PERRY: Tough talk on assault weapon bans turns to just more of the same this year

618
SENTINEL FILE PHOTO – This July 2012 evidence file photo provided by the Arapahoe County District Attorney’s Office shows an assault weapon and blood by sandals following the July 20, 2012 Colorado theater shooting by James Holmes in Aurora. Despite years of talk of an assault weapon ban in Colorado, none have materialized.

It seems that this brave new world is less than courageous when it comes to constraining no-limits gun zealots.

Again.

After a school-room filled with children were shot dead in Uvalde, Texas, and, more recently and closer to home, Club Q in Colorado Springs became the site of a gun massacre, the talk about gun control got tough.

Just like before.

Aurora, like the growing list of communities where gun massacres change everything, knows what this is about.

Even before the Aurora theater shooting, the horrific massacre at Columbine High School launched an effort to finally discard the revisionist history of Second Amendment extremists and enact meaningful, national gun control.

The passions were palpable and pervasive in the months after Columbine. I remember sitting in a Sentinel Editorial Board meeting with then-GOP Congressman Tom Tancredo as he explained his rationale — as a far-right conservative — for supporting serious gun control measures.

Of course tough talk inevitably led to all talk and no legislation.

Year after year, shooting after shooting, members of Congress or the Colorado Legislature, promised that “this time,” after this shooting, after these senseless deaths, we would finally do something about the limitless profusion of guns.

The numbers don’t lie.

Every day, an average of 321 Americans are shot. Among those, research compiled by Brady United reveals that:

111 people are killed;

95 are intentionally shot and injured;

42 are murdered.

Every day.

The vast majority of Americans have continued to agree that meaningful gun control is needed to stem bloody gun massacres and daily injuries and deaths.

They still do. Poll after poll, year after year reveals a nation that sees the wisdom in reining in ubiquitous guns, including “so called” assault rifles.

And, inevitably, the millions of dollars of cash raised by the gun lobby, to be wielded by lobbyists against anyone who dares to press for real gun reform, has quelled each and every attempt, including here in Colorado.

Even after Columbine, the Aurora theater shooting, the shooting at Arapahoe High school and a Boulder grocery store, guns win.

And this time, just months after the Club Q massacre in Colorado Springs, guns win as the Legislature now backs down from its own fleeting promises.

Again.

While lawmakers like Democratic Rep. Andrew Boesenecker said this is finally the time to ban assault rifles, the expected push back from gun lobbies changed all that.

Just like before.

This week, the promise of getting rid of the gun of choice for mass shooters and GOP Congressmembers Lauren Boebert and Ken Buck ended.

Data shows that these deadly military rifles carry a special allure for people who end up using them to shoot other people, rather than delinquent raccoons, which is what Buck insists rural residents use them for.

Instead of finally banning assault rifles, a proposed bill will now seek to ban only the sale of these deadly weapons.

But possession of such firearms in the state would still be allowed. 

“We know that when we create space between the motive to do something horrific and the ready availability of a firearm with which to do that we save lives,” Boesenecker told the Colorado Sun this week.

Still, he caved to the Colorado gun nuts who’ve scared away support for the bill by fellow lawmakers.

Instead, Boesenecker’s bill would allow anyone to go get their assault rifle in neighboring states and bring them back to Colorado, or just keep the ones they already have.

This is nothing more than an economic development plan for Wyoming. Banning sales and not ownership is like sending a get-well card to someone bleeding to death.

Another year of brave talk and little more.

So, no, folks. The grisly violence we live with because of our obsession with guns, and our delusion over the fictionalization of the Second Amendment, continues.

Maybe next time.

Follow @EditorDavePerry on Mastadon, Twitter and Facebook or reach him at 303-750-7555 or [email protected]

2 4 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

16 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Good Citizen
Good Citizen
8 days ago

Would could agree that human beings enjoy murdering other human beings. History teaches that. We could agree that many weapons that are available to the general public lend themselves to the ability to murder. History teaches that as well. We might also agree that Americans especially enjoy killing people. History also teaches that. We would disagree that Americans, who enjoy killing people would have any interest in eliminating their ability to kill people. This situation has very little to do with politics or law enforcement, but with a group of people that are criminal, venal and to a great degree, simpletons. Practically, there is no “solution” to those facts. That is not to say that these traits wouldn’t make Americans successful. To a great degree they have and will probably continue to do so. Someday, perhaps in the near future, they will disappear from the face of the earth, and no one will know or care that they ever existed.

GeneD
7 days ago

Change gun laws or change Congress.

Blaze
Blaze
6 days ago
Reply to  GeneD

Asinine. Might as well blame cars for crashes.

Zero
Zero
6 days ago
Reply to  Blaze

Don’t threaten me with a good time, Blazey. Cars are deadly debt bombs that consumers have been forced into acquiring for the sake of feeding an industry that is killing us slowly in a hundred ways, so I’m all for banning them. Also we licence them and require tons of training and we emissions and safety test them and we don’t let children have them, we regulate the heck out of cars – so yeah, let’s treat guns and cars the same, *for sure*. 100%.

Blaze
Blaze
5 days ago
Reply to  Zero

You really missed the forest, huh Zero? You’re hardly forced into a car purchase. As for the rest, licensing and training, safety testing, and age restrictions, all apply to guns, already. And surprise, I’m for doing a bit more. But please tell me the models of cars that are banned. 100%

GeneD
1 day ago
Reply to  Blaze

The Ford Pinto and Chevy Corvair were involved in so many injuries and fatalities that Congress finally put pressure on auto companies to build safety features into their cars.

Factory Working Orphan
Factory Working Orphan
5 days ago
Reply to  Zero

LOL, I’d love to treat guns exactly like we do cars. I’m completely down getting a license, registration, and insurance to own and operate a firearm, IF the following also applies:

–I can buy nearly any gun I want without a background check, just like cars, save for a Class A or C license for certain guns, just like cars. If I have the Class A or C license, then I can buy any gun I want, just like cars.
–The license is reciprocal across all 50 states and US territories, and is “shall issue.”
–I can buy any gun I want across state lines without having to go through a dealer, just like cars.
–My license and guns won’t be taken away from me unless I’ve actually committed a crime with a gun, just like cars.
–The license exam isn’t anything more complicated than a simple paper and operator’s test (“tons of training”–HAHAHA), just like cars, with a six-month training period if you’re under 16, just like cars, and renewing just requires you to show up and pay a renewal fee, just like cars.

Yes, let’s treat guns EXACTLY like we do cars. PLEASE. Doing so would immediately nuke most of the gun control laws in this country.

GeneD
6 days ago
Reply to  Blaze

False equivalency. Did you know that gun deaths have surpassed car deaths for the past several years? Do you think people get in their cars with the intent of killing others?

Because of the death toll of car crashes, Congress forced auto manufacturers to make their products safter, and consumers demanded safety. Multiple lawsuits also forced car companies to change their products to make them safer.

Why should firearm manufacturers be the only businesses that enjoy immunity from product liability suits when they have the technology to make safer products?

How long can you defend the indefensible?

Jeff Ryan
Jeff Ryan
5 days ago
Reply to  GeneD

A pretty long time, apparently.

Blaze
Blaze
4 days ago
Reply to  Jeff Ryan

Just getting warmed up.

Blaze
Blaze
5 days ago
Reply to  GeneD

Please. Firearms manufacturers are required to make products that are safe to operate. And they do, just like cars.

How long can you ignore the fact that it is the person behind the wheel or on the trigger that determines whether they will kill someone with that instrument?

Factory Working Orphan
Factory Working Orphan
5 days ago
Reply to  GeneD

Gosh, Gene, you mean with all the safety features, cars are still killing tens of thousands of people every year?

I notice you still don’t want to increase regulations on alcohol despite it killing 1.5 times the number of people guns do. In fact, deaths from booze are the third-leading cause of preventable death in the country.’

Where’s your demand to repeal the 21st Amendment, Gene?

GeneD
3 days ago

Nice try at deflection. Let’s stick to the issue. You seem to be okay with firearm deaths; over 45,000 in the US and 1,076 (a new high!) in Colorado last year. What would you say is the right number? And, as the majority of these are suicides, with most occurring in the 75+ and the 25-44 age groups, and disproportionately represented by veterans, would you say the volume is about right, or what is okay with you?

Last year 33% of all hospital admissions in Colorado were from firearm injuries, and 6% from injuries from all causes. Seem about right to you? Are you okay with the billions in health care costs and the time required by health care workers to deal with the impact of our firearm violence epidemic?

Keep sending your thoughts and prayers, but decide to do something positive to deal with this slaughter.

Factory Working Orphan
Factory Working Orphan
2 days ago
Reply to  GeneD

No deflection here–you clearly think one cause of death is more important than the other, even though the other not only empirically kills more people every year by an order of magnitude, at one time it was completely banned by Constitutional amendment. Are you okay with the billions in health care costs and the time required by health care workers to deal with the impact of our alcoholism epidemic? Why are you okay with well over 100,000 people dying every year from alcohol-related causes (not to mention the related social dysfunctions that accompany it), per the CDC, but whine like a mule about 45,000?

Keep sending your thoughts and prayers, but decide to do something positive to deal with this slaughter.

GeneD
1 day ago

One preventable death issue at a time, please. My comments were relative to the article and the continuing public health issue of gun violence. If you want to take on reducing the toll of alcohol related illnesses and death, have at it. Both are societal public health issues, and I’m interested in changing the trajectory of gun violence. What are you doing about your pet issue?

Factory Working Orphan
Factory Working Orphan
12 hours ago
Reply to  GeneD

LOL, thanks for admitting you’re okay with over 100,000 people dying of alcohol-related causes every year.