Posts
There has been a proverbial elephant in the living room of the corporate media's coverage of the Binghamton shootings: the role of the NRA and other gun control opponents in making the whole thing happen.
If our country was responsible enough to ban private gun ownership, very few of these shootings would happen. The guns simply would not be available. Yet, the corporate media censor this fact and censor that responsibility of the NRA and other gun control opponents for these shootings.
In the real world, there simply is no possible way to support private gun ownership without enabling every crime committed with guns. That includes all of the gay bashings, robberies, rapes, and murders that are committed with guns. You are putting the guns in the hands of the criminals if you support gun ownership.
In 2004, over 29,000 people in this country were killed by guns (lower statistics are generally limited to homicides or exclude suicides). To put this in perspective, this is comparable to the deaths in over nine September 11 attacks. Over 64,000 people were injured with guns.
The issue of guns being used for suicides is especially troubling. Unlike most methods of committing suicide, the rapid finality of gunshots makes it impossible for people to change their minds.
The Mumbai attacks show us that guns can be quite effective terrorist weapons. However, the level of gun terrorism on the streets of the US is far greater than that in those horrific attacks.
If you think that you are a responsible gun owner, think again. One of the main sources for guns on our streets is stolen guns. By owning guns, you are increasing the supply of illegally available guns without even realizing it.
If you wonder "what kind of people" are responsible for the Binghamton attacks and you support private ownership, you can discover what one of them is like by looking in the mirror. No matter how much you try to deny or rationalize what you are doing, you have your share of the responsibility. That doesn't just apply to the extremists at the NRA, who are playing a leading role in the slaughter. It applies to anyone who opposes banning guns.
By the way, "gun safety" is an oxymoron. All guns are dangerous. The only way to have safety from firearms is to get rid of the things.
Psycho Woman Throws Knives At Children
13 years ago
Most violent crimes are committed with guns gotten via illegal means. Will that really end if there were a ban on legal guns?
Perhaps you are right and having no guns would improve the crime situation. We have so many religious (and other types of) nutbags, but they tend to use bombs anyway.
Thankfully, we have the 2nd Amendment to protect responsible gun owners from people like you. You may not think that it's possible to be responsible with guns but I come from a family of proud gun owners and I'm sure we'd all beg to differ.
What we need is better mental health coverage in this country to stop whack-jobs like the bloke in NY from doing this sort of thing.
in Great Britain, in the 1970's, guns were banned. and even the bobbies didn't carry guns -- there was no need to.
I don't know if that is still the case there, or not. hope so.
the NRA says, "if you ban guns the only people with guns will be the criminals." Britain is living proof that that is propaganda, pure and simple.
I was particularly angered by the appalling appearance of NRA Queen, Sen. Kristin Gillibrand, in Binghamton, NY to whore herself before the cameras, along side Sen. Charles Schumer, the other day.
Missy Gillibrand, who is Hillary Clinton's hand-selected replacement for Clinton's former senate seat, enjoys a perfect 100 rating from the NRA, which means she opposes any and all reasonable restrictions on firearms ownership.
Annie Oakley-on-the-Hudson and her arsenal of loaded guns and rifles in a home with 3 underage kids, had no business making any such appearance in Binghamton, NY after the carnage that happened there.
Rose: The only way to dry up the supply of guns obtained via illegal means is to dry up the overall supply. Illegally obtained guns are obtained directly through dealers and, more often, from guns stolen out of homes.
Ian: The Second Amendment only applies to government sanctioned militias. Claims that it applies to private gun ownership is NRA propaganda that the courts didn't even take seriously until the far right takeover in recent years.
two crows: You are absolutely correct in pointing out the role of gun laws in the UK. The gun extremists want us to ignore the benefits other countries have gotten by banning private gun ownership.
Christopher: You are correct to be outraged at Gillibrand's hypocrisy. Like all gun control opponents, she shares in personal responsibility for the Binghamton shootings. I look forward to supporting her primary opponent in 2010 and voting Green if that gun extremist is the Democratic nominee.
The problem is that there is not an exact correlation between violent crime, and gun availability. There are countries like Switzerland that have tons of guns, but a very low homicide rate. Certainly, gun availability is a major contributing factor. However, the USA also has large gaps between rich and poor, and glorifies individual success, this kind of egocentric culture, combined with poverty, and a dodgy racial history, also contributes to your homicide rate. You have a lot of things to sort out, besides reducing the number of guns.
jules23: There are some obvious problems with what you are saying. Banning guns is a much more practical solution than trying to change the entire culture and history of this country. Guns not only result in deliberate killings, they also cause a lot of accidental deaths. Guns also result in far more successful suicides.
If you are going to compare to another country, the UK is a much better choice since it is much closer culturally to the US. They ban private gun ownership there, and homicide, as well as other crime, is lower because of it. The UK is a highly racially divided society, and there is a huge gap between the rich and the poor.