Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why Have We Stopped Talking about Guns?
You know by now that in Washington, DC, on Wednesday, an elderly white supremacist and anti-Semite named James W. von Brunn allegedly walked into the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum with a .22-caliber rifle and killed security guard Stephen T. Johns before being brought down himself. He's 88 years old, with a long record of hatred and paranoid fantasies about the Illuminati and a Global Zionist state. How bitter the bile that has curdled for so many decades.
You will know, too, of the recent killing, while ushering at his local church, of Dr. George Tiller, one of the few doctors in the country still performing late term abortions. Sadly, this case was proof that fatal violence works. His family has announced that his Wichita, Kansas, clinic will not be reopened.
You may be less familiar with the June 1st shootings in an army recruiting office in Little Rock that killed one soldier and wounded another. The suspect in question is an African-American Muslim convert who says he acted in retaliation for US military activity in the Middle East.
Soon, however, these terrible deeds will be forgotten, as are already the three policemen killed by an assault weapon in Pittsburgh; the four policemen killed in Oakland, California; the 13 people gunned down in Binghamton, New York; the 10 in an Alabama shooting spree; five in Santa Clara, California; the eight dead in a North Carolina, nursing home. All during this year alone.
There is much talk about hate talk; hate crimes against blacks, whites, immigrants, Muslims, Jews; about violence committed in the name of bigotry or religion. But why don't we talk about guns?
We're arming ourselves to death. Even as gunshots ricocheted around the country, an amendment allowing concealed weapons in national parks snuck into the popular credit card reform bill. Another victory for the gun lobby, to sounds of silence from the White House.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, wrote -- just days before the Holocaust Museum incident -- that "rather than propose concrete action that makes it harder for dangerous people to get firearms -- while still respecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners -- all Washington can seem to muster after high-profile shootings are 'thoughts and prayers' for the victims and their families.
"For his part, the President has also included sincere expressions of 'deep sadness' at these tragic losses -- though without any call to change any of our policies to prevent those losses.'
Yet, as a presidential candidate, Obama pledged "our determination to do whatever it takes to eradicate this violence from our streets, from our schools, from our neighborhoods and our cities. That is our duty as Americans."
The fact is, neither party will stand up to the National Rifle Association, the best known front group for the arms merchants. In Virginia, just across the Potomac River from the Holocaust Museum, this week's Democratic primary for governor was won by state legislator R. Creigh Deeds, a man who supports allowing concealed weapons in restaurants that serve alcohol and opposes limiting handgun purchases to one a month.
After Wednesday's shooting, a conservative organization immediately offered those of us in the media a chance to interview the founder of "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership," whose expertise, it was said, is in helping people understand why gun control doesn't belong in a civilized society.
The e-mail went on to say, "Your audience will appreciate [his] non nonsense common sense talk that will make them wonder why anyone wants to ban guns in the first place."
Thanks, but no thanks. And no thanks to his counterparts among Christians and Muslims who use every violent shedding of blood to try to promote the worship of guns. Guns don't kill people, they say. People kill people. True. People kill people -- with guns.
So let the faithful of every persuasion keep their guns for hunting and skeet, for trap and target practice, for collecting. They can even have a permit for a gun to protect their business or home, even though it's 22 times more likely to shoot a member of the family (including suicides) than an intruder.
But please, there are already some 200 million, privately owned firearms in America. Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths and in some years more than 400,000 non-fatal, gun-related assaults. The next time someone wades through a pool of blood to sidle up and champion the preservation of firearms, can't we just say, no thanks?
Enough's enough.





245 Comments so far
Show AllHey Bill, after you wave your Magic Wand over the gun prohibition and eliminate guns, please tell the guys over at DEA so they can use your Wand on the drug supply. Sure, it'll work....
Of course you might find it a bit more difficult to make your own gun than to grow your own weed.
Then again, the rampaging gun nuts do serve a purpose; population control.
You mean let the "rampaging gun nuts" do your dirty ("humanitarian") work for you?
I mean that the rampaging gun nuts do quite a good job of killing people who might be union advocates, or who could grow into leaders that actually placed the interest of their country before themselves. They also serve as a wonderful distraction from the other problems that the gov't would have to adress were it not for the odd nut blasting away the odd score of neighbours.
Funny how you seem to imply that humanitarian work is 'dirty'.
Way Hey! The DEA!
Now THERE's an effective organization!
Billions lost just so the street price of cocaine can drop and the supply increase over the last 20 years!
Well done! Heck-uv-a-job!
Certainly with performance like that and spiraling budgets it's enough to bring a tear to any Good Conservative's eye.
Ray Berthiaume
I would like to hear from someone who claims to be a follower of the Rabbi Jesus just how owning a gun is compatible with the gospel.
Given that gay-bashing, segregation, and even slavery have been justified by the gospel I don't see this as a big problem nor difficult.
Oh and let's not forget the Great Big one....oppression of women.
This seems to be the over-arching theme of most religions.
When the Roman soldiers came to arrest Jesus, the apostle Peter drew his sword and cut off an ear of one of the soldiers. If followers of Jesus would not carry weapons, then what was Peter carrying the sword for? And why did he draw it?
and what did Jesus say to Peter?
btw, it was a servant, not a roman solider.
It's imperfect, but there is the part where Jesus tells someone to sell his coat and buy a sword.
And how about, "I've come not to bring peace but the sword."
Religion sux.
JC said "Blessed are the Peacemakers."
Being prescient, He was, of course, referring to the famous Colt six-shooter.
I usually agree with Mr Moyers but on guns I'll say this. If you want to own one, you have to pass a test that examines many aspects of your skills and criminal past, if any.Thats it!I own a few guns. I shoot frequently and reload my own amunition. Owning weapons does give me a sense of power. Hope I never have to use them to hurt another person but I will if I have to.If some half wit living in your gun free Utopia decides to vent his putrid bilebag, he'll use an ax,a knife or a car bomb. We need change for sure but responsible folks stay armed!
Robert,
Who's rules do you use to define "criminal?" Do the soldiers who invaded Iraq qualify as criminals? Or are they "our criminals?"
I used to be a big advocate of gun control.
But then George Bush came to power.
How else do I protect myself against all those gun-loving right-wing Republican terrorists?
odoco
You comment has great substance. The privileged in this country, when faced with electoral defeat because of changing demoographics, will employ terror, just as Hitler did, with their little 'brown-shirt' army of thugs. The CIA has been doing it for years in other countries - and the ultra-right wing minority is more than ready and willing to do it here.
I have guns - and exactly for the reason you state. I am not afraid of criminals per se', but I constantly worry about the quasi-legal, socially camouflaged sociopaths that believe the bullshit put out by Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and the rest of the hate mongering Nazis in this country.
First, gun control is NOT gun banning unlike what the NRA and its worshipers would have us believe. The problem with the gun toters is they believe that guns will solve all of their problems and even break down like a crybaby begging its mommy and daddy to buy them more guns and play huggy wuggy with. As to your question, there are other ways but in a country where we rely on guns to be our "panacea", we stupid Americans refuse to take into account other ideas that are non-violent because we just gotta play "hero" and try to imitate them Hollywood films despite the fact that them films are just "fixed".
I agree. it's becoming crystal clear that the best liberal is an armed liberal, because when senile, angry white gunnut male comes out of his yokel, country rotting brain state, someone will need to be armed to put that sack down...then of course there's the arms/drug/military/CIA/DEA/healthcare/oil/big brother complex to worry about.
Ultimately, though, talking for people that don't want to live in battle, if this administration can't get health care through, its high time to emigrate. The USA isn't really worth a damn anymore. We're about to get taxed up the yin yang just so angry white male can collect social security while he complains about immigrants. Europe is doing well, and so is Asia. America is like a bad international joke. The last decent thing about it, the wilderness, is being taken over by gun psychos who let their fourteen-year-old mongrel hunters kill hikers in the forest.
Although more libs on the real trails could mean more guns to take out the angry white male rapists looking for Deliverance, it prob won't. So no parks, insane health care taxes (and death if you dont pay, or DO)stupid restrictive laws on smoking and drinking courtesy of the same fascist greedy insurance companies, lousy education and health care for your kids (plus exhorbitant college or being drafted into stupid wars), rotten energy policy, loss of currency value, never-ending stress over living in the same country as millions of truly brainwashed idiots just so elites can rob you blind in ways they can't in other developed nations (including to your death).
Where does the decline in life stop? If you can get out of America, better get while you can.
Sioux Rose
ESO: Did anyone ever tell you you had a knack for writing travel brochures? (You do raise some very valid points, and I have considered an exit plan.)
deleted
you'd be welcome here in Wales.
I left the states shortly after Kent State.
but not before being told by my draft board that I was too immoral to kill yellow or brown babies cuz of my smoking preferences.
The second amendment which ensures the right to bear arms was not really intended so that people could hunt or target practice or collect. Although the founding fathers would probably have approved of those things. It was intended to ensure that the citizenry could rise up, if necessary, and overthrow an oppressive government. The founding fathers knew that if the government took away arms then a second american revolution would be impossible. They also knew that someday a second american revolution might be necessary.
Does the Civil War qualify in your estimation?
Counterpunch had an interesting article yesterday by Heather Gray: 'A New Perspective on the Confederacy: Southern Greed During the Civil War'.
I have wondered at times why the people of a State should not be able to secede from the Union. If people are held in a union only at gunpoint are they really free? It is quite possible that the U.S.A. will disintegrate just as the Soviet Union did and for much the same reasons. This could come sooner rather than later as the dollar loses its' reserve currency status and the creditors of the U.S.A. find better ways to invest their money. Just for the record, I grew up in Massachusetts.
A second american revolution would not succeed if you took up arms against the us gov't. The gov't would destroy any rebellion far more quickly than the last one was destroyed (1865) and if the rebellion was as large as the one in 1861 the loss of life would be outragous.
But if the revolution was subtle, if the revolutionaries worked quietly to take over the media, to crush the unions, to distract the population with trivia, bread and circus', if they subverted both political parties by turning the elections into 'who's the most popular rich person' rather than discuss any issues that actually confront the country. Well such a revolution could succeed, and I think has done so.
Brilliant.
Sioux Rose
Saturnalia: I'd call it a devolution, but yes, it has indeed worked.
You gunnuts will say anything, no matter how ridiculous on the face of it.
defensive arms are useful against any attack, not just a governmental crackdown...once the citizenry handed defense to a paid force, immediate help became unavailable...police don't live with you, thank God, so you have to be ready and able to defend yourself...if the attackers happen to be police, well...
guns and more guns.
With the turning of the new year, one can now find Remington producing semi-auto carbines based on the AR-15. Remington is typically thought of as an example of a gun manufacturer who aims (sorry) to represent responsible gun ownership, exemplified by the style of weapons they created and the culture they personified in their down to earth message. Hunting guns, etc. The R-15 is still presented as a hunting gun. Names like Predator and SS Varmint indicate the official intended target: coyotes.
The Remington "R-15" is a hot ticket item today. Regularly sold out, this gun retails between $1100-1500.
http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/Model_R-15_VTR.asp
Remington is but one example of a steady out pouring of extremely tactical weaponry. From semiauto shotguns with rifled barreling plugged for 8 shells, one in chamber. Allegedly these shotguns are for deer hunters (Why more than 3 shells?). Ruger now carries a tactical rifle based on the AR model in .223 or .308 called the SR-556. Comes with a #3, 30 round magazines.
http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=5902&return=Y
Then there's the .338 semiauto carbines designed to knock down large targets at well past 750 meters -typically with follow up shots of 3 and 4.
Okay, now look at these two youtube videos. One with the .338 Lapua sniper rifle and the other with the video game "Call of Duty". Theme: headshots. The first is a man with a semiauto rifle at a shooting range "talking shop". The other is a video of the gamer's display as he shoots his way through the game.
338 Lapua:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQO6a3Yg4TQ
call of duty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL5k-tO3DK0&feature=fvw
The AR-15 is a hunting gun. It's not a mere 'presentation.' In most states semi-autos are legal for hunting. It's popular now because there are many well-made versions of it and it is now available in calibers suitable for hunting. It's military chambering is basically a groundhog/coyote cartridge and inadequate for big game. That's why there are varmint versions of AR's. I plan on doing both varmint and deer hunting with my AR. So much for the myth of "military weapons made to kill people that are unsuitable for hunting." My foot.
your circular argument is impressive!
The AR-15 might be seen today as a hunting gun, but its original historical purpose was military. This reality is indisputable, KT.
link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
And, the Carbine was developed specifically for the Calvary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbine
and let's be honest, shall we? The .223 Remington was developed specifically for the AR-15
It's a military arm that has been adapted to civilain sporting use. How is that circular - or for that matter, some kind of problem? Just about every major military handgun and rifle in our history has been adopted by civilians for their uses! I think that's great!
It doesn't matter who designed the .223/5.56mm or why. It is what it is and if you're a hunter it's a varmint/target cartridge.
By you're own logic it must be a bad thing that the .223 with it's military origins is avaialble in many bolt-action rifles!
you presented the AR-15 as a hunting gun. It's original design does matter when you abscond from the historical relevance of the firearm. That's what's called half-truth. While I realize circular arguments are more your style of discussion, it doesn't make any rational sense for you to try to think for me. What I might think of .223 Remington is irrelevant to the fact you attempted to argue as if it sole purpose was a hunting round. As I indicated above it is hunting round today.
It's just beyond most anybody's common decency to go around trying to put words in somebody's mouth.
Sorry, but you misunderstand me. Manufacturers 'present' it as one because - hunters have been using it as one. They have a market to satisfy. The AR-15 is a civilain rifle. It gets a lot of hunting use. The AR-15 is a hunting rifle. Also it is a target competition rifle, and a home-defense rifle... and whatever else shooters use it for.
oh, yes KT. The AR-15 is a very versatile weapon marketed across a wide spectrum.
I'm particularly blow away by Olympic Arms style of AR-15 in the form of a Pistol. Here is but one example of their pistols. typically sell out pretty fast....
http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=37&category_id=8&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=37
thanks for the links...yeah, that's for hunting...what a stupid country filled with ignorant violent, paranoid, jockstraps so desperate for power, and so ignorant of not only what real power is, but what a real life is...
30 06 was developed by the US as a military round, now it is one of the most popular hunting round. To my knowledge, no goverment use 30 06 as a issue round.7MM mauser same thing as with .303 Britsh, point is some past military rounds become hunting rounds.
odoco
I remember when Jim Zumbro, outdoor writer, television host, etc. for many, many years voiced his opinion that quasi-military weapons (e.g. AR-15) were not true hunting / sporting weapons. You may agree or disagree and have your opinion, but when Zumbro attempted to voice his opinion he was immediately attacked by the NRA and major gun distributors, and be it not for his apology - his career was over.
So much for the 1st Amendment when in comes in conflict with the 2nd Amendment. I would remind you that Zumbro was and is a dedicated hunting and 2nd Amendment advocate for his entire life.
They don't have the right to disagree with him? They don't have the right to choose to not associate with him?
odoco
I suspect you are being a bit disingenuous here my friend. The very industry people HE supported for his entire career threatened to end his career if he did not repent and apologize - the story was in many of the industry magazines and other news articles of the time.
It was more than disagreement, it was career-threatening because he(or anyone else) that would not sing the song of the power-brokers simply wasn't needed anymore.
You can use all the euphemisms you want - it doesn't change the facts. I have been a gun owner all my life, and was once a life-time member of the NRA. We all know the tactics - they used the same political and economic leverage against Zumbro that they use against politicians who don't vote their ticket: the difference in this case was they were ready and willing to destroy one of their own because he voiced his opinion.
I am not being disingenious. I only asked a question.
I am not very familiar with the specifics of the matter because when that happened I was busy with other things and took a hiatus from the gun world. That said I wonder why the magazines would not want to get rid of him. I can see how they might loose their readership over this. If that was the case, then what are the "power-brokers" to do?
odoco
Good point about the 'readerhship, K.T., but a legitimate journalistic device used by magazines, newspapers and other venues would have allowed the publishers to simply place a disclaimer in the next edition, gracefully stating they do not necessarily support the views of Mr. Zumbro, acknowledge the views of others, but maintain his right to voice his opinion.
Don't you think that might have been more appropriate than threats and intimidation?
I don't know what happened so I don't have an opinion. I'm not being disrespectful but it's not right for me to decide who is morally right or wrong based only on reading your generalized description of the matter. Maybe you're description is accurate, maybe not. I don't know the facts. Actually, just the other day I read an article somewhere and the Zumbo thing was mentioned in passing. It faintly rang a bell. Again, it wasn't enough for me to form an opinion of it. I'm sure I'll come across the whole story sooner or later and then I'll see if you're right.
odoco
I appreciate your open-mindedness. I have no reason to lie to you. As I stated, I am a life-long gun owner, competition shooter, was once in the NRA and actually had my dealer's license.
What I am saying is this: I don't dig cut-throat tactics to silence people who have given their (his) life to the industry.
"I have been a gun owner all my life, and was once a life-time member of the NRA."
What happened?
Did you die?
odoco
Back at you vdb - no, I didn't die, I became politically more mature, aware of the propaganda of the NRA, got tired of watching them try to totally destroy gun legislators because of a single issue, etc.
Why the sarcasm - you don't think people can change? If that is your belief, then there is no reason for dialogue - which, in the end, is the only thing that has any chance of making this country better. Intelligent dialogue.
Don't generalize either - I know lots of gun owners who see through the bullshit of the NRA.
Speaking of dialogue...It is quite obvious how much 'dialogue' anti-gun leftists are willing to engage in with pro-gunners. We are simply brushed off in discussion, stereotyped as stupid, childish, rednecks by anht-gunners who have shown themselves to be ignorant, prejudiced gun-o-phobes - as many of their comments here demonstrate. What happened to tolerance, sensitivity, reaching out, and yes, dialogue that I always hear preached on the left? I'm being tolerant (when it's appropriate) and ready for dialogue.
odoco
As a gun owner I understand your point: I think they are suitable as hunting weapons, and as such should be provided with a clip not holding more than 3 rounds, plus one in the chamber. After all, they are just a hunting weapon, right?
To answer the authors' question: we have stopped talking about guns because we have not needed to! Isn't that a good thing according to their own stated beliefs?
Actually that must be the problem. It's time to manufacture anti-gun hysteria, starting with the bogus claim by the administration that 90% of guns confiscated from Mexican crime scenes originated in America, now that they have the votes and power to enact their anti-gun agenda. It's been obvious for the past several years - even since the Clinton ban expired - that guns are a major non-problem. That's not good politically for an anti-gunner.
The authors might want to check their stats. For one thing they neglect to mention that on average 1.5 million crimes are prevented by armed citizens each year. Also since November Americans have literally bought more than enough firearms to supply the Chinese and Indian armies! Ammo and reloading supplies are all but sold out. How about that? The coming to power of the party that wants to "get guns off the streets" directly caused record firearm and ammo sales! (Actually, these guns are not "on the streets" and are not dangerous to the public.)
Not only does increased restrictions on firearms lead to increased crime, people buy more guns when an anti-gun party wins an election. That the anti-gunners directly cause the exact opposite of what they want is not sufficient reason for them to rethink their beliefs. Instead they claim that gun-owners are "paranoid, extremist, gun-nuts."
Oh, that explains it. Right.
Can you say, 'dogmatist', boys and girls?
Anti-gun laws only harass and hurt gun owners - and they know it. So do those who pass them.
Speaking of stats, do you mind providing some of your own? In honor of the age old term, the burden of proof is upon you to deliver.
Two claims I like references from please:
1)Majority of Weapons found in Mexican Drug Wars are not from US manufactures
2)1.5 million crimes in American prevented by armed citizens each year.