Editor,
Most mass killings over the last couple of decades were carried out by kids under 21, who purchased assault weapons legally. Why does anyone, and especially immature 18-year-olds, need a military weapon meant to kill as many as quickly as possible? Such weapons are not meant for hunting or target shooting, and not even for home protection. The last 18-year-old shooter even bought 7x30 magazines of very damaging bullets. For what? Not even that raised a question by the gun store.
The killer had no problem entering the school, loaded with an assault gun and a bag with ammunition, while the police had to wait for the principal to open a door with a key. According to the latest reports, police were waiting outside for an hour, reluctant to enter because they were only lightly armed. Little kids inside weren’t armed at all, but being killed left and right by someone who should never have been allowed to obtain any kind of weapon.
Then, on top of this heartbreaking tragedy, we have the outright stupid ideas of arming teachers, while some don’t even grasp the difference between a knife and an assault weapon.
Well, at least, Republicans in particular, can be proud that because of the National Rifle Association, we have the best equipped killers in the world. Bar none.
Jorg Aadahl
San Mateo
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(67) comments
Well Jorg - of all people, you definitely don't grasp a difference among teacher abilities. Many are military veterans and NRA members. If willing, they can be trained to defend their charges. But for an armchair warrior like you that will be a challenge to understand. There are zillions of responsible 18 year olds who would never think of such actions. Are we going to take cars off the road because a small minority decides to drink and kill others in car accidents?
Of course, Dirk, that would be a huge, attractive new market for the gun industry! The more guns, the better, right? So, teachers would be carrying a gun while teaching, or would their guns be securely stored in locked cabinets? And there would never be a slip-up where students were able to fiddle with the guns? Did you really think this one through at all? No?
And, btw, Dirk, - the difference between cars and guns, is that guns are designed to kill, cars are not. Of course, people can be accidentally killed in traffic, and so can people falling down stairs, or slipping off a cliff, or die in fires. See the difference now?
And, just for the record, Dirk, - how typical of you to express strong opinion about things you know absolutely nothing about, like my military experience, gun knowledge and ownership! It is almost laughable how you so quickly jump to a conclusion that appeals to you. Since today is Memorial Day, do you have anything to be proud of when it comes to military service?
Jorg, you’re hilarious. You assert Dirk expresses strong opinions about things he knows nothing about, yet after providing several reasons for arming teachers, you then say arming teachers is “stupid.” I think we have a good idea of someone who expresses strong opinions about things he knows nothing about, and it’s not Dirk. To borrow from my friend Taffy, look in the mirror.
Terence Y: There are certain things you don’t need to “know” about to realize the inherent danger. All you need is some common sense, - which unfortunately, isn’t all that common, according to George Carlin. It’s like jumping off a cliff or out of an airplane without a parachute, which most people understand is dangerous without trying. Arming teachers would be a disaster, but of course a careless gun industry would be delighted!
Again, the simple solution is to get weapons out of civilian hands, except for home protection, but only with single-shot guns securely stored until needed.
Jorg, why are your arguments supporting the arming of teachers stronger than you saying arming teachers would be a disaster? You’re not making sense, common or otherwise. Common sense will tell you that with 400 million guns currently out in the wild, and likely a rush on more firearms being sold due to all the screeching by the rabid left, you’ll never succeed in getting weapons out of civilian hands. Right now, you can’t even get firearms out of criminal hands. To wit, Chicago.
Terence Y: What on flat Earth do you mean by "... why are your arguments supporting the arming of teachers stronger than you saying arming teachers would be a disaster"?
Where have I supported arming of teachers?
Jorg, normally you paint yourself into a corner after one or two comments or you get painted into a corner without realizing it. In this case, you painted yourself into a corner from the get go, when you provided arguments in support of arming teachers and then calling it “stupid.” Did you bother reading your letter to the editor before submitting it? Sorry, Jorg, but you’re now boring me with your cycle of deflection because you can’t find a way out of the corner. BTW, thanks for honoring me with your “flat Earth.”
Jorg, you don’t realize it, but you basically blew up your own so-called “stupid” idea of arming teachers. Your narrative provides tremendous support to arming teachers. You say “the killer had no problem entering the school” and “the police had to wait for the principal to open a door with a key” and “police were waiting outside for an hour.” Now if a few, or many, teachers were armed, the shooter may have thought twice before entering the school. It wouldn’t matter that the police had to wait for someone to open a door, or wait outside, since there is an armed response via teachers who are already in the school.
Terence: Y didn’t you understand my main point, namely that weapons and ammunition like what was used in the latest mass killings, should not be available for civilians? There is no positive need, only horrible results, as we have seen. Removing such mass killing weapons is a much more effective, cheaper and better solution! They should be outlawed completely, with serious penalties for possession. Get it now?
Jorg, why didn’t you understand my main point, namely that your argument supports arming teachers. BTW, you say 18-year olds are immature. Maybe you need to convince America, since 18 years of age is considered the “age of majority” which conveys new rights and responsibilities for these teens. Maybe you need to convince CA, since CA is trying to let kids ages 12 to 17 to take the COVID jab without parental consent. Should we allow kids in this age bracket to purchase firearms, also? If they’re responsible enough to risk taking a jab…
Terence... it's Sunday... let's not be too harsh on Jorg.
Don’t worry about me, Ray! I don’t take someone like TY seriously at all. He is so devoid of common respect and decency that he starts an argument about my wording, while 19 little kids and 2 teachers have been blasted apart so badly that parents couldn’t recognize them. Yeah, that’s a top Trump admirer, all right!
There you go again... politicizing.
Yes, you can take care of yourself... no doubt.
Norway has some very, very restrictive gun ownership laws. Eleven years ago, a mass shooter in Norway killed 67 persons... almost half of them under the age of 18. Trying to keep guns out of the hands of everybody will not keep them out of the hands of those who want to use them destructively. BTW... that Norwegian shooter will finish his prison term in about eleven years. He will be 54 years old when released.
The Norway shooter was a right-wing extremist; the mass shooter in Buffalo rebuked both Christianity and conservatism. The shooters' political ideologies may provide cover for those who will point to the shooters and blame the carnage on politics. However, the reality is that those shooters share something in common with the Uvalde shooter... and that is a mental condition or imbalance that contributed to them planning their acts of terror in advance then carrying them out.
Ray: So, what’s wrong about making it harder to obtain guns, like a moratorium while things are being worked out, and at least make it impossible just to walk into a gun store and buy assault weapons and ammunition that should never have been made available to civilians? If something had been done after Buffalo, perhaps the Robb massacre wouldn’t have happened.
The Norwegian right-winger was able to use an Internet loophole, which since has been closed. Bad enough, but a rarity in a country with strict gun control. Are you using that tragedy as an excuse, or what is your point? Any?
Jorg, how can we take you seriously when you write something and then you blame the reader for taking you at your word? We understand your thoughts via your writings. If your thoughts are clear but your wording is unclear, you should blame yourself, not the reader. We can’t read your mind. Maybe some, or any, proofreading would help… Get it now? BTW, if you need to take a few backsies, we'd understand.
Ray and Jorg,
Came across an article the other day I found interesting about guns and murders in Switzerland that is just a FYI read if you like.
https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2
Jorg
You: What’s wrong about making it harder to obtain guns? Me: Nothing. I have posted twice that Congress should pass legislation to require background checks and waiting periods… now. Then, let’s get busy with other ways to reduce gun violence.
You: Let’s make it impossible just to walk into a gun store and buy assault weapons and ammunition. Me: Civilians should not have access to automatic weapons. That's a restriction we can all support. There is no legitimate civilian application for incendiary rounds, and I would add armor piercing ammunition to the list.
You: If something had been done after Buffalo, perhaps the Robb massacre wouldn’t have happened. Jorg, this possibility did not get a lot of discussion, but it looks like given the Uvalde shooter’s past history and use of social media, he was going to attack students in a school without regard for the events in Buffalo. We’ll probably never know for sure.
You: Are you using that tragedy (Norway) as an excuse, or what is your point? Me: A couple of things… We will not become immune to gun violence even with very restrictive gun ownership laws. If regular folks, like yourself, were prohibited from owning guns… criminals and persons with mental issues would still find ways to get firearms. Plus, there are still ways to cause great harm and destroy communities without using firearms.
Done for the day...
Ray: You keep misunderstanding me! If not before, at least after Buffalo, sale of assault weapons should have been banned immediately, making it at least harder for the next assassin to get weapons. Not even after the last one at Robb elementary school, is anything being done, - except useless talk, with endless nonsense by the NRA supporters. When will the next one be, - by someone who had no trouble getting assault weapon?
You: Plus, there are still ways to cause great harm and destroy communities without using firearms.
Me: So what? Does that justify continued easy access to assault weapons? I fail to see any logic here.
We should follow New Zealand, and ban assault weapons and semi-automatic weapons. They passed it 119-1. There is simply zero need for such weapons. Our problem is we have too many legislators who are beholden to gun lobby money.
Jorg
Misinformation and personal attacks against persons who do not share your political viewpoints is not going to move the needle very far on an issue that needs attention now.
In late April last year, Matt Grocott wrote a column about gun violence. Matt’s column was not in response to a heart-rending mass shooting at a school. He was writing about gun violence in America, and he suggested our focus should be keeping guns out of the hands of “bad people.” I posted in the comments section, “Our goal should be expanded from keeping guns out of the hands of bad people to keeping guns out of the hands of anyone who may use them destructively. What should red flag guidelines look like and how should they be implemented? IMO...this is a national health issue that needs attention right away.”
One month after Matt’s column, the mass shooting at the VTA rail yard in San Jose claimed ten lives. Tragic.
Following an LTE earlier this week about the horrific mass shooting in Uvalde, Craig Wiesner wrote, ““Let's have common sense gun control in this country…” I agree with Craig.
I added to Craig’s suggestion that Gallup data showed 90% of respondents favored background checks for gun sales… all gun sales. That’s a good place to start.
“Hey, Congress… background checks and mandatory waiting periods NOW.”
In 2021, there were three reported mass shootings on school campuses in the US resulting in six deaths. However, last year, Chicago averaged a mass shooting every week… 37 dead and nearly 300 others wounded. That’s one city in 2021.
Let's get on board with treating this as a national health issue. Let's get some science-based guidelines to improve gun safety and protocols especially for persons with mental issues… 60% of gun deaths each year are suicides. Let’s get requirements in place for gun manufacturers to use technology to make firearms safer. Let's address why so many in our cities turn to gun violence, i.e. hopelessness and poverty, and work to solve those problems.
Ray: OK, I basically agree. But do you disagree with my main point, that weapons and ammunition like what have been used in mass shootings lately, should not at all be available for civilians?
Hello, Jorg
Well, then... with respect to my comments this morning, where do you basically disagree with what I posted?
I think we can focus on weaponry, but you're going to have to be more specific. What do you mean by "weapons and ammunition like what have been used in mass shootings lately"?
Ray: How could you misunderstand that I said I basically agree with what you said? But back to my main point: If it makes it easier for you to understand, I would say that all guns that spit out more than a single bullet at the time, and all ammunition that explodes when hitting the target, do not belong in civilian hands! Period. I see absolutely no justification for weapons designed for mass destruction. Do you agree or disagree? Yes or no.
Thanks for responding Jorg...
I cannot imagine any regular DJ readers not agreeing with the need to reduce gun violence, and I feel the more open we can be... the better. You led your LTE with, "Most mass killings over the last couple of decades were carried out by kids under 21, who purchased assault weapons legally." Actually, a RAND study found that about one quarter of mass shooters over the four decade period ending in 2018 were under 25 years of age. Gun violence is problem bigger and more complicated than your lead statement suggests.
Getting back to weaponry and ammunition... it looks like you are saying civilians should not have access to automatic weapons. That's a restriction we can all support. I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you reference exploding ammunition. I agree that there is no legitimate civilian application for incendiary rounds, and I would add armor piercing ammunition to the list. Yes, let's keep such hardware out of the general public's hands.
Ray: The bullets used were of the kind with high-explosive-incendiary filling, the kind that explodes upon penetration, thereby causing enormous damage, especially inside human bodies. That’s why many of the kids killed were so destroyed that DNA had to be used to identify them. It is beyond me how anyone can justify civilian use of such ammunition.
Jorg
I have not seen anyone in these pages approve of civilians using incendiary rounds. It looks like everyone agrees with you (and me).
Ray: It doesn’t make much difference even if all on this site agree on such an obvious thing, as long as such mass murder weapons and explosive ammunition are so freely available that a disturbed 18-year old can walk into a gun store and buy it all legally, - without as much as an eye brow raised. It shouldn’t be available for civilians at all!
Jorg, I highly doubt your allegation that incendiary rounds were used in the Uvalde shooting. You may want to research what this type of ammo is used for before spreading fake news and incendiary comments.
Terence Y: So why do you think the Robb school kids murdered were so mutilated that not even the parents could identify many of them? Didn’t you watch 60 Mins last Sunday, explaining how those incendiary bullets work? Regular bullets leave relatively clean holes, incendiary bullets tear apart what they hit, and more so the smaller the victims are.
Jorg, weren’t you in the military? You should know better. Since it seems you don’t know better, look up the definition of incendiary. You’re confusing incendiary ammo with “expanding” ammo (of which there are various types). Incendiary bullets are intended to ignite flammable materials. As I said before, the only thing incendiary are your comments in spreading rumors about the use of incendiary ammo.
Terence Y: Of course, you know it, as usual:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/6/8/2102943/-Two-decapitated-bullet-pulverized-children-a-Uvalde-doctor-s-story?detail=emaildkre&pm_source=DKRE&pm_medium=email
Jorg, what part of the definition of “incendiary” do you not understand? It’s obvious you don’t understand, as usual. BTW, please limit yourself to handing out exclamation points and “flat Earth’s.” You’re better at that than the truth.
One problem with your statement about using science-based guidelines to improve gun safety is the restriction on using public funds for such research. The CDC has been blocked from studying gun violence since 1996, when Republicans, under pressure from the NRA, included the ban in a government spending bill.
I would add that the mental illness line is not the heart of the issue; that is a trope promoted by the NRA. There is no significant difference in mental illness rates in this country than in other countries, yet ours is the only country facing this level of mass shootings.
Good afternoon, Westy
There are not too many subjects discussed in these pages where you will find DJ readers on both sides of the aisle in agreement. Stopping gun violence is one of them. Jorg and I regularly lock horns on a variety of topics but getting dangerous weapons off the streets is an opportunity to build consensus.
I disagree with much of what you posted. The CDC was prohibited in 1996 from using funds for gun violence research but that is no longer true. The CDC considers gun violence to be a national health emergency. They are not blocked from studying gun violence. The data collected by the CDC is a key factor in addressing gun violence in America.
Mental illness is a HUGE part of gun violence in America. 60% or more of gun deaths annually in America are suicides. That is a rate ten times higher than some European countries. Speaking of mental illness and your claim "there is no significant difference in mental illness rates in this country than in other countries"... consider what has been been reported by the World Health Organization. Based on international classification of diseases and DSM criteria... the US ranks No. 4 in the world with about 1 in 6 Americans suffering from a mental condition. When it comes to rates for gun related deaths, we are not the only country facing a gun violence crisis. There are a half dozen countries with a firearm-related death rates that are two and a half to five times higher than the rate found in the US,
It's time to stop politicizing the issue of gun violence. Leave the sloganeering at the door and join in a more productive discussion.
A productive discussion includes the fact that mental illness is not the root of the problem. It is very rare for a mass shooter to have a diagnosed mental health condition. The pervasive narrative linking mental illness to gun violence is harmful to individuals, families, and communities.
Might not have made my point clearly. What I mean is that conflating mental illness with gun violence is a the tactical line of the gun lobby. It is just not true, and it keeps us from addressing the actual issues. In the same way, blocking federal funding of gun violence research for 20 years also blocked progress. Also, even the very recent thawing on funding of research says that the federal government can study gun violence only as long as it doesn’t promote gun control. So certain studies and findings must be suppressed, and certain theories must not be researched. Heaven forbid we should go against the interests of the NRA and the gun lobby.
Westy
I will say it again… we need to stop politicizing the conversation. Neither the LTE author nor you want to examine causes and solutions to the scourge of gun violence. He blames Republicans and you blame the NRA. It’s the same toothpaste out of differently labeled tubes.
I didn’t see anywhere that another DJ reader said mental illness is the root of the problem, but to deny that mental illness is not a huge part of the problem cannot be supported by the reality we have seen played out too many times. By sheer numbers alone… 60% of gun deaths are suicides… it becomes obvious that mental health is inextricably linked to firearm-related tragedies. You wrote, “It is very rare for a mass shooter to have a diagnosed mental health condition.” Are you suggesting the shooter in Buffalo and the shooter in Uvalde were sane because they did not have a diagnosed mental condition?
You also wrote, “The pervasive narrative linking mental illness to gun violence is harmful to individuals, families, and communities.” Would you like to know who is harmed when mental health services are not made available? The victims, their families, and their communities.
Over the past year, police departments across the country have started to look for ways to integrate mental health professionals into calls for service involving someone who may be suffering from a diagnosed mental condition. Those extra professionals will not be taking blood pressure readings or testing for COVID. Hopefully, their presence will lead to de-escalation that will take violence of any type out of the equation.
Good afternoon Ray,
I found some loose change in my pocket so I thought I would throw in my 2 cents. I heard that the $175K anonymous donation to to cover the cost of the funerals for the 19 killed in Texas was made by Daniel Defense, the maker of the weapon used, but I doubt it is true. I don't think they have that much of a conscience. I do think it would be a nice addition to the regulations of gun manufacturers. The expenses related to the murders of people committed with high capacity high power weapons should be the responsibility of the manufacturer. I am not saying cover the costs of the thousands of domestic violence murders with a 38 revolver, just the mass killings like we have seen too many of. I know it is not the answer to the problem but you eat the elephant one bite at a time.
Gosh, Tafhdyd... for a moment, I thought one of your lefty buddies hacked your DJ account. Yes, I saw where a large donation was made to help families with funeral expenses, but which fringe journalist... left or right... reported that a gun manufacturer made the donation?
I am less a carnivore these days, and I will have to pass on your offer of elephant steak even if it is one bite at a time. I get your point about DV murders with .38 revolvers as they relate to mass shootings, but most mass shootings are committed with handguns as well. I think you would agree the shooter bears the responsibility for acts of gun violence. So, how can we preemptively stop a shooter from using a gun destructively? Let's start with mandatory background checks and waiting periods NOW. Other intervention strategies must follow...
Hey! 33 minutes and counting...
Ray,
I agree with most of the discussion so I thought I would give everyone else a chance plus throw in a different out look.
19 minutes now.👍
Ray: Again, the only workable solution is to keep automatic, mass destructive guns and ammunition unavailable for civilians. We should have learned that by now. If necessary, expand the ban to cover more.
Jorg
Re: automatic weapons and incendiary rounds, I wrote earlier, "Yes, let's keep such hardware out of the general public's hands." Moving forward... most mass shootings are committed with handguns. What is your idea about how to reduce that type of gun violence?
Ray: No, the recent mass shootings were committed using the most dangerous assault weapons. But if regular handguns turn out to be a problem as well, why not ban all from civilian use outside your own home. I would have no problem with a universal ban of all guns, and instead leave law and order up to the police or National Guard, as I believe even the 2nd Amendment intended.
Hello, Jorg
So we're clear... earlier, you called for a ban of automatic weapons, semi-automatic rifles as well as incendiary ammunition. As most mass shootings are committed with handguns... now, you are proposing a universal ban on all guns. Is that right?
And there we have Jorg’s (and others) end game, which is why banning guns is a slippery slope. We know that once certain types of firearms are banned, more types of firearms will be banned, then even more types, then all firearms. There are over 400 million firearms in the US. I doubt everyone would voluntarily turn in their firearms and good luck confiscating them. Let’s not forget people can still manufacture or print firearms.
Hi, Terence
I think Jorg is being honest about his belief all guns should be banned. It looks like his position may have evolved during the course of yesterday's discussion. That's OK. I'm sure there are other DJ readers who agree with him, but it looks like they represent a minority viewpoint.
What I feel is positive... readers from both sides of the aisle agree that we need a common sense gun ownership policy now. What is disappointing... some of our left leaning friends still want to politicize this issue.
Restricting weaponry will not end gun violence. As I said yesterday, we also need to address the external reasons why persons turn to gun violence and the internal reasons... which might be a mental condition... that contribute to mass shootings.
If we, as a society, fail to address those external and internal factors... violence on a large scale will continue. The worst school massacre in US history occurred 85 years ago... 38 children killed. The murderer did not use any guns to kill those children.
Hey, Tafhdyd
Thanks for the link to the article about gun ownership in Switzerland. There are definitely some things we can learn from the Swiss.
Their idea about an annual rifle shooting competition for teens would help promote responsible gun ownership, but in the US such a competition would set off caterwauling from the left. I’m sure it would be seen as an affirmation of the Second Amendment.
Neutrality? We should try more of that…
Mandatory military service and government sponsored weapons training for men “fit for service”? The caterwauling would be cranked up to 11. A good number of Swiss gun owners keep their service weapons at home… that would not have worked for me. I would not have been able to stack very many Harpoon missiles in my garage.
The Swiss have put in place serious background checking procedures intended to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and someone with mental issues. They have some good ideas, and we could learn from them.
On background of all the back and forth, sidestepping and issue avoidance among the comments, let me again stress that by far the most effective step that can and should be taken, is to keep assault weapons and explosive ammunition out of the hands of civilians. Ideally, weapons in general should be kept inside for home protection, and outside protection left to the police. For a quick start, the age limit should immediately be raised to 21. If that had been done right after Buffalo, the Robb massacre could have been prevented, so why wasn’t it done? Will it be done now, before the next 18-year old massacre takes place? Why not?
Correct me if I'm wrong:
Automatic Weapons are already illegal.
Texas Shooter passed a background check.
The bullets used were bullets...not some special 'exploding bullet'
The problem is if you want to ban AR's you need to ban virtually all hand guns and that would require the repeal of the second amendment and that's just not happening.
Agree or disagree, it's peoples belief that the right to own guns is to keep a tyrannical government in check. That's why people want these weapons.
I don't have answers...just unsolicited opinions;)
Hi, Steve
Thanks for jumping into the fray. Hmmm... are automatic weapons illegal? Yes and no. While manufacturing new automatic weapons, aka machine guns, stopped more than 35 years ago, it's still legal in most states to possess fully automatic weapons made before the 1986 ban went into effect. However, some states, like California, have made ownership illegal. So, it appears the answer is... yes and no.
It's true the Uvalde shooter passed a background check but a background check should be more than a quick computer inquiry... IMO.
One of the readers in this conversation believes the Uvalde shooter used incendiary rounds. That is not true. Uninformed opinions are a distraction. However, civilians... again IMO... have no need for incendiary or armor piercing rounds.
I'm not so sure banning AR-style semi-automatic weapons would necessarily require banning all handguns. I'm guessing AR-style rifles could be legally defined in such a way they could be distinguished from handheld pistols.
Things like barrel length and magazine capacity are certainly part of the larger conversation, but full background checks and waiting periods are something that can happen now as other measures, to make sure guns stay out of the hands of those who would use them violently, are in progress.
The Vegas shooter surely had an upper hand using his long barrels and bump stocks from an elevated position. That guy was probably sophisticated and determined enough to acquire those weapons if they were legal or not. All these close-quarter school shootings are just as deadly with a hand gun and they're much easier to conceal.
I'm all for enhanced background checks etc. It wont stop every shooting but it will hopefully prevent some and it's just common sense. People should be required to prove proficiency in the operation of these weapons at a minimum.
Sears Roebuck was sending semi automatic long barrels to your house via US post 100 years ago.
Deadliest school massacre was in 1927 using dynamite.
I guess my point is that if you're going to ban AR's you're going to have to ban handguns. Most killings are done with handguns anyway. I just don't think that's every going to happen in the United States.
Regardless, it's just a very sad state of affairs
Don’t you understand that the problem is the fact that weapons like the ones used in Buffalo, Texas and other places for mass killings, are available at all for civilians, - no matter how uncivilized they may be? There is absolutely no justification for civilian use, so they should be banned, for the safety of all. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, which has been misinterpreted on purpose. Weapons available today were no more predictable than the need for road and air traffic control back then. And what nonsense that civilians have to be prepared to keep a tyrannical government in check! My goodness, what immature fantasy! You are wrong, and you are hereby corrected! You're welcome!
Hi Jorg,
Do you want a blanket ban on all guns? If not, tell me specifically what differentiates a legal gun vs an illegal gun? Problem with a lot of politicians is they don't know their butt from a hole in the ground and can't answer that question.
Yes, the constitution is old and the 2nd amendment probably needs to be revised. There just isn't the votes to get that done....it aint gonna happen.
Sorry you think it's immature fantasy but the 2nd amendment was indeed written as a means for balance of power.
By 1774 King George III ordered the seizure of any firearms imported into the colonies and the British were routinely seizing weapons.
I don't claim to have all the answers but your desire to make the populace impotent can have consequences down the road. Maybe its an immature silly argument...but enough people subscribe to it so a total gun ban isn't happening....sorry.
Guns have been just as available to young men in the past as now but there were never any school shooting. Young children are not born with the type of anger that would cause them to shoot up a school and self hate to kill themselves. All shooters are young men who are social isolates and they shoot up the school they attended. What’s changed in the parenting of young men due to our “change culture” environment that allows parents to ignore the need to socialize their sons.
Ed: So, “change culture” is the problem? That’s the most ridiculous I have heard, so far. Obviously, a lot of misbehaving can be traced back to incompetent, non-caring parents, but what’s the solution to that social problem? While we ponder that, why not an emergency moratorium on gun sales, as an attempt at preventing the next Buffalo or Robb massacre, which should have been done several massacres ago? What would be the downside of that, Ed?
Jorg... there you go again.
No surprise... today, you posted on your blog a mishmash of inaccurate and contradictory claims about mass shootings... except you don't have to answer any rebuttals or defend the false and misleading claims on your blog. That's very convenient.
You open your latest blog post with "Most mass killings over the last couple of decades were carried out by loonies under 21, who purchased assault weapons legally!" Well, no, that's not true... and you knew it was not true when you posted it. You are fully aware that a RAND study reported about one-quarter of mass shootings during the four decade period ending in 2018 were committed by persons under 25 years of age. That's not most. You further suggested those shootings were committed by shoulder fired assault-style weapons. That is not true.
We're still breaking down your lead sentence. Here is where your blog post really makes no sense. You blame mass shootings on "loonies" but 14 sentences later you decry any discussion about mental health care because in your view it diverts solutions away from the issue. So, no help for the persons you describe as "loonies."
Of course, no blog post or LTE from you would be complete without politicizing the topic du jour. Again, no surprise.
Ray: The issue is how to get control of weapons before more killings occur, which should have been done after each of the previous! We have been talking about health issues for ages without much impact on mass killings. Now it is being used by the gun crazies to sidetrack the issue and delay real action, which is how to get civilian weaponry under better control. And you certainly don’t contribute much by getting hung up on the kind of weaponry used, and the exact age of the around 20-year old loonies that assaulted so many, both at Robb, in Buffalo, and further back in recent time. Those killed don’t care, nor do the families and friends left behind with ever-lasting wounds.
Btw.: Why don’t you respond to my blog instead. I will publish if you contribute something that makes sense, - or if it is ridiculous enough for that matter, like I have done in the past.
Hilarious – since we can see Jorg’s inability to refute opposing points-of-view in the Daily Journal (or he disappears from view for a bit, hoping things cool off), I think we can see why Jorg reserves the right to censor comments on his personal blog.
Why don't I respond to your blog? Are you kidding? I've tried. You censor my posts.
Jorg... you were hung up on all manner of weaponry not me. First, you wanted to ban automatic weapons then semi-automatic firearms then all handguns.. You backtracked and said you would allow single shot weapons in the home for protection. Remember?
Here's the scenario... two knuckleheads brandishing six-shot revolvers... not semi-automatic pistols... break down your front door. You ask them to wait at the front door while you retrieve your single shot firearm... maybe a black powder cap and ball handgun... the kind used by Blackbeard the pirate. Here's the question, which intruder gets the business end of your single shot gun?
Jorg... there's more...
You feel talk about mental health is being used by crazies to sidetrack the issue.
Ten years ago, 20 children were shot and killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Congress, with huge bipartisan support, crafted legislation in response to that tragedy with health program reforms that were, in part, designed to get help for those who may use guns violently. You know… the persons you refer to as “loonies.”
The legislation was passed by the House 392-26. Ninety-four senators voted to approve the legislation with only a handful of senators, which included Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, voting against the program reforms. President Obama signed the legislation into law in late 2016. I guess that makes Barack one of those crazies trying to improve the quality and access to mental health services for people who really need help.
Ray: There you try to twist things around again, and away from the real issue, which is civilian gun control! Where have I suggested that we should ignore mental health issues? Nowhere! That is very much needed, especially among gun crazy Republicans. But it is not a quick solution to the gun problem we have in this country, which is getting worse as long as we don’t face the real issue and try to find a workable solution to gun accessibility for irresponsible loonies.
Jorg...
No response to the scenario built on your idea of allowing a single shot firearm in homes for protection? No surprise.
So, you want to ban civilian accessibility to all weaponry? I'm assuming you mean gun sales, but if that is not accurate, what are you talking about?
Can you describe the legal theory that would permit such a moratorium policy immediately and nationwide? What would that process look like and what legal authority would form the basis for moratorium?
This is your idea... can you explain it? You can have the last word.
It is quite obvious that the right-wingers commenting on this site simply do not grasp that the main and overriding problem is that the 18-year old loony who shot up the Robb Elementary School had too easy access to assault weapons and ammunition. And why don’t they understand?
It is quite obvious that rabid left-wingers commenting on this site would rather prioritize screeching about gun control over school safety and actually doing something to make schools harder targets. Why don’t they understand?
Terence Y: The vast majority of us understand why “hardening schools” is neither possible, nor workable. We also understand that this is just an effort to sidetrack the real issue of gun availability and the need for better gun control. Don’t ask me to explain what’s so obvious to most of us. You wouldn’t even try to understand. The “hardening schools” idea is gobbled up by the easily fooled, who have no idea what it would take to do that, and how undesirable it would be. Perhaps I’m too conservative, old fashioned enough to believe that kids go to school to learn the 3 R’s, reading, ‘riting and ‘ritmetick.
Btw.: You haven’t mentioned your idol, Trumputin, lately. Have you finally realized what a fake he is?
See my response on the “Think about those who have lost their lives” letter. No need to repeat comments.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.