Trigger-Happy in America
Lately, if I turn on the news and I'm in one of my more mordant moods, I start wondering why the NRA hasn't launched a lucrative travel channel show. They could start each segment with "Today's shooting comes to you from..." and do a travelogue on this particular American locale, while everyone's interested and their eyes are trained on it. If the mass murder of the day took place in a church, maybe they could focus on the houses of worship in the area; if it took place at, say, an immigration center, as it did in Binghamton last week, the piece could take a look at the different nationalities represented there. The series would never run out of subject matter, and would never cease being timely. It could be as rambling and far-reaching as this great, big, gun-crazy nation of ours.
Such a show would be no less illuminating than coverage of these events tends to be now, with reporters always ending their segment posing the unanswered question of "Why? Why did he do it?" As we've learned the hard way, it's pointless asking why the gunman of the moment murdered all these innocent people, whether they're family, strangers or a combination of both. He was depressed, he was a loner who kept to himself, he'd just gotten divorced/lost his job/flunked out of school/been rejected by the army, he felt that he had nothing left to lose, he was a sociopath, he was otherwise mentally ill. Let's face it: It's irrelevant what motivated him to do it. He did it because he could.
Each and every one of these shooters was angry and alienated, and able to get his hands on some firepower that could hit multiple targets in a hurry. This is undeniable; it's a tautology. That's why we never read reports about bat, knife or nunchaku-wielding maniacs who bust into public places and rack up a dozen victims in minutes.
The last few weeks have been particularly brutal in terms of this type of "Coming to your town soon?" body count. There have been 48 high-profile gun murders in all, including the 13 at the immigrant center in Binghamton, eight at a North Carolina nursing home, six in a Santa Clara home, ten in southern Alabama way back in mid-March, as well as the four police officers in Oakland and the three in Pittsburgh. Is this surprising? Not really, considering that we're experiencing an economic crisis that's unlikely to be over any time soon. With unemployment at the highest rate in 25 years and foreclosures up 18 percent since January 2008, savings decimated and employers asking their workers to make unprecedented sacrifices, there are more reasons than ever for the depressed, armed and potentially dangerous to "snap."
Of course, no one just "snaps"; that's just something witnesses say to make sense of the seemingly nonsensical. Disturbed individuals spiral downward over time, and if they don't get the social support and/or medical help they need, they fall apart. A better explanation of why these shooters insist on taking a lot of innocents along with them is that they want to commit suicide by cop and go out in a hail of bullets. More often than not, it's the awareness that the police are closing in that finally prompts them to shoot themselves in the head.
This begs the question of why gun enthusiasts are so sure that concealed and carried firearms deter people intent on perpetrating random acts of gun violence. Their thinking may be "Well, he may get the ones who are unarmed, but he's not going to get me." Yet these crimes happen all the time in states with conceal and carry laws. Did the shooters just not get the memo? Or do they not care, because dying by gunfire is exactly what they want to do? The inevitable presence of guns nearby not only doesn't stop them from shooting, it's usually the reason they start shooting.
In any event, this argument is four decades old. With everything our leaders have on their plates now, it's not likely to be resolved, or even affected, by legislation any time soon. But it behooves those who believe that America is safer when as many of its citizens as possible are armed to explain why the ever-increasing rise in gun ownership hasn't discouraged mass shootings, as it's supposed to in theory. And while they're at it, if they're going to oppose all gun control measures, they should come up with their own plan that works to combat this tragic, uniquely American problem.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"I start wondering why the NRA hasn't launched a lucrative travel channel show. They could start each segment with "Today's shooting comes to you from..." "
The NRA, the premier organization in teaching firearm safety and police marksmanship, strongly condemns these shootings.
"Each and every one of these shooters was angry and alienated, and able to get his hands on some firepower that could hit multiple targets in a hurry. This is undeniable; it's a tautology. That's why we never read reports about bat, knife or nunchaku-wielding maniacs who bust into public places and rack up a dozen victims in minutes."
Or do we? You might want to read about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1376982.stm
And while school shootings get a lot of media attention, the fact remains that that the worst school massacre in U. S. history didn't involve guns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
Finally, it is important to note that mass shootings almost always take place in "gun free zones", and often occur in states with heavy gun control, like California and New York. I can't remember the last time I read about a mass shooting happening at a gun shop, gun show, shooting range, or military base. Have you ever wondered why?
"I can't remember the last time I read about a mass shooting happening at a gun shop, gun show, shooting range, or military base. Have you ever wondered why?"
What a ridiculous argument. So are you saying that we should arm all of our children, so that high school shooters would be shot back? What the age range? K-12, or just high school? Maybe Phys Ed should start a target practice requirement. You can't start 'em shootin' too early, right?
We also need to arm college students. And immigrants, since the shooting in New York took place at an immigration center. Every immigrant should get a firearm with their citizenship papers.
Sounds solid to me.
"So are you saying that we should arm all of our children, so that high school shooters would be shot back?”
No one is suggesting arming children but allow carry permit holders who are all adults to carry in these “Gun Free Zones.”
“Maybe Phys Ed should start a target practice requirement."
Students ages 8 to 18 shoot competitively air rifle in JROTC, 4H, and Boy Scouts and when they grow in small-bore.
http://www.4-hshootingsports.org/testnatbrochure.pdf
http://www.juniorshooters.net/2008/12/29/jrotc-rifle-championship-2008/
http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/advancementandawards/meritbadges/mb-RIFL.aspx
http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/advancementandawards/meritbadges/mb-SSHO.aspx
In Tennessee students can letter in shotgun which is an Olympic level sport, but no one is arguing to allow these students to carry weapons in class. Once again, only licensed and trained faculty and staff.
http://www.tnsctp.org/
Nine public universities in Utah as well as Colorado State University and Blue Ridge Community College in Virginia allow licensed students and faculty to carry firearms on their campuses, and there have been no shooting tragedies as predicted by the anti-firearms zealots.
Homicidal/Suicidal crazies target “Gun Free Zones” because they know that no one will be able to fight back. So it is sensible to allow those who are trained and licensed to carry in most of those areas. When seconds count the police are minutes away.
No one is suggesting that we arm kids.
I was simply pointing out that declaring a place to be "gun free" and putting up signs of guns with red lines through them will not keep armed criminals away. It's not places with large amounts of guns, such as gun shops, military bases, and police stations, that are being shot up so often. It is "gun free zones" that are.
Look at the school shooting at Red Lake High School in 2005. That place was a "gun free zone" and their policy was enforced by UNARMED security guards. Not surprisingly, it didn't stop a killer from shooting the unarmed guards and killing several students.
Contrast that with the Israeli school security plan. As police officer Massad Ayoob points out:
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob81.html
"Israel began the program of armed citizen guards in the schools after the Maalot massacre in the 1970s, when a large number of children were slain in a terrorist incident. The volunteer parents work in plain clothes, armed with concealed semi-automatic pistols, and are trained by Israel’s home guard. It is significant that in the more than a quarter century between Maalot and the incident mentioned above when the citizen guards shot down the terrorist in the school in 2002, not a single child was murdered in an Israeli school!"
And for the record, college students should be allowed to carry on campus, provided they meet all the state requirements for a CCW permit.
"So are you saying that we should arm all of our children, so that high school shooters would be shot back? "
How about teachers and administrators.
"Maybe Phys Ed should start a target practice requirement. "
Numerous schools have rifle teams.
"We also need to arm college students. "
If they are over 21 in most states they can get a concealed carry permit.
Thats funny, the places that are getting shot up are the places that do not allow concealed carry holders to bring their guns on premises.
EX. Immigration center in New York, a state with some of the most strict gun laws
Most nursing homes don't allow concealed carry
All the schools
Also, the people who are killing their own families are impossible to stop. Just look at how well the government stops illegal drugs from coming in this country. Do you really think they have any chance to stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals?
Have you ever heard of a shooting at a gun show? Of course not. But if the writer's horribly flawed logic that more guns equals more violence holds true, gun shows would be a shoot out every time.
This is undeniable; it's a tautology. That's why we never read reports about bat, knife or nunchaku-wielding maniacs who bust into public places and rack up a dozen victims in minutes.
Sorry, in Japan last year, a man with a knife killed 7 and injured 10 people in three minutes; so much for your tautology. If a person decides to harm others, they will use whatever means is at hand. Also, in Israel, Palestinians twice used construction vehicles to attack others. In one of those events, an armed citizen stopped the attack with a pistol.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/09/world/fg-stab9
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/world/middleeast/23israel.html?hp
It is a historical fact that there was less violence in the US before gun control than there is since all the various measures now existing became law. Also, Sweden and Switzerland have gun/population densities nearing that of the US, but do not have our levels of violence. The problem with American violence is demonstrably cultural and economic, not weaponry.
"It is a historical fact that there was less violence in the US before gun control than there is since all the various measures now existing became law."
It is indeed, as well as less crime over all. MUCH less. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, there has been a 313% increase in crime (per 100,000 inhabitants) from 1960 to 2004.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Gun control ,as we know it, started in 1968. 40 years of gun control has made the situation worse.
I remember what life was like in this country before '68. In most places you could buy a gun at the hardware store. Yet, you never heard the words "home-invasion" on the news, because it almost never happened.
We had criminals and crazies back then too, but they were bright enought to know that if you intruded into someone's home, or tried to perpetrate some other violent crime against a person, there was a good chance that you would be shot by your intended victim.
Not so nowadays.
It is also important to note that most serial killers don’t use firearms. For example, Ted Bundy used blunt objects, knives, and strangulation to kill an estimated 29 to 100 victims. Not once did he use a gun. Furthermore, 1,796 murders were committed with knives or cutting instruments in 2007. That’s four times the number of murders committed with all rifles including those AR-15s, semi-automatic AKs, SKSs Etc. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html
Once again, so much for her tautology.
The antis bring up suicide quite often, as a reason to ban guns, trying to turn a mental health issue into a gun control issue.
For many decades, Japan had the highest suicide rate in the world. For those same decades, guns have been forbidden in Japan.
“… Explain why the ever-increasing rise in gun ownership hasn't discouraged mass shootings, as it's supposed to in theory.”
Most mass shootings take place in “Gun Free Zones” where people are disarmed.
“….they should come up with their own plan that works to combat this tragic, uniquely American problem.”
Our nation isn’t the only one that is dealing with violence. In fact, some of the nations that enforce the strictest gun prohibitions, like Russia, have the highest murder rates. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rates
Here are a couple of cases for you. At the Appalachian State Law School an armed man walked into the building and opened fire. A couple of students retrieved their rifles from their cars and held the gunman at gunpoint until the police arrived.
At the New Life Church in Colorado a man armed with multiple firearms and loads of ammunition came into the church and open fire. A women that had a carry permit who volunteered to provide security returned fire striking the intruder. She held him at bay, and realizing that his mass shooting spree had been foiled the gunman committed suicide.
Studies have found that citizens in this country use firearms for self defense up to 2.5 Million times annually. You can read about some of the cases in the NRA’s monthly article “The Armed Citizen.” http://www.nrapublications.org/AC/index.asp
What Ms Handler failed to observe is that the vast majority of these shootings take place in state like California,New York or New Jersey or in places that are gun free zones by either posting or by custom. How come we never see mass shootings at active ranges or in police stations?
You may have noticed that most of these crimes are committed by repeat, violent offenders who have been released too early in the name of prison overcrowding. This happens despite whatever the local gun laws happen to be.
BTW, the Brady Campaign rates California number 1, and New York number 6, as having the most "sensible gun laws" in the US.
Why the gun control lobby doesn't scream bloody murder about this is beyond me. However, you folks continually insist on blaming the guns, rather than a lax judicial system, and the socio-economic conditions that breed many kinds of crime, including homicide.
Blaming, and banning, guns is an empty persuit. It does not work. In DC, they had a gun ban since 1976, and they continued to have one of the highest homicide rates in the US, year after year. Chicago, which has had a ban since '85 isn't much better. Their homicide rate surpassed 500 over the last year.
If you want to reduce the number of homicides, go after those responsible, instead of law-abiding gun owners. Keep these people in jail. Who cares if they're cramped?
Only law-abiding people obey gun laws.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
