The Gun Shy Candidates: Clinton and Obama

Let's hear it for guns!

It's really getting dangerous in Los Angeles. The last two weeks we've seen so many random shootings I'm starting to lose track. I would say it's beginning to feel like Baghdad only that wouldn't be quite fair. The U.S. troop surge has really tamped down the violence in Iraq's carefree, cosmopolitan capital. Oh, except for this week's double suicide bombing, which killed more than 50 people and wounded more than 120 others. But that was a fluke, right?

But, truly, the gunfire in our sunny, palm-tree-lined streets is getting a bit much. A week ago one of my writing students, a high-school English teacher in South LA, walked into class practically shaking. That afternoon his students had just left school when a gunman started shooting at a bus stop down the street. His kids sprinted back to class. None of them got hit, but five children from a nearby middle school did. The last I heard, the 12-year-old girl who was struck in the chest was still in critical condition. I'm sure she'll pull through!

Sadly, that's not the case for Jamiel Shaw, who was shot multiple times last Sunday night by a couple of strangers three doors from home. Oh, if only the 17-year-old had been armed! I'm sure he could have got off a few rounds at his young male killers before falling to the pavement. Even though it was dark and he might have accidentally sprayed some other teen walking home.

Oh, well!

Instead the high-school football star who was headed for college died. And Jamiel's little brother Thomas was said to ask their father, "Dad, are they going to kill me, too?"

I think Thomas's dad should consider buying him a gun. I've heard that Glocks are light, fit nicely in the palm. That way the nine-year-old can protect himself if a kerfuffle breaks out during recess. That's what happened to my son. When he was nine, an eight-year-old boy in his class threatened to shoot him after my son called him "out" in handball. Thank goodness the kid was shipped off to another school!

Speaking of boys, did I mention the six-year-old who's now on life support? He was riding in his family's SUV when a hail of bullets from another car shattered the back window. One struck him in the head. The first grader is in critical condition.

Oh, and I almost forgot Lawrence King. Though, technically, the eighth grader was not from Los Angeles but Oxnard, California, a blue-collar community up the coast. Two days before Valentine's Day, and oddly, just as the traumatized students at Northern Illinois University were bracing to return after their own massacre, the 15-year-old was shot in the head during English class by a 14-year-old boy. He apparently took issue with Lawrence's "effeminate dress," as one local story put it, and has been charged with first degree murder with the special allegation of a hate crime.

I told you there were a lot of shootings.

What to do? Maybe what we need in response to all this gun carnage and mayhem and violence is more guns! That's what lawmakers in about 15 states are proposing. They want college students to be able to pack concealed weapons so they can defend themselves. No matter that law enforcement isn't crazy about the idea. Or that police and others actually skilled at gun play hit their targets a mere 20 percent of the time.

A few enterprising lawmakers, like State Senator Karen S. Johnson of Arizona, would have guns in elementary schools too. As Johnson, the sponsor of a firearms bill that recently passed the Arizona senate, told the New York Times: "I feel like our kindergartners are just sitting ducks."

That part of Johnson's bill didn't fly. But can't you just picture it? Instead of duck, duck goose, teachers could do target practice on the yard. Shoot, shoot Britney!

Despite the horrific school shootings of late and the rush to solutions, there are a few politicians whose voices have been silent on the issue.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

I wonder what their views are on gun control?

But I guess in Texas and Ohio, and Wyoming, and Pennsylvania, they don't have these kinds of problems.

Comments

[TrustInKnowledge]

Mona-

I have read your post. There are some good points to what you are saying,however, you seem to be overlooking one thing in particular, and that is more of a question that you need to be asking yourself. "What is it that is the cause for the shootings?" I believe that you are correct, actually I know that you are correct that there are a lot of shootings in the world today and that it is indeed a cause for alarm and concern. However, arming children in Elementary school or any other school for that matter will not make things better but only make them worse. These states that wish to make is law that "College" and "Elementary" Schools having guns to protect themselves will not help the situation go away but only make it worse. The Police and those in power just need to get off their butts and learn to look for potential threats, however, this brings up another problem...... and that is Police profiling, which no matter how hard we try everyone has been a victim of this. So how do we help this situation go away or at least become less of a problem? By teaching our children and OURSELVES not to judge nor hate those around them just because of how they look or talk.

But that will never happening will it?

Can you tell me what we should do or how to start? Think it over, same goes for anyone that reads this.

[fsilber]

Jamiel Shaw was murdered as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing being carried out by illegal aliens. If we cannot keep illegal people out of this country -- if we cannot keep gang members from having access to to marijuana, heroin, and cocaine -- then laws are certainly not going to disarm criminal gang-members. (Handguns are outlawed in Jamaica, yet they have an ultra-high handgun murder rate. Nor can they claim that the guns are brought in by neighboring states with lax laws; Jamaica is an _island_ for gosh sakes!)

It's _because_ we, as a society, refuse to exterminate members of criminal gangs and other violent criminals that we're now back in the Wild West with no one to rely on to save us from robbers and rapists but ourselves.

I sympathize with Jamiel Shaw, but until black voters decide to make it a political priority to stop the inflow of illegal aliens, they're going to have to live with the consequences.

[FarSeeingArt]

I don't know what to say - words escape me -

A gun rights organization in the United States is accusing the media of trying to conceal the fact that a gunman who attacked students at Jerusalem's Mercaz Harav seminary was stopped by an armed student at the school.

Authorities report that Ytizhak Dadon, 40, was a "private citizen who had a gun license and was able to shoot the gunman with his pistol,"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58323

[andyboy]

I caught this pearl while checking your thread this moring Mona.

"What is the difference between a gang and a group of friends? If it is that a 'gang' commits crimes then you can prosecute them for the crimes. An association of people definately should not be generalized and criminalized."

I guess the RICO Act wouldn't be instructive to this blogger. Its fun to watch regular folks ask themselves questions on-line. This is one of the great things about the blogosphere. People can learn. Anyways gangs have been "generalized forever". The James Gang, The Mafia. The Bloods.

I don't know where anybody gets off generalizing and criminalizing these little clubs. It's just people hanging out together robbing, selling contraband and killing. It's part of what makes America great !

[1will]

While it's tragic almost everytime a child is shot ( I reserve judgement for minor gang members) the author over reacts in typical anti gunner fashion. "Let's ban everything I don't like, it's for the kids," they usually scream. Using that logic we would ban computers since some pervs using them to exchange kiddie porn. We would ban autos because of drunk drivers and we would not be allowed to assemble because some women got raped at an event. Here's a unique thought, let's punish the criminals.
The author could have stated that she believes in making the penalties so great for gun crimes that no one would ever want to use a firearm. She could have pressed for charging the parents for leaving a gun accessable to children. That's not the way a hysterical anti gunner thinks though. We have to blame an inanimate 2 1/2lb object instead of the actions of a criminal. If that fails we have to blame all of the rest of the gun owners (80 million) in America. Lastly we blame the gun rights organizations that protect gun rights from hysterical columnists and equealy hysterical politicians.
The author ended her column with yet another rant about allowing a FEW college students to carry on campus. I won't call them KIDS as some do. They are adults. They can vote, marry, serve in the military, serve prison time as adults and run up lifelong debts just like the rest of us. They are not KIDS. This is especially true as you must be 21 years old to purchase a pistol. You must be 21 years old to get a concealed carry permit. I doubt most college students would ever want to carry. Only about 2% of the population of VA has CCW permits. I doubt even 2% would have carried at VA Tech since many college students are anti gun, uninterested, out of state residents or not old enough to carry. The few that could qualify to carry concealed and wished to do so might have made a difference though. It's a shame the author and her peers in the anti gun community want to disarm those that are willing to protect themselves and others. I guess they believe in universal victimhood instead of self defense. It wasn't that many years ago that "Defense Experts" were advocating rape victims submit to their attacker. I suspect the author and her peers would have been on board with that.

[andyboy]

kevinabt wrote:

"Another poorly informed swipe at the idea of being armed to defend yourself and others. Those who buy into this type of anti-gun argument are doing themselves and others a great disservice."

dear kevinabt,

See how they try to advance the idea that someone is trying to take their precious gun if we have some common sense requirements and laws aimed at limiting the sale of guns to criminals and mental health patients?

It's not true. You could still get your gun as long as you qualify. Just like a driver's license.

All guns should be accounted for by their owners every year. If you don't have the guns you bought your in serious trouble. Gun Insurance should be required. No private sale of guns should be allowed. And a database check for menntal health diagnoses and treatment needs to be cleared before ownership of a gun is ever allowed. And every gun purchaser should be required to pass both written and physical tests ..

It's just common sense. Very do-able.

[kevinabt]

More and more restrictions... more and more cost and limitations and beauracracy. All these things are designed specifically to take guns away and create whole sets of people denied their second amendment rights. There is enormous potential for abuse and repression. Mental health can mean a huge number of things and is very subjective. "Criminals" is very broad and actually includes every single person. Do we ban only violent criminals? Felons? Anyone who has had a DUI? Drug possession? Anyone who as committed assault? Where exactly do you draw the line and start telling people they don't have the right to defend themselves or their family?

And then there are the gun free zones, kind of reminds of the free speech zones. Special designated areas where your rights are suspended.

Most of the things you suggest will do nothing to stop gun violence. Criminals will just hide their guns just like they do now. Buy them illegally just like they do now. Not get mentally screened when they buy their guns illegally just like they do now. And not take tests (what would you even test for? And what about illiterate people?) just like they do now.

[andyboy]

Here's a short compilation of comments by GUN Nuts....


"No one out there is selling guns to gang members or criminals"

"Who gets to decide who belongs in the database of crazy people? George W.? Or god forbid President Hillary Clinton?"

"I don't think the opinions of the police matter any more than yours or mine".

"the ramshackle US Mental Health Care System, is likely to be re-imagined and re-vamped to help intercede with these nutcases before they go Rambo."

The bloggers making the above comments don't get it.

Let me address this one point about who gets into the mental health database. They are already there.

It's not a matter of choosing who. It's a matter of who's being diagnosed and treated for mental health disorders. In practical terms, a potential gun owner's SSN is plugged into a database which will also be accessed once per week by doctors who diagnose or treat people with these disorders.

When the patient's name comes up as having registered for a gun purchase the doctor notifies the administrator of the database say, Homeland Security? Since it has just the right name and all.

Works for me. Not rocket science. Far fewer mental patients commiting murders.

[kevinabt]

Every person in the world has a "mental disorder" of some kind. The kind of system you are suggesting is a police state where doctors who are supposed to be helping people are informants for the government. The first thing that will happen is anyone who doesn't want their rights taken away and who may have a problem will not go to a doctor for help.

[TrustInKnowledge]

andyboy-
kevinabt is correct everyone with this unusual world has some sort of mental disorder, can you deem people who have OCD has being too dangerous to where they would not be allowed to have a gun, no. However, on the same token andyboy is correct to kevinabt, there is a way- if the general so-called psychologist- would do their research better then there is a way to determine who is far enough mentally unstable to where they should not have a gun, no it's not those that are parts of gangs or social groups because technically anyone that associates in a group that performs an act of any kind towards a community even if it is not a violent one can be Scrutinized as a "gang", nor can it be by those few that talk to themselves, a lot and I mean a lot of people have been known to speak to themselves when they are thinking or trying to remember something, the ones I refer to that are a dead ringer for a mental disorder that would deem them a threat to anyones safety are those that have no idea of what they are doing is right or wrong, however, these same people are also the ones that we have deem mentally challenged. I ask you was is mentally challenge is it just because someone does not meet the so-called elites standards way of thinking. Any person who displays or may display any sort of anti-social behavior should not be allowed to own or be allowed to have one in their possession.

[Geauterre]

Mona,
I've read your article, and I must say it's cute. You make all the right sound bites, and offer no solutions. From what is implied though, is the idea that gun controls would do the job of protecting people in their own homes? On their own doorstep? In their classrooms? Walking towards a 7/11 for a container of milk?

I'm sorry to say this, but you don't seem to have a grasp, as my brilliant cousin would say. You want these problems to go away. They won't go away. They are exaccerbated because there are too many rats in the cage.

The solution is evident. It's down the road a bit, but it would work. Cut down on the number of people in any given place. A city shouldn't have more than a hundred thousand, a town more than ten thousand, and a village more than five thousand.

Then you license the carrying of concealed weapons, and make certain those who do, take mandatory classes given by the police.

Of course, at the core of this plan you would need contraceptives, abortions, a more intense education, a study of law, of philosophy, of nature and physics. See how easy that was? You really ought to try it some time. As for the immediate problem, the licensure of carrying concealed weapons, along with police training, would cut down the crimes done to the unprepared drastically.

As for the laughable problem of children bearing arms, maybe you should just get real, and understand that the teachers need weapons to protect the students. As for the rest, it's called bodyguards. Now is that too hard to grasp? By the way, I have a slogan for you. You should memorize it. Nurture goes only so far, and then nature takes over.

[Beowoof]

It's awful, but what does a position on gun control do? It's our culture and it can't be stopped. You can try a Guiliani style, Iraq surge like crackdown, but that gets you towards a police state. Watch the movie City of God if you love the idea of an armed citizenry. Thanks for bringing this up Mona, but I think you're just as perplexed as anyone else on this not easily resolved issue.

[LeonBNJ]

Why should a canidate take sides on an issue that could hurt them with votes and is far from a priority with all but a small number of voters. Better to make improvements in health care, employment, education, civil rights enforcement, firm enforcement of current gun laws and the like that would as a side effect reduce the use of gun violence.

[Lemeritus]

Gun control.

That would be an ISSUE, wouldn't it?

[Grulg]

This is very true. You think Tim Russert would have the brass to ask about this in a debate? Nooooooooo-instead he's got Farrakhan quotes on his mind. Ain't that cute? Media is falling down on the job as always I see here.

[kevinabt]

Another poorly informed swipe at the idea of being armed to defend yourself and others. Those who buy into this type of anti-gun argument are doing themselves and others a great disservice.

A responsible law abiding person who is armed can often stop an armed criminal. One who has been disarmed by the law rarely can. Law abiding citizens who carry guns don't use them to do others harm (by the very definition of law abiding). The often violent world will not be any safer by disarming your allies (non-criminals).

That being said let me just point out a couple instances where the author is speaking out of her butt:
"police and others actually skilled at gun play hit their targets a mere 20 percent of the time" - obviously made up
"No matter that law enforcement isn't crazy about the idea" - the majority of law enforcement officers approve of concealed carry laws and support the 2nd amendment.

The rest is common appeals to your emotion. Like senseless killing and injury to innocent people especially children. Guns will always be available. The best way to mitigate the destructive effects of criminals and psycopaths to provide a deterent. Almost always the threat of retaliation by the justice system (jail) is enough to prevent many types of crimes. Other times a criminal feels they can get away with it or is willing to die in the process of the crime. Those cases call for direct pre-emption by responsible people at the scene, an armed citizenry. You could just call the police when one of those ultra rare shootings does take place, but as we have seen over and over again a lot of people can be killed before any cops show up. Which is unfortunate and often preventable.

[newshawk14]

I find the NRA to be pathetic. There is one organization in the US that practices rigid gun control, and
that is the military. Your weapons are always locked up in the armory, and you're only allowed access
to them if you are on a training exercise, guard duty, or in actual combat. The reason is very simple,
the military knows full well, that if soldiers have access to weapons - shit will happen, and they don't
wish to waste their resources, dealing with the problems outlined in the article.

[bish66]

The day after the shooting in Illinois a few weeks ago, I looked at the website of the two candidates to see if they reacted to the incident at the university.
Obama, the Senator from Illinois, not even mentioned the shooting. No reaction, no condemnation on his website.
Hillary Clinton at least expressed her grief and compassion for the victims and their families.

Both have voted for some restrictions concerning guns, but most of that is half-hearted.
Clinton claims that she learned from her father how to shoot, Obama tells voters in Idaho that he will not take away their guns.

To sum it up, it surely is disappointing that none of them takes a clear stand.