This morning, on the 15th Anniversary of the Oklahoma City mass murder, I drove from Washington, D.C. across the 14th Street Bridge to get on the George Washington Memorial Parkway and attended an "open carry" gun rally at Fort Hunt, Virginia.
On my way, I passed the Holocaust Museum, where a deluded Neo-Nazi, in a final act of vengeance for having been born, chose to spray bullets into the flesh and bone of a security guard whose only crime was trying to earn a paycheck. Off in the distance, you could almost see the Pentagon, where John Patrick Bedell wreaked havoc after being declared mentally unfit to possess a firearm by the state of California -- because he simply bought one with no questions asked at a Nevada gun show. Bedell took advantage of the gun-show loophole to shoot those serving our country at the Pentagon, because of his hatred for it.
Finally, we arrived at Fort Hunt, to see a bevy of mostly middle-aged white men compare the United States of America to Nazi Germany, the Ku Klux Klan and a slave-state (among other niceties) while carrying assault weapons and dressing like they were auditioning for the remake of Red Dawn. A highlighted speaker was Mike Vanderboegh (seen in the video just below), an Alabama militia leader who most infamously encouraged his followers to throw bricks through the windows of local Democratic Parties.
In a very different reality, Tom Mauser, whose son was gunned down in the Columbine massacre, and families of those murdered at Virginia Tech, today called on our leaders to lead on an issue where 86% of gun owners (including 69% of NRA members) agree with the rest of us, according to known liberal Frank Luntz: That we MUST close the gun show loophole. We must do more to stop criminals, terrorists and the mentally unfit from getting their hands on weapons that kill.
To protesters at the Fort Hunt rally, the federal government, a health care bill and their personal interpretation of the Constitution are reasons for everyone to be armed and ready to do battle (although, interestingly, during the Bush Administration's assault on the Constitution with the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, turning Gitmo into, well, Gitmo, rendition, etc., we didn't hear much from this crowd). Losing an election is just another justification for political violence.
To the victims of gun violence, who realize we aren't living in some Wyatt Earp fantasy land, perhaps getting guns out of the hands of those who fetishize violence and commit crimes and terrorist acts is just a tad bit more important. This likely includes some of those paranoid souls listening to the speakers at the Fort Hunt rally, perhaps planning to be the next one to shoot someone at the Pentagon or fly an airplane into an IRS building.
Which world do you live in on the 15th anniversary of an American tragedy? And which one do you want to live in?
Disclosure: I consulted for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) on this project
Follow Cliff Schecter on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cliffschecter
Patriot's Day gun rights rallies in Virginia and D.C.
Militia movement will be packing heat at rally on the Potomac
CNN: Darn it, this free speech at Tea Party rallies might just be protected
Constitution gun rally message fired off to Barack Obama
Packing heat to protest: Gun advocates hold first open-carry rally at national ...
Sounds like ignorant stereotyping to me.
But I do have a few guns, and enjoy using them occasionally. I also do feel a certain degree of comfort, especially when I am alone for a few days, that they are there, and should I need to, I do know how to use a couple of them. In the dark. By "feel" alone.
And, somehow, sometimes, I have to think at least some those prone to commit crime have some sort of intuitive sense (if not conscious, cognitive reasoning based on actual information) of who's likely to defend themselves with firearms and who's probably not. It might just be the way somebody who shoots walks, or stands, or interacts with neighbors. (Sad thing is, often criminals are people you know, or who know you at least to some degree)
So, how many home invasions, rapes, even worse, are thwarted before they even happen, by the presence of guns in the home and residents' proficient use of them?
I think it might be hard to tease that out, and certainly, public crime stats do not dig this deep.
For a slightly built , rather gentle person of a gender with a deep history of subjugation and abuse by those more physically powerful and biologically much more prone to aggression, guns are to some degree, an "equalizer".
However, I am sympathetic to your perspective. Violent crimes against women in their own homes by strangers are rare; but that is cold comfort to those rare victims. It would depend on where I live to some extent but if I were a single woman, particularly one of small stature living alone, I would be sorely tempted to own a firearm at least for home defense.
First, I spoke with some policemen in my reserve unit about the legalities of having a weapon of deadly force.
It turns out, that it is too easy for a civilian to get into trouble using a weapon in a deadly force situation.
I also found out that burglar alarms and lights are a more effect deterrent to a criminal than a firearm.
I also found out that having a weapon is a bit of a rush but it didn't make me any safer.
I came to the conclusion that it is a really bad idea for the average person to possess a firearm with the intent of using it for personal defense.
The average citizen simply doesn't have the training or understanding to use such a weapon in a deadly force situation.
As a former marine sergeant, I'm against private citizen ownership of non-sporting weapons (no 30 round banana clips to hunt deer) and handguns unless you have gone through extensive training.
Weekends with the wannbe militia doesn't count.
And remember, weapons of deadly force are just that.
When used properly, someone winds up dead.
It's not a casual act.
There are legal and moral consequences.
Funny really when I look at gun-oriented websites and magazines there are innumerable articles on what weapons to carry when you are out in the woods for defense against predators. Those articles are ridiculous...I used to do a lot of backwoods camping, going as far as possible off the beaten path. I've seen more black bear (probably the most common predator in North America capable of taking a human) than I can count and never once have been in peril as a result. I never felt the need to be armed.
http://newsbusters.org/node/9140
These are FBI facts. But these facts are more complex than just RTC (Right-to-carry) or non-RTC. The statistics speak to a culture of independence vs. dependence on an intrusive government. Crime is higher in populated areas that have more entitlements, corruption, and a culture that says "We are owed a happy life." It's not just the 2nd Amendment that is at stake. The 2nd amendment is merely a barometer as to the general intention of the Federal Government. It is so very easy to say that banning guns will lead to less crime. But the facts don't back that hypothesis. On the flip allowing RTC laws alone also does not mean your city is safe. But the RTC states are in general a part of the culture where individual liberty and fewer entitlements are built into the fabric of society. Crime is less prolific in these regions because fewer people believe they are justified in their crimes. They are not entitled happiness, they have to work for it.
Do it for the CHILDREN!!!
The crime rate per 1000 is pretty evenly distributed across the country.
Cities have more crime because they have more people.
I've also lived in rural areas and they have their problems too.
I would frame the second amendment supporter/limiter debate a little bit differently.
I see too many second amendment advocates as being divorced from the reality of modern life.
They imagine having personal weapons will make government more responsive to the citizen and they will also become safer in the bargain.
I see the limitation of the second amendment (to be used as a collective right, militia of the people, etc.) as something that makes society safer since it limits the use of firearms and also sends out the message that firearms are not fashion accessories.
Plus, I'm a little bit bothered by the fact that "guns" are seen as just something else to sell by a lot of people.
Let's take the profit motive out of the "gun" industry.
I feel that a lot of the advocates of second amendment rights are just "gun" sales people looking to expand their markets in the pursuit of a fast buck.
They're no better than pushers.
Incorrect. The per capita crime rate is significantly higher in urban areas than in rural areas. This is caused by a variety of factors which give rise to higher drug use, the development of gangs, and similar circumstances.
science teacher wrote: "I see the limitation of the second amendment (to be used as a collective right, militia of the people, etc.) as something that makes society safer since it limits the use of firearms and also sends out the message that firearms are not fashion accessories."
The 2nd is an individual right which, among other things, serves a collective purpose. It does not limit the use of firearms nor does it prohibit firearms from being used as a fashion accessory. Certainly some useage of firearms are subject to regulation, but that is not because the 2nd mandates such prohibitions, it merely means that the 2nd does not prohibit them.
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/
So what is your plan if someone attacks you, at home or away, intent on say, raping your wife? Are you going to reason with them? Are you going to quote statistics? Have you spent years learning martial arts and hope that will save you? Did you take a 2-day self-defense seminar and now you have a false sense of security?
You'll call 911, right? By the time the police get there, you'll be dead and your wife will be violated, at best. So your plan is to call the police and HOPE they'll get there in time. Good luck with that.
Or you could assume responsibility for your own protection, instead of sheepishly relying on someone else to do it for you.
Bush/Cheney could have pushed a ban on high-powered deer rifles and BB guns and those who fill the ranks of today's Tea Partiers and Government-Haters would have been conspicuous by their silence. It would have just been a sound measure to ensure "law and order" and/or fight terrorism.
In fact, a recent national poll exposed this very phenomenon, that regarding their attitude toward government, Republican voters are far less fact-based than are Democrats.
80-something percent of Americans currently say they do not trust "government". Predictably more Republicans than Democrats fall into this category.
However, the same poll showed that during a Republican Administration, Republican level of trust in government sharply rises, while during a Democratic Administration, the level of Republican trust in government plummets.
It also showed that during a Republican Administration, the level of Democratic voter distrust in government remains about the same.
So, Democrats give Republicans a lot more slack than Republicans give Democrats. Regardless of the facts!
As if we all didn't know Republican ideology is fantasy-based and there is no such thing as a "compassionate conservative".
Now the proof is in.
...> Kohut agrees that the current deficit of trust is due to a lot of factors.
"Trust in government declines when national conditions are bad," he says. "National conditions are bad; the economy is bad. So that's one factor. [The second] factor is that when there's a Democratic president, Republicans become much more mistrusting of government than do Democrats when there is a Republican president." <
Of course, the Pew Charitable Trust could have made it all up.
Go back to eating your critters, Critters.
I will never pitch a tent in them again.
What used to be a 100% reliably peaceful and low-stress get away, has now become a scary, tense and unpleasant experience.
At Yosemite last summer, the folks in the motor home just down from our site told us they brought their guns (stressed plural) with them, and took them while hiking the trails. I asked why, they told me that one - they could, two - it's a dangerous world and there are gangs (stressed minorities) infiltrating the parks, and three - they were Americans and Americans can carry guns as God wrote in the 2nd Amendment (yes, he said God). He said there were others like them in the park - they were easy to spot. He thought I should feel safer because they and their friends were on patrol.
Two days later we headed back home to relax.
Probably my last overnight visit.
Sad.
These folks claimed they had always brought guns with them when they camped at state (in LA area) and national parks - it is just now that they can tell everyone and "keep the peace". And yes, the entire family considered themselves to be "on patrol" - looking for opportunities to use their guns.
Not quite sure what training they had to discern what constituted an "opportunity", or how their suspicion of minorities would factor in, they just gave me the creeps and made me wish for days when I could look at fellow campers and hikers without trying to figure out which ones were "on patrol".
In fact, it should be illegal to pack concealed heat.
I mean, if some wingnut is packing heat, I want to know who it is - where the deadly threat lies, so I can get the hell away from them.
Anyone packing hidden heat should be considered nefarious and dangerous, and should be immediately arrested. What are they trying to do? It can't be good for ME!
At least you know whom to avoid like the plague, if they have a six gun hanging from their belt!
Hey! If toting guns is such a great idea, there needs to be an open gun-toting rule in the Supreme Court gallery! And Congress! The White House! It's our right, right???
We are pathetic.
That is a lie. A Brady bunch bald faced lie. Guns in the home are a million times more likely to just sit there, or be taken on a hunt or to a range than those other two disasters. Go to GOA website and look it up.
However, you then said that was a lie and proceeded to bring up hunting????
How about comparing the use of guns in domestic violence and suicide against the use of guns (in civilian hands) for crime prevention......Or, does that actually support her point?
What was said was guns in the home are MORE OFTEN used in suicides and domestic disputes or turned against the owner THAN USED TO PREVENT A CRIME. See, those are two of the things that can happen with guns. Other things are: locked away and used solely for hunting, sitting on top of a cupboard doing nothing, hung above a bar for decor, taken to the gun range to target shoot for sport, or even used in the commission of a crime, for that matter.
But of the two things cited, there is less chance of their being used for crime prevention than for the domestic tragedies listed.
Your sophomoric Brady Bunch reference gives some indication as to why you wrote what you did.
WOW..Where do you live?
Hahahah... GUNTOPIA, of course! I'm still trying to find out where that is so I can visit someday and "pack heat." LOL
I love it when the lies become so ridiculous, and yet they still get repeated. And the Brady stats, OMG.
When are you guys going to close the "loophole" that lets all those Mexican gangs buy hand grenades "at Arizona gunshows." LOL
(BTW that is another faked stat of the left that came from the inflammatory BATFE statement "98% or TRACEABLE weapons recovered from the Cartels are bought across the border in the US"
How on earth would a full auto, military Chinese AK smuggled in through Guatemala be "traceable?"
Yet it gets repeated every day like it's the truth.
The anti-rights crowd doesn't waste their breath on the truth.
Open carry at political events attended by the future POTUS?
Open carry "as close to Washington as we can"
"The next time we will be armed"
Any of this seem vaguely familiar??
You don't need a Federal license to sell or buy a gun if you are "not in the business". What gun grabbers want is to make it so that any time you want to sell or buy a gun, you must do it through a dealer and with the background check- it would be like if you sold your car to another person you had to first process the transaction through an auto dealer.
Closing the gun show loophole- whatever it really is -will do nothing and you know it. So-called unlicensed dealers are BS and propaganda designed to fool those who are ignorant of the law.
What the gun grabbers really want is a record of every and all gun sales. After that is in place then they will push for these records to remain permanent- and that is REGISTRATION, the goal.
Get it now?
1. I attend gun shows and usually see some guy who has a few "nice pieces" in his trunk. According to you he's just an innocent private seller hoping to sell's grandpa's unused musket. You know better. He's in business and doesn't want the scrutiny.
2. If closing the gun show loophole "will do nothing", then you shouldn't have an objection. But of course you do, and your knee just keeps jerkin.
3. Re: your car selling example. Cars are all registered/licensed, but somehow you think semi-automatic pistols and convertible AK's should be sold like baseball cards.
4. Guns can be purchased interstate over the internet. But it's required to transfer through a local dealer for a minor fee, say $25. Fair enough and enforces a waiting period and background check. Legitimate gun dealers require the same. Yet somehow you want gunshows and parking lot sales to be done without any scrutiny at all. Get real.
5. Truth is gun rights have expanded under Obama. But due to nutcase conspiracy talk, guns and ammunition are hard to find. Wackos are stockpiling weapons and ammunition and are expecting the rapture. Sadly one of these twisted souls will engage in a suicidal/homicidal outburst based on the kind of paranoia you promote.
Registration? It's guys like you need to be registered, lol...
Oh, I know. Jesus luvs killin'!
Kill 'em baby killers! They're killers!
Kill 'em muslims! They're muslim!
Kill 'em LIBERALS! They're, well, LIBERAL!
Yeah.
I keep hearing about how "gun rights have expanded under Obama",
I'd like to point out that, in fact, gun rights dont change, gun laws do, and gun laws have expanded despite Obama. Our president has publicly stated that he is in favor of much tighter gun control- "Assault" weapons ban, handgun registration, etc.
I certainly cant and wont argue with your characterization of the "gun rights" trend, but I think it's only fair to say that the expansion of our gun 'rights' certainly wasnt the President's goal.
just check this out if you need to see what the gun show loophole is all about.