President Trump gave a remarkable speech yesterday at the NRA Convention. He set his crosshairs on lawmakers he accused of not loving this country.
Unfortunately crosshairs aren’t a metaphor. When you’re talking to a gathering of sociopaths who still have not accepted responsibility for Gabby Giffords, crosshairs are an incitement to violence.
In case you don’t know about Gabby Giffords, here’s the cliff notes…
Gabby Giffords was a congresswoman from Arizona. She was shot in the face at a Safeway after being targeted with crosshairs. Her husband had to come back from outer space, literal outer space, since he was an astronaut, to care for his wife.
So targeting lawmakers while disregarding the outcome is malicious. For this I applaud President Trump. His aptitude for stirring up the worst in our nature is heroic.
The kids from Parkland need to step back and take a good look at the monster. I’m not talking about President Trump. I’m talking about us.
How long have we looked the other way? How easily do we lash out at others? How quick are we to see each other on sides? How long will we continue to hide in thoughts & prayers?
The NRA Convention changed nothing, a group of people gathered to let the rest of us know they consider us weaklings. The March For Our Lives changed nothing, a group of people gathered to let the rest of us know we’re scared.
Speaking as a weakling from a place of fear, I want to thank President Trump for reminding me to keep leaning against the ropes with my hands up.
The punches are starting to telegraph. The blows have less behind them. The shouts from the opposing corner sound desperate.
It’s time to come off the ropes.
On the pro-gun-control side of things, there’s far too much timidity. What’s needed to stop all gun violence is a vocal ban guns contingent. Getting bogged down in discussions of what’s feasible keeps what needs to happen—no more guns—from entering the realm of possibility. Public opinion needs to shift. The no-guns stance needs to be an identifiable place on the spectrum, embraced unapologetically if it’s to be reckoned with. It’s not about dividing society into “good” and “bad” gun owners. It’s about placing gun ownership itself in the “bad” category. It’s worth adding that the anti-gun position is ultimately about police not carrying guns, either. That could never happen, right? Well, certainly not if we keep on insisting on its impossibility.
The issue shouldn’t be so complicated. It doesn’t take specialized expertise in constitutional law to understand that current U.S. gun law gets its parameters from Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment. But it’s right there in the First Amendment that we don’t have to simply nod along with what follows. That the Second Amendment has been liberally interpreted doesn’t prevent any of us from saying it’s been misinterpreted, or that it should be repealed.
Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.
Be bold. Take a fucking position or shut the fuck up. When the next massacre comes (and it’s coming) we need to completely change the parameters of the debate. Our fucking lives depend on it. Progressives, take a REAL, principled, loud and effective position or shut the fuck up.
Hi Kathy. I’m going to read everything you said a couple of times. Then I’m going to read what you said out loud so I can hear how beautiful it sounds to be brave. Thank you so much for putting it out there. I’m tired of coddling socio-paths. Buncha babies!!!
“…take a REAL, principled, loud and effective position or shut the fuck up.”
Amen.
Look around, we’re in trouble. Our democracy is, and it is not Russia’s fault. It is ours. We are the ones killing it. When we think of democracies dying, we think of revolution, of military coups d’état, of armed men in the streets, but that’s less and less how it happens anymore. Turkey, Poland, Hungary, Nicaragua, the Philippines. The democracies now die when we’re not looking, when we’re not paying attention…the end arrives slowly, like twilight. And at first, our eyes don’t notice.
This country is locked in an existential conflict over race and identity and culture. The signs are everywhere and flashing red. Something must change. Something bold must be done. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I don’t know want to become part of the problem. Any President of the United States opens his/her mouth and half of the country hear only lies. That’s not only unacceptable, but unlikely to change anytime soon. No single leader can save a democracy, but without leadership you can trust, no democracy can be saved.
We gotta get out of this place. Kathi, I don’t know if gun confiscation is the answer or even possible at this point but kudos to you for being bold. I’m a Green Guy but I don’t regard Trump as so much the problem but a symptom of what’s wrong. We’re in the shit no doubt, these are perilous times.
Mr. Parker, I thought your comment was interesting. Kathy, you’re hysterical and unrealistic. Half the country thinks Obama wanted to confiscate their guns and take away their Bibles. But Mr. Parker & Kathy if facts are what you want please read below. Everything that’s been force fed to you by the left-leaning press is a bald-faced lie. See below.
Here are the facts.
Reasons Gun Control Will Not Solve Mass Killings
In the wake of the tragic murder of 17 innocent students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, students, educators, politicians, and activists are searching for solutions to prevent future school shootings.
As emotions morph from grief to anger to resolve, it is vitally important to supply facts so that policymakers and professionals can fashion solutions based on objective data rather than well-intended but misguided emotional fixes.
Are there ways to reduce gun violence and school shootings? Yes, but only after objectively assessing the facts and working collaboratively to fashion common-sense solutions.
Definitions:
“Mass shooting” typically refers to mass killings perpetrated by a firearm or firearms. In 2013, Congress defined “mass killing” as “3 or more killings in a single incident.”
-A prominent 2017 study defined “mass public shootings” as incidents that occur in the absence of other criminal activity (such as robberies, drug deals, and gang-related turf wars) in which a gun is used to kill four or more victims at a public location.
1. Mass killings are rare, and mass public shootings are even rarer.
Mass killings are very rare, accounting for only 0.2 percent of homicides every year and approximately 1 percent of homicide victims.
-Only 12 percent of mass killings are mass public shootings. Most mass killings are familicides (murders of family members or intimate partners) and felony-related killings (such as robberies gone awry or gang-related “turf battles”).
-Although there has been a slight increase in the frequency of mass public shootings over the past few years, the rates are still similar to what the United States experienced in the 1980s and early 1990s.
2. Many gun control measures are not likely to be helpful.
Over 90 percent of public mass shootings take place in “gun-free zones” where civilians are not permitted to carry firearms.
A complete ban on “assault weapons” will save very few lives: Six out of every 10 mass public shootings are carried out by handguns alone, while only one in 10 is committed with a rifle alone.
The average age of mass public shooters is 34, which means that increasing the minimum age for purchasing firearms would not target the main perpetrators of mass public shootings.
Few mass public shooters have used “high-capacity magazines,” and there is no evidence that the lethality of their attacks would have been affected by delays of two to four seconds to switch magazines. In fact, some of the largest mass shootings in U.S. history were carried out with “low-capacity” weapons:
The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 and injured 17 with two handguns, one of which had a 10-round magazine and the other a 15-round magazine. He simply brought 19 extra magazines.
Twenty-three people were killed and another 20 injured in a Killeen, Texas, cafeteria by a man with two 9mm handguns, capable of maximums of 15-round and 17-round magazines, respectively.
A mentally disturbed man armed with two handguns and a shotgun shot and killed 21 people in a San Ysidro McDonald’s and injured another 19. The handguns utilized 13-round and 20-round magazines, and the shotgun had a five-round capacity.
3. Public mass shooters typically have histories of mental health issues.
According to one study, 60 percent of mass public shooters had been diagnosed with a mental disorder or had demonstrated signs of serious mental illness prior to the attack.
A large body of research shows a statistical link between mass public killings and serious untreated psychiatric illness. The most commonly diagnosed illnesses among mass public shooters are paranoid schizophrenia and severe depression.
It is important to remember that the vast majority of people with mental disorders do not engage in violent behaviors, and there is no empirical means of effectively identifying potential mass murderers.
4. The United States does not have an extraordinary problem with mass public shootings compared to other developed countries.
After adjusting for population differences, many other developed countries have worse problems with mass public shootings than the United States has.
There were 27 percent more casualties per capita from mass public shootings in the European Union than in the U.S. from 2009 to 2015.
5. Mass killers often find ways to kill even without firearms.
-Some of the worst mass killings in the United States have occurred without firearms:
-Before the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, the deadliest attack on the LGBT community in America occurred in 1973 when an arsonist killed 32 and injured 15 at the Upstairs Lounge in New Orleans.
In 1987, a disgruntled former airline employee killed 43 people after he hijacked and intentionally crashed a passenger plane.
In 1990, an angry ex-lover burned down the Happy Land social club where his former girlfriend worked, killing 87 others in the process.
In 1995, 168 people were killed and more than 600 were injured by a truck bomb parked outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
In 2017, a man in New York City killed eight and injured 11 by renting a truck and plowing down pedestrians on a Manhattan bike path.
In other countries, bombings, mass stabbings, and car attacks frequently kill more people than even the deadliest mass shootings in the United States. Consider the following:
Spain (2004) — Bombing: 192 deaths, 2,050 injuries;
Great Britain (2005) — Bombing: 52 deaths, 784 injuries;
Japan (2008) — Car ramming and stabbing: seven deaths, 10 injuries;
China (2010) — Shovel-loader: 11 deaths, 30 injuries;
China (2014) — Car ramming: six deaths, 13 injuries;
China (2014) — Mass stabbing: 31 deaths, 143 injuries;
Germany (2015) — Plane crash: 150 deaths;
Belgium (2016) — Bombing: 21 deaths, 180 injuries;
France (2016) — Car ramming: 86 deaths, 434 injuries;
Germany (2016) — Car ramming: 11 deaths, 56 injuries;
Japan (2016) — Mass stabbing: 19 deaths, 45 injuries; and
Great Britain (2017) — Bombing: 22 deaths, 250 injuries.
6. Australia did not “eliminate mass public shootings” by banning assault weapons.
Australia did not “eliminate mass public shootings” by banning assault weapons. Mass shootings in the country were rare before the 1996 National Firearms Act, and multiple-casualty shootings still occur.
Before 1996, firearms crimes in Australia rarely involved firearms prohibited under the National Firearms Act, suggesting that any change in firearm-related crimes or deaths was not due to the law.
Further, Australia did not see a reduction in “mass murders.” In the years immediately following enactment of the National Firearms Act, the country experienced six mass murders in which five or more people were killed—they just were not killed with guns.
Yep, just like Nevada where 58 died and 422 injured by gunfire in 10 minutes.
Durn tootin’, great shootin’. Cool dude sertin’ he’s 2nd Mendment rahts. Hell yeah!
Every country has its psychopaths. In US they have guns
Richard Dawkins
First of all, the vast majority of deaths by automobile are accidents, not homicides. Secondly, driving is far more regulated in much of the US than access to guns. If gun ownership were as strictly controlled as for driving, it would be a huge step forward. Gun owners required to have extensive training before obtaining a license? A points system leading to revocation of the license if you break the rules? Mandatory third party insurance for guns? Random alcohol and drug checks for anyone carrying? Annual maintenance inspections of guns? Sounds reasonable to me…