are correct it makes no sense, because that’s not what they are saying.
Crocodile tears from Dave Perry. He knows more human beings are killed by “safe” and legal abortions each year than are killed by firearms. But you’ll never read anything from him about limiting abortions to save lives.
Abortion and mass shootings are fantastic for population control. The planet ceased to be able to naturally sustain itself as of the 1970’s, so we should be advocating for radical population control to save the planet and ourselves. There are too many people, plain and simple.
We can thank the late Antonin Scalia for the popular misimpression that the Second Amendment protects a personal “right” to own a firearm outside of government regulation and prohibition.
The amendment reads, in its entirety, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The purpose of the amendment is answered by the beginning phrase “A well regulated militia…” While the Constitution gave the federal government the authority to establish an army, colonists had long been participating in colonial, and, later, state militias. The Constitution was written by men who understood the need for an army, but also understood that the states wanted to keep their militias, both to supplement the army and to respond to local emergencies like fires and civil unrest.
As a result, the Second Amendment kept the colonial institution of the militia essentially intact but with the requirement that the federal government could use local militias to augment the new army. (Creation of a standing army was opposed by many, so the amendment, as well as Article I, also served to assuage local/state concerns.)
They did this in language understood at the time. The debates in the House of Representatives have been essentially preserved, but what the Senate said is lost to time. The House debates over the Second Amendment revolved mainly around issues like conscientious objectors and those who had religious scruples against fighting in wars. NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT A “PERSONAL” RIGHT TO OWN A GUN. It wasn’t an issue. Most people didn’t own guns, nor could they afford them. Guns kept for individual self-defense were few, and mainly in the hands of the well-to-do. The Amendment addresses the purpose: Maintaining the state/local militias as an institution for the defense of the states.
The arguments we hear today might be persuasive on some points, but they are not the point of the Second Amendment. Guns continued to be subject to safety concerns and state regulation. And no one thought personal gun ownership outside of militia service was a constitutional right.
The “intent” of the founders of our Constitution might be a valid arguement when it comes to gun rights. It is also currently being advanced by the political right to challenge birthright citizenship.