Hooked on Violence
Two days after the massacre at Virginia Tech, a mentally disturbed man with a .40-caliber semiautomatic handgun opened fire in a house in Queens, killing his mother, his mother's disabled companion and the disabled man's health care aide. The gunman then killed himself.
Sixteen months ago, in the basement of a private home in the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston, four aspiring rappers, aged 19 to 22, were summarily executed in a barrage of semiautomatic gunfire. Two teenagers were arrested five months later, and one was charged as the gunman.
I had coffee the other day with Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund, and she mentioned that since the murders of Robert Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, well over a million Americans have been killed by firearms in the United States. That's more than the combined U.S. combat deaths in all the wars in all of American history.
"We're losing eight children and teenagers a day to gun violence," she said. "As far as young people are concerned, we lose the equivalent of the massacre at Virginia Tech about every four days."
The first step in overcoming an addiction is to acknowledge it. Americans are addicted to violence, specifically gun violence. We profess to be appalled at every gruesome outbreak of mass murder (it's no big deal when just two, three or four people are killed at a time), but there's no evidence that we have the will to pull the guns out of circulation, or even to register the weapons and properly screen and train their owners.
On the day after Christmas in 2000, an employee of Edgewater Technology, a private company in Wakefield, Mass., showed up at work with an assault rifle and a .12-gauge shotgun. Around 11 a.m. he began methodically killing co-workers. He didn't stop until seven were dead.
An employee who had not been at work that day spoke movingly to a reporter from The Boston Globe about the men and women who lost their lives. "They were some of the sweetest, smartest people I've ever had the chance to work with," he said. "The cream of the crop."
The continuing carnage has roused at least one group of public officials to action: mayors. "We see the violence that is happening in America today," said Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston. "Illegal guns are rampant. Go into almost any classroom in Boston — sixth and seventh grade, eighth grade, high school — and 50 percent of those kids know somebody who had a gun."
The mayor noted that since the beginning of the year, more than 100 people have already been killed in Philadelphia, and nearly 80 in Baltimore. Most of the victims were shot to death.
Last year Mayor Menino and Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, at a meeting they hosted at Gracie Mansion, organized a group of mayors committed to fighting against illegal firearms in the U.S. "It is time for national leadership in the war on gun violence," Mr. Bloomberg said at the time. "And if that leadership won't come from Congress or come from the White House, then it has to come from us."
The campaign has grown. There were 15 mayors at that first gathering. Now more than 200 mayors from cities in 46 states have signed on.
When asked why Mayor Bloomberg had become so militant about the gun issue, John Feinblatt, the city's criminal justice coordinator, mentioned the "human element." He said: "I think it's because he's watched eight police officers be shot. And because, like all mayors, he's the one who gets awakened, along with the police commissioner, at 3 in the morning and 4 in the morning, and has to rush to the hospital and break the news that can break somebody's heart."
Those who are interested in the safety and well-being of children should keep in mind that only motor vehicle accidents and cancer kill more children in the U.S. than firearms. A study released a few years ago by the Harvard School of Public Health compared firearm mortality rates among youngsters 5 to 14 years old in the five states with the highest rates of gun ownership with those in the five states with the lowest rates.
The results were chilling. Children in the states with the highest rates of gun ownership were 16 times as likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound, nearly seven times as likely to commit suicide with a gun, and more than three times as likely to be murdered with a firearm.
Only a lunatic could seriously believe that more guns in more homes is good for America's children.
© Copyright 2007 The New York Times
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
24 Comments so far
Show AllSome people don't seem to realize that the vast majority of people who kill the younger generation won't be hardened criminals. It will be someone they know such as family members or a someone else at school who has a warped attitude. If there was gun control, and then guns were made illegal, surely these types of deaths would decline.
Also on the second ammendment, just because it's a law or a right doesn't make it automatically right. There have been many examples of when the rights have been taken away or given that has made the world better (th right to have black slaves taken away, womens rights, homsexuality becoming legal etc). And many countries survive without the right for guns and don't seem to badly effected by it.
The bottom line is that the Virginia Tech shooter fired something like 170 shots because he bought two weapons that had been illegal and became legal because GW Bush allowed the assault weapons prohibition to lapse. We can blame at least 20 of the deaths on GW Bush alone.
Lumping HANDGUN ownership with ownership of long guns is like lumping heroin with pot. The former kill people and the latter seldom if ever do. Similar to the ploy the super-rich use to avoid progressive taxation by having their pols say they want to get rid of taxes (including theirs).
"Even that left-wing-nut Moore guy noted that Canadians have as many or more guns per person than we do - and they don't have such high murder rates" --armybrat
If you consider someone a left-wing-nut, brat, why don't you check the facts he cites? If you had, you would have found the following: %households w/ guns: US-41, Canada-26.
You also would have found:
"This is underscored by comparisons of the United States and Canada. The costs of firearms death and injury in the two countries have been compared and estimated to be $495 (US) per resident in the United States compared to $195 per resident in Canada. Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. As a result, Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 77 million. While there are other factors affecting murder, suicide and unintentional injury rates, a comparison of data in Canada and the United States suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While the murder rate without guns in the US is roughly equivalent (1.3 times) that of Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 15 times the Canadian rate."
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html
"The first step in overcoming an addiction is to acknowledge it."
That's the problem in a nutshell. As far as I'm concerned, any politician running for office in '08 who does not formally acknowledge that the US has a gun problem is a reality-denier and is unqualified for holding public office.
Sure was glad to have guns in the house last week with the bear up in the tree, because you never know. Same thing goes for timber wolves that pass through. Biggest danger is from man. For women guns are an equalizer.
Ramapant handgun ownership is a problem but the genie is out of the box. If there were no more handguns produced and sold there would still be enough out there to last a long time in great numbers. Banning them would also create a black market. I personally detest handguns but there is little we can do at this point.
I think what we can have an effect on is the culture of violence. It seems the "culture" pushed by corporations values vengeance and violence above all else. We need to ban that and to re-create a culture of community and social responsibility. That culture is our there but it's not what gets the big money or the promotion. It is our culture that defines us -- that we act out of, whether we're voting those values or acting them out. That is the real battlefield for hearts, minds, and the reality we want to live in. As the presnt reality clearly demonstrates, pushing violence and vengeance results in violence and murder. Free speech has its limits in such matters.
Why is it the people who demand the right to own guns are the last people you would want to have them.
#
Tijuanalibre April 26th, 2007 9:41 pm
ezeflyer, do think abortion supporters in, say, Alabama should willingly comply with the mandate on a public referendum on abortion's continued legality? Should those blacks in Louisiana who like to vote willingly comply with the result of a referendum to repeal the Voting Rights Act? You are a moron. Should progressives willingly comply with a referendum forbidding criticism of the President? Rights are not negotiable, and my right to say what I choose, vote, profess a religion, or even own a firearm are not negotiable. You are a moron. Over my, and 50 million other American's cold dead bodies will guns be banned.
A democratic majority gave us our constitutional rights. If a majority decides by referendum that HANDGUNS should be banned because over 90% of all homicides are caused by HANDGUNS, you will comply regardless of reactionary bravado.
The Right to Choose, the Voting Rights Act, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms and other rights were given by the majority in its wisdom. And they can be taken away if it decides to, not by the decision of a few lobbyists or handgun enthusiasts.
The public may decide that we all have the right to live without getting shot by psychopaths with concealed HANDGUNS. Or they may decide to require strict licensing, training, liability insurance for owner and manufacturer of HANDGUNS used for target shooting or for hunting. In any case, ours is allegedly a democracy that many have died to defend and we can't choose what laws to follow or not.
HANDGUNS are the problem because they can be easily concealed. Long guns can't be easily concealed and we can identify potential psychopaths and get away from them.
"People are made of faith Arjuna: As a person's faith is so she is."--Krishna in The Bhagavad Gita.
"As a man thinketh in his heart so is he"--King James Bible
Speaking from personal experience, a continual barrage of violence from TV, especially the way it is glorified, gets constant mental replay and is the first impulse when an altercation arises. It has to be overcome every time before more creative solutions are considered.
The Course in Miracles says we have 2 dominant choices, that of love or fear. Fear, also disguised as hatred, anger and aggressive passion connotes the god Mars from myth. This is the macho god of war and what Nietschze termed, "the oily muscle." It seems this is the idol worshipped by American society, and frankly, it is sexualized in film. How many took up smoking because they thought they'd become suddenly as sexually attractive as the Marlboro man or the early female models used to get women to smoke (so they could taunt, "You've come a long way, baby!") The gun and its ejaculatory force is an extension of the phallus, as much as are bombs, missiles, rockets and whatever other weapons these Mars-champions build. Maybe this nation has some kind of masculinity deficit that it has to so identify with all this EXPLOSIVE force, or maybe, it's love of mammon has reduced its collective capacity to feel, to empathize, and mostly, to LOVE. This land has a high divorce rate, enormous brutality towards women... seen in domestic abuse (# 1 reason women go to the emergency room), child abuse, porn, infidelity, etc. I think a lot of people cleave towards repressive Christian fundamentalism because it rants against infidelity and makes the family some kind of ideal to aspire towards. People in these bonds seldom look happy, more like prisoners of a shared fate, who zone out with booze, or get fat, or just watch TV, or shop, or gamble, or "lust in their minds" via porn virtual partners. It's a sorry and SICK state of affairs, and explains how our nation's moral compass is in a sewer, and why by extension our "leaders" project their blast-off fantasies onto other civilian populations, afterwards inventing (false) rationales. When as a society we plant gardens, nourish the young, CARE about one another, and ultimately invest in VENUS... we will see that MARS will slip away. How many can or would do that, when the nature of masculinity itself has been artificially embedded to Mars?
What the hell do you expect from an unrepentant genocidal Aryan Slave Empire that throws humans under the bus without hesitation? Ya'll want to pretend we all be these wonderful nice folks?
Our 'economy' is a cannibalistic blood feast in which the only rules are the table etiquete and the only question is whether you're on the menu or one of the diners. Everything we have here was stolen through genocide or built from forced human labor.
All those jobs and houses your parents got were there because Black people were then and are now systematicaly excluded from the 'white' economy. Period. Now of course, the Masters have turned on the good white folks and wants them all in chains too, and they're succeeding. How fast must you run on your hamster wheel just to survive? People going crazy with guns? Only the very early days for that. Expect worse. Much worse. We will never 'repent' and illusions die very hard. You know the illusions I speak of: A loving deity to save you; A compassionate universe to care for you; Aryan supremacy; American Exceptionalism -- there are so many, many illusions. People will kill you to try to keep the lies that sustain them. Violence indeed. Our beautiful America.
Peace.
For personal protection I recommend a shotgun with buckshot.
How in the hell does a shotgun "protect" me?
Are you saying that in between the time somebody fires a gun and a bullet reaches me, I'll be able to pull out my trusty shotgun, fire the pellets in the direction of the sound, and the pellets will "shoot down" the bullet headed in my direction?
Maybe I don't spend enough on personal protection, but I can't afford to hire a scriptwriter who can arrange reality such that I will be ready with my 12 gauge.
Why not try to construct likely scenarios based on facts and statistics, rather than the contexts of the mellodramas in which a gun plays the part determined by the scriptwriters?
Oh, BTW, let me tell you about the shotgun my next door neighbor bought his wife for "protection". While they were at work, a person unknown (about whom we at least know he or she had little enough respect for life and property to break into a suburban house in broad daylight) stole it, and now the criminal has it. He might be back.
Maybe you should check out what actually happens with guns, in real life, rather than imagine your life will be like a TV show where guns "protect" people.
If I wanted to kill someone, I would walk up behind them and shoot them in the back. How would your shotgun "protect" you from that? I would not send them an engraved invatation to a duel, and then offer them a choice of weapons.
Yes, a bullet proof vest or body armor can be said to offer some protection against bullets. Why on earth do our troops or police wear those bulky looking things when they have their guns to "protect" them?
Legalize drugs. Ban handguns.
Currently there are more people serving time in county, state, or federal prisons for drug charges, than for gun charges. If the drugs and their import/distribution etc. cannot be controlled effectively how can the guns.
Change the culture-------------
Learn from God's mistakes----------------
"Don't put no forbidden fruit in the garden, it just makes em want it more"
So what's your point?
I recently read this:
As a hunter and US Army officer I have been familiar with weapons of all kinds most of my life. I realized, like other hunters have, that hunting many kinds of big wild game has become unsustainable, so I do "Catch and Release" hunting with tranquilizer darts.
I'll dart large male "trophy" animals, measure, weight, take videos, cure diseases as much as possible, remove parasites, tag and release them to pass on their superior genes. In season, I only take young animals whose meat is more tender and tastier and who are not of breeding age.
Catch and release hunting allows me to hunt anywhere in any season and to "shoot" any big game, including some endangered animals. There are dart guns comparable to the finest sporting rifles and handguns. Longer range tranquilizer darts are available.
I sometimes hunt with a veterinarian friend. He's taught me a lot about meds and dosages and keeps the records on the animals darted, whether he's hunting with me or not. I've had few problems with local government in most countries, once they see my dart guns and equipment.
I recommend catch and release hunting and have never had an animal die of overdose or accidentally from a darting. Most if not all of these occurrences can be minimized by proper training that should be mandatory for use of any firearm. What catch and release fishing has done for game fishing, it can do for hunting.
For personal protection I recommend a shotgun with buckshot. Other than for licensed target shooting, there is no need for civilians to own handguns or even rifles. Most firearm homicides are committed with handguns. Hunting rifles can be replaced by dart guns. And if you want to use fully automatic weapons, join the Army.
I wish somebody would do the research and prove what I have long suspected- that the 2nd Amendment has nothing, or very little to do with private gun ownership.
The 2nd Amendment, I have come to believe, has a whole lot more to do with demanding adherence to any particular creed, religion or political party in order to join, or advance in the armed forces of the new Republic.
Look at the history, which of course would have been current events, of the English armed forces. As the Crown switched from Catholic to Protestant and back and forth, whichever sect was not in power had to be purged from the army, or at least the officer corps, and oaths to follow the orders of the new religious establishment would be administered.
That is what the Founding People wanted to avoid, and I believe the issue of private handgun ownership was the furthest thing from their minds, except insofar as it related to militia duties.
It all makes a piece with the provisions that precluded religious oaths as a prerequisite for elected office, and the non-establishment of a State Church. Please keep in mind the financiers as well as the fighters of the American Revolution- they included men (and women, surely) of all faiths, or none, and many different origins. Could they expect those varied people to finance and fight for American independence, only to be told that their particular denomination or nationality would be precluded from joining and advancing in the American armed forces? I don't think so, more likely a garauntee that this would not happen was needed, thus, the 2nd Amendment.
What it adds up to is this, I'm certain: by selling uncontrolled gun ownership as a fundamental right (or even an obligation) of American citizens, endorsed by the Founding People, we have been prevented from debating the necessity for controlling guns, their ownership, use and traffic, as say, a public health problem. In fact, as we all know, automobile liscensing and registration is more restrictive than gun laws.
Can someone with the historical knowledge (but without the gun-nuts need to obfuscate) please tell me if my suspicions about the 2nd Amendment are correct. All my reading says so. Am I right?
Is the NRA largely responsible for the relatively easy access to handguns?
If so, how can one special interest block measures that would end "losing eight children and teenagers a day to gun violence"?
Thank God Mayors from across the country are finally fed up!
What the media intentionally leaves out of the news. I bet you gun control nuts never hear about this one or any of the others that happen all the time around the country. Our government and corporate controlled news media hide information like this from the American public. Gun control is population control in a nut shell.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
When mass killers meet armed resistance.
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/when-mass-killers-meet-armed-resistance.html
It took place at a university in Virginia. A student with a grudge, an immigrant, pulled a gun and went on a shooting spree. It wasn't Virginia Tech at all. It was the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, not far away. You can easily drive from the one school to the other, just take a trip down Route 460 through Tazewell.
It was January 16, 2002 when Peter Odighizuwa came to campus. He had been suspended due to failing grades. Odighizuwa was angry and waving a gun calling on students to "come get me". The students, seeing the gun, ran. A shooting spree started almost immediately. In seconds Odighizuwa had killed the school dean, a professor and one student. Three other students were shot as well, one in the chest, one in the stomach and one in the throat.
Many students heard the shots. Two who did were Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges. Mikael was outside the school having just returned to campus from lunch when he heard the shots. Tracy was inside attending class. Both immediately ran to their cars. Each had a handgun locked in the vehicle.
Bridges pulled a .357 Magnum pistol and he later said he was prepared to shoot to kill if necessary. He and Gross both approached Odighizuwa at the same time from different directions. Both were pointing their weapons at him. Bridges yelled for Odighizuwa to drop his weapon. When the shooter realized they had the drop on him he threw his weapon down. A third student, unarmed, Ted Besen, approached the killer and was physically attacked.
But Odighizuwa was now disarmed. The three students were able to restrain him and held him for the police. Odighizuwa is now in prison for the murders he committed. His killing spree ended when he faced two students with weapons. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance
So what's your point?
We should make gun laws based on facts, not the unities of mellodrama.
Mayors may be upset and trying to do something, but the reality of it is there is nothing they can do, there are no lines of communication between mental health units and the gun shop computers, if a city bands gun sales, they take it to federal court and that trumps the States, so they are back to square one. Mayor Daily of Chicago, IL has tried for years to come up with laws, but yes the NRA does have more power then the State with the Federal laws the way they are now written. We need new laws. Want to bet how long that takes? If people protected the 1st amendment as well as the 2nd. we would have new laws. Common sense is also in short supply.
Imagine hearing this every night on the evening news:
"And in other news, another 109 Americans were killed in so-called car accidents today, just like yesterday. Experts predict 109 will die tomorrow, and every day forward until people wake up."
Maybe a picture over the Anchor's shoulder - 109 body bags lined up, or piled up, or whatever. How can all of us be so accepting of massive road death?
Would handgun supporters abide by the determination of a public referendum on handguns if they were democratically banned?